Financial barriers in urology publishing: an analysis of legitimate and predatory journals

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the Article Processing Charges (APCs) and fee transparency between legitimate and potentially predatory urology journals.

Methods

Potentially predatory journals were identified from unsolicited email solicitations sent to an academic urologist between December 2023 and January 2024. APC data were collected from the journals' websites and categorized based on fee transparency: no APC, non‐transparent APCs, or transparent APCs. Legitimate journals were identified from the 69 urology journals listed in the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons library. APCs for these journals were similarly collected and analyzed. We conducted a quantitative analysis with Chi‐squared testing to compare categorical variables and a Mann–Whitney U‐test to assess differences in APC values.

Results

A total of 214 potentially predatory journals were identified from 422 emails, originating from 75 different publishers. Solicitations spanned various disciplines, with only 7.35% from urology journals. Among potentially predatory journals, 3.7% claimed to have no APCs, 21.5% lacked fee transparency, and 74.8% disclosed their APCs, with a mean charge of 2272.50 USD (median 2000 USD; range 150–3690 USD). In contrast, legitimate journals had a mean APC of $3244.51 USD (median 3490 USD; range 635–6950 USD), with 11.6% offering publication without APCs.

Conclusion

Academic urologists often face unsolicited invitations from predatory journals and encounter high APCs from legitimate journals. This dual challenge complicates researchers' decisions and can hinder access to reputable publication avenues. To alleviate this burden, institutions should consider financial support for researchers, and both publishers and researchers must prioritize transparency and caution in the open‐access publishing landscape.

Introduction

Since its introduction in the early 2000s, open‐access publishing has revolutionized academic dissemination, granting readers unprecedented access to manuscripts without the barrier of subscription fees. This model has been praised for democratizing knowledge and allowing researchers, practitioners, and the public to directly benefit from scientific advancements. ¹ , ² , ³ However, this shift has also transferred the cost burden from readers to authors, with Article Processing Charges (APCs) becoming a primary revenue source for many journals. ⁴ This development, combined with the pressure on academics to publish more frequently for career advancement, ⁵ , ⁶ has contributed to the proliferation of ‘predatory journals’, which exploit the pay‐to‐publish system while neglecting scholarly integrity. ¹

These journals often bypass rigorous peer review processes and provide minimal editorial oversight while still levying substantial APCs, ¹ , ⁷ sometimes adding hidden costs such as assigning digital object identifiers (DOIs), administrative fees, and uploading fees.

In urology, as in other medical disciplines, distinguishing legitimate outlets from predatory ones is crucial to maintain high standards of scientific rigour. Typical signs of predatory journals identified include false claims of PubMed indexing and inflated or fabricated impact factors, with solicitations exhibiting excessive flattery, containing spelling and grammatical errors, and promising rapid publication. ⁸ , ⁹ , ¹⁰ While awareness of predatory journals has increased thanks to resources such as Beall's list ¹¹ and “Think. Check. Submit.” ¹² limited data exists on how APCs in predatory journals compare with those of reputable urology journals.

We aim to fill this gap by analysing APCs in both potentially predatory and legitimate urology journals. By comparing these charges and evaluating fee transparency, we seek to inform researchers and institutions about the economic landscape of open‐access publishing in urology, and its potential impact on the academic community.

Materials and methods

Overview

This study compares the APCs of potentially predatory and legitimate journals, focusing on the costs associated with publishing and the transparency of fee disclosures.

Data collection

For each journal, we recorded the journal's name, publisher, primary subject area and publication fees (APCs). Potentially predatory journals were identified from unsolicited emails received by an academic urologist (HHW) between December 2023 and January 2024. This email address is the sole email that has been used for correspondence with various journals in the past during publication processes. Only emails in the inbox and spam folder were included; those filtered automatically were not captured. A journal was deemed predatory if present on Beall's list at the time of writing. APC information was taken from the journal's website, categorized as either having no APC, non‐transparent APCs (not disclosed upfront), or transparent APCs. We excluded any additional or hidden costs not clearly indicated.

Legitimate journals relevant to urology were defined as the 69 listed under the ‘urology’ category in the library of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS).

Statistical analysis

We used the Chi‐squared test to compare categorical data; proportions of journals with no APC versus any APC, and the proportion of journals with non‐transparent APCs versus transparent APCs. To compare APC values between the two groups, we performed a Mann–Whitney U‐test. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05, and the analysis was conducted in R (version 4.4.2).

Results

Potentially predatory journals

A total of 422 separate emails yielded 214 potentially predatory journals from 75 publishers. Sixty‐two (14.7%) of these emails arose from journals with unknown or unlisted publishers. Detailed information on the publishers, the number and percentage of emails received, their presence on Beall's list, and the journal titles used is provided in Table S1. Most of the email solicitations were from journals whose subjects are related to surgery in general (16.35%), oncology in general (15.86%), and medicine in general (13.51%), with only 7.35% of total solicitations from urology journals. Among these 11 urology journals, the mean APC was 1825 USD and the median was 1889 USD, with one claiming to have no APC and another not disclosing its APC (Fig. 1, Table 1).

Fig. 1.

Distribution of unsolicited emails by primary subject area. Categories were consolidated, with fields largely unrelated to patient care grouped into ‘Non‐Medical’ disciplines.

Table 1.

Comparison of article processing charges (APCs) and fee transparency between potentially predatory and legitimate urology journals

Characteristic	Potentially predatory journals	Legitimate journals	P‐value
Number of Journals	214	69
No APC, n (% of total journals)†	8 (3.7%)	8 (11.6%)	0.031
APC Charged, n (% of total journals)	206 (96.3%)	61 (88.4%)	0.031
Non‐transparent APCs, n (% of APC journals)	46 (22.3%)	5 (8.2%)	0.023
Transparent APCs, n (% of APC journals)	160 (77.7%)	56 (91.8%)	0.023
Mean APC (USD)	$2272.50 (SD: $956.54)	$3245.00 (SD: $1702.00)	<0.001
Median APC (Range) (USD)	$2000 ($150–3690)	$3490 ($635–6950)	<0.001

†The ‘No APC (%)’ value for legitimate journals includes Nature Reviews: Urology, which accepts submissions by invitation only and does not charge an APC for gold open access, and the New England Journal of Medicine, which does not offer a paid open access option. Both journals have been excluded from the cost calculations.

Among the journals sending unsolicited invitations, only 8 (3.7%) made claims of there being no APC, with another 46 (21.5%) lacking transparency regarding their fees. The majority of journals (74.8%) disclosed their APCs with the mean charge being 2272.50 USD. The median APC was 2000 USD, with fees ranging from $150 to 3690 (SD: 956.54). This is current at the time of writing in June 2024. A comprehensive list of the potentially predatory journals and their APCs is provided in Table S2.

Legitimate journals

Legitimate journals relevant to urology were defined as the 69 listed under the urology category in the library of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS). Of these, 8 (11.6%) allowed Platinum Open Access, with publication free of any APC. However, most, 55 (81.2%) provided Gold Open Access, as a paid option for open access publication.

For these journals, the mean APC was higher at 3245 USD, with a median of 3490 USD. APCs charged by legitimate journals ranged from 635 to 6950 USD (SD: 1702.00).

Comparison

Chi‐squared test showed a significant difference in both the presence of APCs (P = 0.031) and the transparency of fees (P = 0.023). Mann–Whitney U‐test demonstrated a statistically significance in APC values between potentially predatory and legitimate journals (P < 0.001). A comprehensive list of legitimate journals and their APCs is provided in Table S3.

Discussion

The primary goal of this study was to compare APCs and fee transparency between potentially predatory and legitimate urology journals, providing a detailed analysis of their economic impact on academic publishing.

Identifying predatory journals

Predatory journals pose a significant risk to academic integrity by bypassing rigorous peer review processes and often making false claims about indexing or impact factors. Common features of predatory solicitations include spelling and grammatical errors, overly formal or stilted salutations, and a broad range of accepted submission types, often mismatched with the recipient's expertise. ⁸ , ⁹ , ¹⁰ Prior studies have highlighted similar practices in the fields of surgery, ⁸ orthodontistry ⁹ and ophthalmology. ¹³ Simple tools such as the PubMed journal search function ¹⁴ or Clarivate's journal impact factor score on their Master Journal List, ¹⁵ can help verify claims of indexing and impact factors, distinguishing credible journals from predatory ones.

Harmful consequences of predatory publishing

Engagement with predatory journals has detrimental effects for individual researchers and the broader academic community. Publishing in such venues can tarnish a researcher's reputation, waste valuable resources, and disseminate unreliable or substandard research. ⁶ , ¹⁶ This issue is particularly acute in non‐English speaking countries or regions, where editorial agencies have streamlined manuscript submissions to favour predatory outlets, ¹⁷ thereby hindering the advancement of high‐quality scientific knowledge. Additionally, the dissemination of unvetted or methodologically flawed research can mislead subsequent studies, propagate false or inaccurate conclusions and endanger public health and safety by informing ineffective or harmful clinical practices. ¹⁶

APC landscape

Our analysis reveals that while potentially predatory journals exploit authors by frequently charging APCs despite offering low‐quality publishing services, legitimate journals impose significantly higher APCs, creating financial barriers for researchers. Legitimate journals exhibited a mean APC of $3245 USD, which is 43.0% higher than the mean APC of $2269 USD for potentially predatory journals. This disparity, combined with a wider range of APCs in legitimate journals, underscores the financial challenges faced by researchers, particularly those from underfunded institutions or low‐ and middle‐income countries. Although legitimate journals often justify higher APCs with editorial oversight and rigorous peer review, the increasing costs – sometimes rising exponentially ⁶ – remain a burden on the academic community. Additionally, while some legitimate journals offer no‐APC or invitation‐only publication options, these alternatives either significantly limit manuscript visibility ¹⁸ or come with strict eligibility criteria.

Broader implications and contributing factors

The proliferation of predatory journals is fuelled not only by the rise of open‐access publishing, but also by the intense pressure on academics to publish frequently. The “publish‐or‐perish” culture exerts immense pressure on researchers to produce a continuous stream of publications to secure career advancement, tenure or funding. ⁵ , ⁶ This emphasis on publication quantity over quality sustains predatory publishers by creating a continuous demand for low‐cost, fast‐track publication options. Furthermore, the lack of comprehensive registries and updated lists of predatory journals exacerbates the issue, making it difficult for researchers to identify and avoid these outlets.

Potential solutions and future directions

Addressing the dual economic challenge of predatory journals and high APCs requires coordinated efforts from institutions, publishers and the academic community. Institutions can mitigate the financial challenges associated with open‐access publishing by establishing dedicated APC funds or supporting open‐access publishing through institutional repositories. Publishers should adopt transparent fee structures to enable authors to make informed decisions and consider providing APC discounts for those from low‐ and middle‐income countries. ¹⁹ Additionally, promoting quality over quantity in academic output may reduce reliance on predatory journals by decreasing the demand for rapid, low‐quality publications. Expanding awareness of predatory practices through education, ¹⁷ and developing more comprehensive registries, ²⁰ beyond Beall's list, would further help researchers navigate the complex publishing landscape.

Limitations

While our study provides valuable insights into the economic landscape of scholarly publishing in urology, it has several limitations. First, the original Beall's list has not had input from Jeffrey Beall since 2017, and the current resource is a community‐driven website. As such, some journals' status as predatory may not be completely accurate. Second, the sample size for legitimate journals was smaller than that for predatory journals. Due to varying definitions of predatory journals, comprehensive lists of validated and legitimate journals are scarce. Consequently, this sample may not fully represent the diversity and range of APCs across all reputable urology publications, potentially leading to overestimation or underestimation of the true mean APCs for legitimate journals. This disparity could suggest a greater or lesser difference in APCs than actually exists. Additionally, 46 (21.5%) of the predatory journals in our sample did not disclose their APCs, signifying that the mean and median APC fees for predatory journals could either be overestimated or underestimated depending on the actual fees of those journals. Furthermore, the dynamic nature of APCs means that fees can change over time, and our data may not capture the most current charges. It is also worth noting that some journals in the legitimate list may not be strictly considered urological journals. In addition, certain journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), were excluded from cost calculations because they do not offer an open access option. Lastly, our study focused solely on urology journals, and the results may not be applicable to other fields.

Conclusion

Academic urologists face a significant burden from the high volume of unsolicited email requests for manuscript submissions, predominantly from predatory publishers. This not only consumes valuable time and resources, but also poses a risk to the integrity of academic work by potentially luring researchers into substandard publishing venues. This challenge is furthered by the costly APCs imposed by legitimate journals, deterring early‐career and under‐funded researchers.

To mitigate these challenges, institutions should consider providing financial support for publication fees to researchers with limited funding. Publishers can also consider offering alternative, affordable, open‐access publishing options. Researchers must also remain vigilant in verifying the credibility of journals, be cautious of unsolicited invitations and consider online approaches to achieving this.

Author contributions

Lequang T. Vo: Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. David Armany: Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Simon V. Bariol: Supervision; writing – review and editing. Sriskanthan Baskaranathan: Supervision; writing – review and editing. Tania Hossack: Supervision; writing – review and editing. David Ende: Supervision; writing – review and editing. Henry H. Woo: Conceptualization; supervision; writing – review and editing.

Supporting information

Supplementary Table S1. Detailed data on publishers, number and percentage of emails received, presence on Beall's list, and journal titles used.

Supplementary Table S2. Full list of potentially predatory journals and their APCs.

Supplementary Table S3. Full list of legitimate journals and their APCs.