Introduction

Duden, the unchallenged authority of the German language, defines the perpetrator as a person who commits or has committed an act, i.e. actively taken action¹. On the other hand, the victim is described as someone who suffers harm from someone/something, i.e. passively endures his harm². According to these definitions, the perpetrator and the victim are mutually dependent on each other because the perpetrator needs a victim – and vice versa – in order to act, or be considered as such.

Applying this to the phenomenon of predatory publishing, at first glance, the roles seem to be clearly defined. Predatory publishers have the publication market in mind,  backed by a fraudulent business model that pretends to uphold proven practices and high standards  of quality in the field of scientific publishing, while, in fact, they provide inferior services, or even no services at all (e.g. regarding the peer review process, indexing, or the publication itself). In line with the definitions above, predatory publishers are the perpetrators who demonstrate fraudulent, profit-oriented intentions as well as use aggressive business practices to encourage scientists to publish in their journals. The researchers are the misled victims who publish in a predatory journal and their reputation may suffer lasting damage. But, are these roles so clearly defined? Is there no choice or freedom of action, or is it perhaps even “a new and ugly symbiosis”³ between editors and authors?

Scientific publishing’s main responsibility is to share new and crucial information or knowledge with the world⁴. In this regard publishers take on a kind of gatekeeper function⁵. During the publication process, the integrity of all the involved parties relies on the ability to publish scientifically advanced publications of reliable quality. Authors are required to conduct ethical research free of any plagiarism. The journal editors are responsible for reviewing submitted manuscripts as well as enclosed results and provide agreed services. Reviewers must conduct the peer review process in a serious manner and only offer their services to trustworthy journals⁶.

In the following, we will examine the perpetrators and victims in more detail, analyze the reasons for (un)intentional publications in a predatory journal and talk about the tools (see 2.3 analysis tools) to support free choice of a fair publication medium. In doing so, we will draw a clear distinction between the open access movement and fraudulent practices by predatory publishers. On account of the author-pays model, the open access movement was blamed for creating a business model that supports predatory journals and fosters the rise of predatory publishers. However, the closer we look, we see that several factors (e.g. structural problems within the scientific community) contribute to the rise in the number of predatory publishers.

Perpetrators: Predatory Publishers?

Terminology

Given that an increasing number of people have the opportunity to study and work in research, digitization processes make it easier to participate in scientific communication and on account of research evaluations, institutional rankings and evaluation metrics⁷, there is increased pressure to publish within the scientific community. We therefore can observe the rising temptation to conduct unethically sound research and take part in questionable publishing practices. According to an estimate by the InterAcademic Partnership (IAP), as of 2022 there are around 15,500 predatory journals worldwide (compared to about 42,500 active scientific journals)⁸.

Jeffrey Beall first introduced the term Predatory Publisher as part of an article in The Charleston Advisor⁹. His definition was¹⁰:

[P]redatory publishers [are] […] those that unprofessionally abuse the author-pays publishing model for their own profit.

This is not, however, a globally applicable term¹¹. Amidst a growing belief that the range and extent of dubious practices require differentiation, the term predatory is defined by IAP as “at best […] provocative and attention-grabbing; at worst loaded and divisive, potentially penalizing new entrants to the publishing world and allowing unethical practices in established quality ones to go unabated”. The term is “insufficiently nuanced and poorly defined”¹². Alternatively, the term questionable journal is used.

Predatory Publishers: The Methodology

When it comes to these questionable predatory journals, we can ascertain a comparable procedure: First, there is an attempt to apply serious-sounding and prestigious titles. Terms such as Global, International, American or Innovative are combined with a very broad subject area¹³. And the website copies prominent journals.

OMICS, a publishing house that has already been deemed as predatory, plays a special role here. A recent study by Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Pergola and Castaneda¹⁴, scientists reported the following when asked about their motives and experiences with regard to OMICS publications: “OMICS also hijacked our National Society website and redirected traffic to their website making it appear as if our Society is involved in the publication. It is a highly fraudulent organization.”¹⁵

Although the USA, UK and Canada are listed as the company headquarters, the companies are rarely located there and are difficult to contact¹⁶. In some cases, journal impact factors are incorrectly stated in order to simulate quality¹⁷. The individuals listed as part of the editorial board are rarely aware of their position or function¹⁸ and information regarding references to the standards and guidelines by which the journal operates is suspiciously elusive.

The websites target authors, as they are the main source of income, and publish calls for papers in an effort to attract attention. In an attempt to get the author to publish in the advertised journal on a similar topic, authors are sent flattering, personally addressed e-mails referring to prior publications¹⁹. A study by Owen Tomlinson is interesting in this context as he received 990 of these type of e-mails over a five-year period. He was unable to stop the e-mails and neither the active opt-out nor the announced notification to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) (an organization in the UK that deals with data protection matters) were able to completely put a stop to these e-mails²⁰. While these e-mails usually promise a high acceptance rate and a fast peer review process, they fail to provide any information about the APC (article processing charges) amounts²¹.

The OMICS study also addresses contact through social media networks: “I was approached by a LinkedIn contact, I didn’t do my due diligence, and ended up wasting my article there. When I discovered, I wanted to recall my manuscript. They went ahead to publish it anyway, and blocked me on all avenues I used in reaching them before.”²²

When it comes to some of these questionable journals, paying the APC does not guarantee publication. At worst, an additional payment is demanded to ransom the unpublished article and submit it elsewhere²³ According to the case study, OMICS insisted on a second payment “I paid the agreed amount, and then the journal asked me to pay again with double fee 1 year later… with repeated emails” and: “Very bad experience, a lot of emails continuing to ask me to pay an article which was published and paid 1 year ago.”²⁴

Predatory journals are applying a new method of contacting the authors to remind them of an “outstanding” APC payment, even though the article mentioned was already published in a reputable journal.

All of these questionable journals demonstrate shortcomings when it comes to communicating with authors and providing the services of a reputable publisher (peer review, marketing, indexing, archiving and transparency)²⁵. In these cases, we do not (sufficiently) observe the initially mentioned gatekeeper function normally provided by the publishers and the editorial board.

Analysis Tools

The IAP specifies the following seven classifications based on the extent of fraudulent intent, the prospects for improvement, and compliance with quality standards: fraudulent, deceptive, unacceptable low-quality, low-quality, promising low-quality, questionable quality, and quality. This approach to analyses journals should “serve as a stimulus for a new, more nuanced discussion and finally leave behind the too short-sighted, binary classification into good and bad.“²⁶

Dunleavy believes journals evolve in terms of their importance to scholarly knowledge and depending on their successful gatekeeping role. He distinguishes the categories as follows: progressive, stagnating and degenerative. The mistake index (MI) and the citation index (Scite Index: SI) are used as measured values²⁷.

Victims: The Scientists?

The issue is not only about the perpetrators, but also the victims. Who is usually responsible for the articles published in questionable journals? We quickly realize that a binary classification into ‘good and bad’ is insufficient and differentiation among researchers is required as well.

The literature currently lists four different types. We will address the most common one first, experienced namely by a young, inexperienced scientist in the Global South (particularly India²⁸, Nigeria, and the countries in the Near and Middle East²⁹). Particularly at the start of their academic careers, these young, inexperienced scientists are under pressure to publish, and are at high risk to become a victim of a publishers’ aggressive advertising practices in order to have their articles published in predatory journals. The temptation (whether out of ignorance or indifference) is almost irresistible, especially as these questionable journals promise fast guaranteed acceptance and relatively low APCs³⁰.

The damage comes about further on down the road. In addition to the APC, there may be a demand for additional fees, after “publication”, articles may not be indexed in reputable databases and could be difficult to find or cite. Claims, such as a title indexed in Google Scholar, are misleading, as this is an internet search engine and not an indexing database of preselected journals³¹.

Predatory journals rarely curate their material, resulting in a high risk of papers disappearing from one day to thenext. In this regard, potentially legitimate findings could be lost forever, implicating future systematic reviews. Once the mistake of submitting a publication to a predatory journal has been made, it is difficult to correct. They rarely withdraw published papers, meaning that the articles can no longer be submitted to a serious journal³².

In addition to young, inexperienced scientists (from the Global South³³), the literature references three additional types. Established scientists and academics at renowned universities also (in)voluntarily publish their work in predatory journals, as documented by a survey among researchers conducted by the University of Southern Denmark (SDU). The motivation includes ignorance, the promise of a rapid peer review process, a higher probability of being published and an opportunity of being able to publish articles previously rejected by other (higher quality) journals³⁴. Stefan Schmeja notes in the TIB Hannover blog³⁵:

“Publish or Perish” is a buzzword and in fact, the pressure to publish research findings is high, especially for junior scientists. Those who cannot present a large number of publications has a bad hand when it comes to jobs or funding. Dodgy publishers take advantage of this by feigning seriousness. Some authors may also consciously use the opportunity to get published quickly and easily.

This brings us to the third type: Experienced authors who are fully aware of the journal’s nature but still submit their publications in order to enhance their CV.³⁶ The journals become a kind of pseudo journal and the scientists are acting consciously and are by no means their victims³⁷.

The authors of the OMICS study define this group as “cynical and critical” because they are fully aware of what it means to publish with OMICS and they would even do so again on account of the fast, uncomplicated, process, the worldwide publication process and the less expensive APCs. These scientists, scholars and academics justify choosing OMICS on account of the necessity to publish in international journals, but many have been ignored by the well-known publishers³⁸. This approach is considered “a survival strategy in a very competitive, unequal world” rather than as an unethical practice³⁹. This is, however, the smallest group because most researchers unintentionally publish in a predatory journal⁴⁰.

A strong dose of criminal energy characterizes the fourth type. The Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE), for example, describes the phenomena of peer review manipulation, purchased positive reviews, sale of authorship, writing factories (papermills), listing of experienced guest authors in the manuscript during the submission process (who are replaced following editorial approval), and submitting a high-quality manuscript (which, upon acceptance, will be replaced by a similar but lower-quality one)⁴¹. In this context, the use of ChatGPT needs to be closely monitored as well.

Structural Problems?

Government-funded institutions have long been under economic pressure not only demanding greater accountability from their researchers, but also proving that financial grants have been well invested⁴². In the past, quality was paramount and researchers worked hard to publish papers, following strict ethical principles of research⁴³. Today, on account of the increased pressure to publish, we notice there is a tendency to overemphasize on quantity rather than on quality⁴⁴. Fixed-term work contracts at universities put additional pressure on researchers because they need to produce as many publications as possible in a short time span. Consequently, researchers sometimes take unethical shortcuts by, for example, converting their own work or earlier works by colleagues, into new publications so they can be published “uncomplicatedly” and quickly⁴⁵. This fits the interests of predatory publishers. As their business model is based on the fact that increasing publication numbers result in higher income, the result is the launch of more and more questionable journals⁴⁶.

What are the Consequences?

Publishing in a predatory journal has consequences not only for scientists and scholars, but society as well. It means that corresponfing scientific findings are de facto lost, or that incorrect, respectively irrelevant findings are disseminated⁴⁷. In any case it’s “a waste of time, money and resources”⁴⁸. By publishing in a predatory journal, scientists also run the risk of losing their well-established reputation and damaging their careers. At some institutions, these kinds of publications suffice to result in being excluded from admission processes⁴⁹.

In regard to scientific communication itself, it means that researchers are flooded with copious amounts of literature. The trend towards “flooding the zone with shit” makes it increasingly difficult to keep track of a research area⁵⁰.

Research fraud, data manipulation, and ghostwriting give rise to the “pollution” of scientific literature and knowledge, as well as the failure to publish unsuccessful research and research results⁵¹.

Society becomes the biggest loser. On one hand, dubious or non-existent peer review favors fake or pseudoscience⁵², which dilutes or distorts evidence⁵³ and does not correspond to scientific standards but can still influence political decisions. Fake medical studies could put the population’s health at stake⁵⁴. On the other hand, science corrupted in this manner, suffers a loss of credibility, resulting in a loss of trust in science itself, which, in some cases, can threaten democracy. The public is particularly vulnerable, as there are young and/or uneducated readers without the full ability to assess the legitimacy of an article’s conclusions⁵⁵.

Summary

As so often in life, those in the field of predatory publishing cannot be classified into black and white categories of “good and bad”. If you take a discerning look at the perpetrators, we see that on one hand they often take advantage of already existing deficits in the scientific publication system as well as when it comes to scientific quality assurance. On the other hand, their success requires a nuanced consideration by individual journals which can range from deliberately fraudulent to low or high quality. The system’s alleged victims , scientists – and in a broader sense – society as a whole, sometimes lean toward unethical, but not entirely fraudulent, tendencies alongside ignorance. The academic community and the publishing world must make concerted efforts to uphold reputable and trustworthy standards and thereby reduce submissions made to questionable or fraudulent journals. Universities and research institutions need to rethink their evaluation criteria and ultimately put a stop to a culture of “publish or perish”. Database registration and indexing agencies should tighten up their inclusion criteria, web security, and checklists in order to hinder the illegal intrusion by fraudulent journals. Researchers need to be educated and made more aware about the predatory phenomena so they can not only make the distinction between a legitimate and a fraudulent journal, they will also not serve as their reviewers and/or sit on their editorial committees⁵⁶. In 2018, the Indian higher education authority University Grants Commission (UGC), for example, established the Consortium for Academic Research and Ethics (CARE) list to support and assess research honesty and publication ethics in the Indian research community⁵⁷. Ultimately, however, the main responsibility for ethically correct and scientifically advanced publications continues to lie with the scholar, academic, researcher or scientist who, in various roles (author, supervisor/mentor, reviewer, editor, etc.), are instrumental in the Scholarly Commons at different points during the publication cycle. Under the new parameters, it could be a daunting task but instead of shying away from the challenge, scientists should actively face the challenge to avoid the role of “passive victim”, as cited at the start of the blog.

References

[1] Duden: Täter. https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Taeter (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[2] Duden: Opfer. https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Opfer (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[3] Kolata, G.: Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals. The New York Times. (2017, October 30): https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/science/predatory-journals-academics.html (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[4] Cheung, N.C., Bohan, K.H.: Taking the mystery out of choosing a journal for publishing your manuscript. Pharmacy Education (2022), vol. 22, no. 4, p. 81: https://doi.org/10.46542/pe.2022.224.7988 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[5] Siler, K., Lee K., Bero, L.: Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. PNAS (2015), vol. 112, no. 2, p. 361: https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.1418218112 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[6] ThinkSCIENCE: Musick, C.: 8 questions and answers about predatory journals: Protecting your research, reputation, and funding from theft and fraud. p. 8: https://thinkscience.co.jp/en/downloads/ThinkSCIENCE-8-questions-and-answers-about-predatory-journals.pdf (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[7] IAP Report: Combatting Predatory Academic Journals and Conferences. p. 12: https://www.interacademies.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/1.%20Full%20report%20-%20English%20FINAL.pdf (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[8] IAP Report: Combatting Predatory Academic Journals and Conferences. p. 12 and 14: https://www.interacademies.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/1.%20Full%20report%20-%20English%20FINAL.pdf (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[9] Beall, J.: Predatory Publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open access. Learned Publishing (2013), vol. 26, no. 2 April, p. 79: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1087/20130203 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[10] Beall, J.: Medical publishing triage – Chronicling predatory open access publishers. Ann Med Surg (Lond) (2013), vol. 2, p. 47: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2049-0801(13)70035-9 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[11] “In Latin America, for example, there is talk of “spurious journals”; in Russia, “trash” or “garbage” journals; in India, predatory is used interchangeably with “dubious journals”; then there are “deceptive”, “dark”, “illegitimate” and “pseudo” journals, and – before anyone assumed the papers would be subsequently read – “write-only” journals.” 
See: IAP Report: Combatting Predatory Academic Journals and Conferences. p. 13: https://www.interacademies.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/1.%20Full%20report%20-%20English%20FINAL.pdf (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[12] IAP Report: Combatting Predatory Academic Journals and Conferences. p. 34 and 14: https://www.interacademies.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/1.%20Full%20report%20-%20English%20FINAL.pdf (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[13] Pawar, V.J., Jawade, J.: An insight into predatory journals. Indian J Public Health. (2020), vol. 64, no.1 Jan-Mar, p. 87. DOI: 10.4103/ijph.IJPH_249_19. https://journals.lww.com/IJPH/Fulltext/2020/64010/An_Insight_into_Predatory_Journals.18.aspx (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[14] Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Pergola, L., Castaneda, H.: Profiles, motives and experiences of authors publishing in predatory journals: OMICS as a case study. Hal Open Science (preprint) (2023): https://hal.science/hal-04130294 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[15] Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Pergola, L., Castaneda, H.: Profiles, motives and experiences of authors publishing in predatory journals: OMICS as a case study. Hal Open Science (preprint) (2023), p. 21: https://hal.science/hal-04130294 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[16] Beall, J.: Medical publishing triage – Chronicling predatory open access publishers. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2013(2), p. 48: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2049-0801(13)70035-9 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[17] IAP Report: Combatting Predatory Academic Journals and Conferences. p. 13: https://www.interacademies.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/1.%20Full%20report%20-%20English%20FINAL.pdf (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[18] IAP Report: Combatting Predatory Academic Journals and Conferences. p. 13: https://www.interacademies.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/1.%20Full%20report%20-%20English%20FINAL.pdf (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[19] Beall, J.: Medical publishing triage – Chronicling predatory open access publishers. Ann Med Surg (Lond) (2013), vol. 2, p. 48: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2049-0801(13)70035-9 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[20] Tomlinson, O.W.: Analysis of predatory emails in early career academia and attempts at prevention. Learned Publishing (Early view) (2022), p. 4: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1500 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[21] Beall, J.: Medical publishing triage – Chronicling predatory open access publishers. Ann Med Surg (Lond) (2013), vol. 2, p. 48: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2049-0801(13)70035-9 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[22] Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Pergola, L., Castaneda, H.: Profiles, motives and experiences of authors publishing in predatory journals: OMICS as a case study. Hal Open Science (preprint) (2023), p. 21: https://hal.science/hal-04130294 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[23] Pawar, V.J., Jawade, J.: An insight into predatory journals. Indian J Public Health. (2020), vol. 64, no.1 Jan-Mar, p. 87. DOI: 10.4103/ijph.IJPH_249_19. https://journals.lww.com/IJPH/Fulltext/2020/64010/An_Insight_into_Predatory_Journals.18.aspx (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[24] Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Pergola, L., Castaneda, H.: Profiles, motives and experiences of authors publishing in predatory journals: OMICS as a case study. Hal Open Science (preprint) (2023), p. 21: https://hal.science/hal-04130294 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[25] Shelomi, M.: Editorial misconduct: definition, cases, and causes. Publications. (2014), Vol. 2, p.52: https://doi.org/10.3390/publications2020051 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) and Dunleavy, D.J.: Progressive and degenerative Journals: on the growth and appraisal of knowledge in scholarly publishing. European Journal for Philosophy of Science (2022), Vol. 12, no.61, p. 3: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-022-00492-8 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[26] IAP Report: Combatting Predatory Academic Journals and Conferences. p. 11 and p. 28-32: https://www.interacademies.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/1.%20Full%20report%20-%20English%20FINAL.pdf (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[27] „scite […] extracts citations from published articles and categorizes them based on how they are discussed within the text of the paper (i.e., supporting, contrasting [i.e., disputing], or mentioning – the latter being a neutral descriptor). This allows readers (and authors) insight into how supported a particular article or claim is, within the scholarly corpus.”
See: Dunleavy, D.J.: Progressive and degenerative Journals: on the growth and appraisal of knowledge in scholarly publishing. European Journal for Philosophy of Science (2022) 12:61, p, 15f.: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-022-00492-8 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[28] “Indian higher educational body mandated that graduate students publish research papers to earn a doctorate. Currently, this regulation covers approximately 160,000 students. Thousands of students desperate for publication, combined with ineffective monitoring, results in the excessive growth of predatory publications.”
See: Kharumnuid S.A., Singh Deo, P.: Researchers’ perceptions and awareness of predatory publishing: A survey. Accountability in Research (2022), p. 3: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2145470  (retrieved on 07/18/2023) and Patwardhan, B., Nagarkar, S.: The UGC-CARE Initiative: Indian academia’s Quest for Research and Publishing Integrity. First Monday (2021), vol. 26, p.10: https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v26i10.10349 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[29] Xia et al.: Who publishes in “Predatory” Journals? p. 1416 and Macháček, V., Srholec, M.: Predatory publishing in Scopus: Evidence on cross-country differences. Quantitative Science Studies (2022), vol. 3, no. 3 Nov, p. 859-887. DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00213 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[30] Kurt, S.: Why do authors publish in predatory journals?. Learned Publishing, 31: 141-147. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1150 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[31] Kisely, S.: Predatory journals and dubious publishers: how to avoid being their prey. BJPsych Advances (2019), vol. 25, p. 115: https://doi.org/10.1192/bja.2018.56 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[32] Kisely, S.: Predatory journals and dubious publishers: how to avoid being their prey. BJPsych Advances (2019), vol. 25, p. 115: https://doi.org/10.1192/bja.2018.56 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[33] The regional distribution of both the publisher’s country and authorship is highly skewed.
See: Shen, C., Björk, BC.: ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med (2015), vol. 13, no. 230, p. 9f: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[34] Shaghaei, N., Wien, C., Holck, J. P., Thiesen, A. L., Ellegaard, O., Vlachos, E., Drachen, T. M.: Being a deliberate prey of a predator: Researchers’ thoughts after having published in predatory journal. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries (2018), vol. 28, no. 1, p. 12f: https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10259 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[35] TIB Blog: Schmeja, S.: Was ist Predatory Publishing. p. 2: https://blogs.tib.eu/wp/tib/2018/07/26/was-ist-predatory-publishing/ (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[36] Basford, J.R., Heinemann, A.W.: Predatory Publishing in Rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. (2017), vol. 98, no. 5 May, p.1057: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.01.012 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[37] Kisely, S.: Predatory journals and dubious publishers: how to avoid being their prey. BJPsych Advances (2019), vol. 25, p. 116: https://doi.org/10.1192/bja.2018.56 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[38] Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Pergola, L., Castaneda, H.: Profiles, motives and experiences of authors publishing in predatory journals: OMICS as a case study. Hal Open Science (preprint) (2023), p. 24f: https://hal.science/hal-04130294 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[39] Mertkan, S. et al.: Profile of authors publishing in ‘predatory’ journals and causal factors behind their decision: A systematic review. Research Evaluation (October 2021) Vol. 30, Nr. 4, p. 470–483, https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab032. In: Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Pergola, L., Castaneda, H.: Profiles, motives and experiences of authors publishing in predatory journals: OMICS as a case study. Hal Open Science (preprint) (2023), p. 25f: https://hal.science/hal-04130294 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[40] Kharumnuid S.A., Singh Deo, P.: Researchers’ perceptions and awareness of predatory publishing: A survey. Accountability in Research (2022), p. 5: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2145470 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[41] COPE Council: COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Systematic manipulation of the publication process — English. (2021), p. 2: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.23   (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[42] Beall, J.: Predatory Publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open access. Learned Publishing (2013), vol. 2, no. 2, p. 81: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1087/20130203 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[43] Garanayak, S., Ramaiah, C. K.: Predatory Journals Publishing Trend in India: A Study. (2019), p. 2: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336495790_Predatory_Journals_Publishing_Trend_in_India_A_Study (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[44] Kisely, S.: Predatory journals and dubious publishers: how to avoid being their prey. BJPsych Advances (2019), vol. 25, p. 117: https://doi.org/10.1192/bja.2018.56 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[45] Harvey, H.B., Weinstein, D.F.: Predatory Publishing: An Emerging Threat to the Medical Literature. Academic Medicine (2017), vol. 92, no. 2, p. 151: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001521 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[46] Beall, J.: Predatory Publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open access. Learned Publishing (2013), vol. 2, no. 2, p. 81: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1087/20130203 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[47] IAP Report: Combatting Predatory Academic Journals and Conferences. p. 19: https://www.interacademies.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/1.%20Full%20report%20-%20English%20FINAL.pdf (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[48] Kharumnuid S.A., Singh Deo, P.: Researchers’ perceptions and awareness of predatory publishing: A survey. Accountability in Research (2022), p. 6: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2145470 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[49] IAP Report: Combatting Predatory Academic Journals and Conferences. p. 11: https://www.interacademies.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/1.%20Full%20report%20-%20English%20FINAL.pdf (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[50] IAP Report: Combatting Predatory Academic Journals and Conferences. p. 19: https://www.interacademies.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/1.%20Full%20report%20-%20English%20FINAL.pdf (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[51] IAP Report: Combatting Predatory Academic Journals and Conferences. p. 19: https://www.interacademies.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/1.%20Full%20report%20-%20English%20FINAL.pdf (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[52] Richtig, G., Berger, M., Lange-Asschenfeldt, B., Aberer, W., Richtig, E.: Problems and challenges of predatory journals. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol (2018), vol. 32, no. 9, p. 1447: https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.15039 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[53] IAP Report: Combatting Predatory Academic Journals and Conferences. p. 11: https://www.interacademies.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/1.%20Full%20report%20-%20English%20FINAL.pdf (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[54] Richtig, G., Berger, M., Lange-Asschenfeldt, B., Aberer, W., Richtig, E.: Problems and challenges of predatory journals. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. (2018), vol. 32, no. 9, p. 1447: https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.15039 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[55] Basford, J.R., Heinemann, A.W.: Predatory Publishing in Rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. (2017), vol. 98, no. 5 May, p. 1057: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.01.012  (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[56] Shah, F.A., Nazar, Z.: Predatory Journals: A global threat to the scholarly publishing landscape. J Postgrad Med Inst (2020), vol. 34, no. 1, p.2: https://jpmi.org.pk/index.php/jpmi/article/view/2751 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) and IAP Report: Combatting Predatory Academic Journals and Conferences. p. 11: https://www.interacademies.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/1.%20Full%20report%20-%20English%20FINAL.pdf (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑

[57] Kharumnuid S.A., Singh Deo, P.: Researchers’ perceptions and awareness of predatory publishing: A survey. Accountability in Research (2022), p. 6: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2145470 (retrieved on 07/18/2023) ↑