Abstract
Background
With the surge in scientific publication over the years, there is an exponential rise in predatory publishing. The aim of the current study was to assess predatory journals’ awareness among clinical and non-clinical researchers.
Methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital, affiliated university and the research center. Both males/females, physicians, professors, researchers, students, working in a hospital, university or a research center were enrolled. The primary outcome was the awareness of predatory journals, and to identify the predictors of awareness. The estimated sample size was 369. The survey consisted of 33 questions divided into five sections: (i) General information (ii) Research publications (iii) Awareness of predatory journals (iv) Open access (v) Journal selection. The questions were either yes/no or 5-point Likert scale. An electronic survey design was used for data collection. Variables were compared by aware and unaware groups using chi-square test. Logistic regression analysis was utilized to identify the predictors of awareness. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4.
Results
Of the total 328 respondents, females were 178(54.4%), near half had bachelors/master’s degree 156(48.3%), 117(35%) were physicians, 37(11%) researchers, 17(5%) professors, and 38(12%) students. Half of the participants 167(50.9%) were aware of the term ‘predatory medical journals. Only 56(17%) reported knowing how to spot a predatory journal. 15(4.5%) have reported publishing in a predatory journal due to lack of knowledge (6/15; 40%), to meet a deadline (3/15; 20%), suggested by a colleague (3/15; 20%), or due to (1/15; 6.6%) fast publication process. Reported sources of information were; colleagues 141(42%), attending a course 78(24%), and spam emails 73(22%). 69(21%) respondents reported using Clarivate Master Journal List, 54(16%) SCImago Journal & Country Rank list, 48(15%) use DOAJ. 282(85%) didn’t hear of the educational website Think.Check.Submit. Age (p = 0.036), gender (p = 0.0007), qualification (p = 0.0002), profession (p = 0.01), working in a research center (p = 0.005), and professional training (p = 0.0006) were significantly different by predatory journal awareness.
Conclusion
Publishing in a predatory medical journal is a global threat to the scientific community and academic integrity. Efficient steps need to be taken in order to address predatory journals’ invasion, and raising awareness.
Keywords: Awareness of predatory journals, Open access, Peer review, Researchers, Scholarly publishing
Introduction
Global demand for medical research and development has been the driving force behind the exponential increase in publications related to the field. Among the reasons of publishing are (i) knowledge sharing (ii) impact on clinical practice (iii) impact on existing policy (iv) advancement in career [1]. The key decision makers have added number of publications as criteria for academic promotion, which has led to a huge demand to publish a paper in healthcare settings and medical universities. However, the training needed for publication is still facing gaps. This puts pressure on medical professionals to conduct research that leads to publishable work [2]. This pressure has led to publishing malpractices, e.g. plagiarism, publishing in predatory journals as a quick remedy to the fast demand. Thus, a growing number of academic publishers has led to dishonest and predatory journals with low academic standards and questionable integrity [3, 4].
With increasing number of publications, the phenomenon of predatory journals is highlighted. The term “predatory journal” was first coined in 2012 by Jeffry Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado [5]. However, Beall’s list has been criticized worldwide. After Beall’s list, Kscien’s list is the most updated database to identify predatory journals and publishers [6]. A predatory journal also called as deceptive, pseudo, fake/fraudulent, cloned, or hijacked [7]; is a journal that publishes with the commercial intent without maintaining the scientific integrity of the published papers. Thus, predatory publishers launch predatory journals. The predatory publishers attract audience through spam marketing emails, the promise of easy and fast publication with a guaranteed publication at the end of a, questionable review process. These journals do not have a formal editorial board, and an Article Processing Charge (APC) that can be less than the authenticated publishers [8]. In some cases a withdrawal fee might be applicable. Predatory journals pose a threat to academic integrity. Although it is not possible to quantify the predatory journals based on an existing criteria [9], some of the criteria driven by the published papers and guidelines are: (1) website quality (2) the publisher is not a member of a recognized scholarly organization (3) no formal editorial or review board (4) no academic information of editors (5) no contact details of editors (6) transparency of policy (e.g.no clear policy for authors fee) (7) APC prior to paper acceptance (8) high acceptance rate (9) guaranteed publication (10) lacking journal’s scope (11) accepting papers outside the journal’s scope (12) lack of peer review process (13) quick acceptance and publication within short time (14) false impact factor (15) not indexed (16) no access to previously published volumes (17) request manuscript submission via email (18) reputation of journal (19) number of retracted papers (20) journal naming convention (21) publisher’s targeted audience (22) number of times updates in the website [10–15].
Frequently an early career scholar, trainee, or a clinician are primarily targeted by the predatory journals [16]. The main effected audience are researchers in low and middle-income countries [8]. However, experienced researchers and clinicians can also fall victims to predatory journals. Several studies have reported awareness of predatory journals across globe (i) graduate medical trainees (interns, residents and fellows) in United Arab Emirates had reported factors of journal selection; recommendation by peers (89.4%), database indexing (86.2%), and based on colleagues’ experience (85.6%) [17] (ii) (39.9%) trauma surgeons in Germany (student, resident, junior consultant, senior consultant, clinic director, private practitioners) were aware of predatory journals. The awareness was defined as yes–no decision question (“Have you ever heard of Predatory Journals?”) [18] (iii) (58.7%) researchers in India from different disciplines (Education, Human and Environmental Sciences, Life Sciences, Humanities, Physical Sciences, Social Sciences, Technology and Economics, Management and Information Science) were aware of predatory journals, but it is not clear the definition of awareness is based on which assessment questions [4] (iv) (69.7%) medical oncologists (residents, consultants, lecturers, professors) had prior knowledge of predatory journals, but the description of prior knowledge was not provided [19] (v) (29.4%) dermatologist in Austria reported to be aware of predatory journals [16]. These studies are diverse in terms of profession, professional ranking, and years of experience. Moreover, awareness was mainly defined as ‘if have heard the term predatory journals’, which is a subjective description. Among the medical profession; medical oncologists, trauma surgeons, and dermatologist were the target population. The reported awareness regarding predatory journals has varied between 39.9% [18] to 80% [17].
Predatory publishing affects scientific evidence. A scoping review has reported the use of predatory articles in systematic reviews and its impact on scientific evidence. At least one article from a predatory journal is cited by 157 systematic reviews. 9% of trials in Cochrane review were postulated as a predatory publication [20].
The rise of predatory journals has led to a growing need for awareness among researchers. Many researchers are unaware of the risks associated with publishing in these journals and may be lured in by the promise of quick publication time-frames or the opportunity to publish their work without facing rejection (i.e. guaranteed publication) [3, 21]. It is important for researchers to recognize and identify predatory journals in order to avoid becoming a victim.
There are negative consequences from publishing in predatory journals, that can tarnish a researcher’s reputation and put a blight on their professional record; (i) Predatory journals use a fake review process (ii) that does not, for obvious reasons, improve the quality of the paper (iii) there are no copyrights (iii) no digital object identifier (DOI) which will make it hard to find the paper (iv) it won’t be possible to retract/withdraw paper [22]. The aim of the current study was to assess the awareness towards predatory medical journals, to identify criteria considered for selecting a journal by researchers, to identify characteristics of a predatory journal by researchers, and to identify the predictors of awareness in medical (clinical and non-clinical) researchers in Saudi Arabia.
Methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted among medical (clinical and non-clinical) researchers working in Saudi Arabia, with the aim of assessing the level of awareness related to the predatory medical journals in Feb-Aug 2024. The included participants were both male and female, with no preference to nationality.
To ensure diverse perspectives a broad range of medical researchers were included. The participants were mainly grouped based on their involvement with patient care (i) clinical (the participants involved in direct patient care; physicians, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, paramedics, respiratory/occupational therapists) and (ii) non-clinical researchers (not directly involved in patient care; lecturers, professors, applied medical science, statisticians/public health/epidemiologists, and researchers working in a research center or affiliated hospital and university), junior/senior faculty members, and students who had previously published a research paper. Theoretical, educational, or structural differences were expected to influence awareness levels by groups. Researchers with non-medical background (e.g. engineering) were excluded.
An electronic survey was created using Lime survey. The survey link was shared with researchers across three regions in Saudi Arabia (Central, Western, and Eastern). The survey was anonymous and IP addresses were obscured. A hyperlink to the survey was distributed to the researchers’ using emails, and social media platforms such as WhatsApp. Targeted subjects in a tertiary care hospital/university/and affiliated research center were contacted via an email. The emails were identified from the researchers’ database. On an average, a questionnaire required 10 min to be completed. The entire process of survey administration was completed in six months’ time.
The survey assessed participants’ awareness of predatory medical journals. The questions were developed after a literature review and based on guidelines for selecting legitimate journals [14]. The survey consisted of 33 questions divided into five sections: (i) General information (demographics and experience, 9 questions) (ii) Research publications (10 questions) (iii) Awareness of predatory journals (8 questions) (iv) Open access (4 questions; three yes/no and one 5-point Likert scale) (v) Journal selection (2 questions; one multiselect and one 5-point Likert scale).
The awareness related to predatory medical journals was defined based on red alert questions to identify a predatory journal (yes/no/not sure). The literature reports awareness based on a question ‘if the respondents were of predatory journal’. This is a subjective definition. Just hearing or being aware of the term does not mean the participant is able to identify a predatory journal. The main goal of the current study was to identify participants with strict certainty of knowledge, hence the answers (no/not sure) were considered as no. The red alert question choices (ambiguous or no editorial board, fast publication process, journal is located in a newly industrializing country, missing author’s guidelines, no contact details, use of non-authenticated domain, no indexing, no peer review, and unknown publisher) if answered as ‘yes’ were considered correct and scored as 1. The choices (high publication fees, and no impact factor) if answered as ‘no’ were considered correct and scored as 1. Awareness was categorized at the cut-off 7/11. Ethical approval was obtained from the King Abdullah International Medical Research Center’s Institutional Review Board with the approval no NRC23R/609/10.
All participants were adequately informed of the aims, methods, and risks related to participating in the study, the voluntary nature of participation and confidentiality in the introduction of the survey. Written informed consent was obtained at the initiation of the electronic survey. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines was used for reporting the findings.
Sample size and sampling technique
The primary objective of this study was to assess the level of awareness regarding predatory medical journals among researchers. A study conducted in Germany found only 39.9% of the participants were aware of predatory journals [18]. Assuming relative margin of error 5%, 40% awareness, confidence level 95%, the required sample size was 369 participants. The participants were enrolled using a convenient sampling technique.
Statistical analysis
Variables were summarized and reported using descriptive statistics. Professional years of experience was reported as the mean and standard deviation, comparison by awareness (yes/no) was done by using Wilcoxon rank sum test, after assessing normality assumptions. Gender, age categories, qualification, profession, working place, specialty were reported as frequency and percentage. The comparison by awareness (yes/no) was done by using a Chi-square test for independence after meeting the Chi-square test assumption. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the predictors of the awareness of predatory medical journal. The predictors were selected based on bivariate analysis, followed by crude and adjusted analysis. The variable profession was recoded keeping (pharmacists, lecturer, applied medical science, radiologists, nurses, occupation/respiratory therapists, statistician, public health, epidemiologist) as others. Results are reported as crude and adjusted odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and the corresponding p-values. Statistical significance was declared at p-value less than 0.05. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).
Results
Demographic and work related characteristics of the study cohort
Of the 328 responded, 178(54%) were females, 153(46%) were in the overall age range 18–30 years. Among males almost half (65;43.6%) were in the age range 31–50 years, among female’s half of the sample (95;53.3%) were in the age range 18–30 years. 156(48%) participants had reported having bachelors/master’s degree, 124(38%) had PhD/or Medical & Surgical Board. One hundred and seventeen (35%) had a physician background, 37(11%) were researchers, 17(5%) were lecturers/professors, and 38(12%) were students. A total of 177(54%) reported working in a government hospital, 92(28%) in the university, and 54(16%) in the research center. Age (p = 0.036), gender (p = 0.0007), qualification (p = 0.0002), profession (p = 0.01), working in a research center (p = 0.005), and professional training (p = 0.0006) were significantly different by predatory journal awareness (yes/no) (Table 1).
Table 1.
Demographic and work related characteristics by awareness of predatory medical journals in clinical and non-clinical researchers
|
Overall n = 328 n(%) |
Not aware n = 164 (50.6%) n(%) |
Aware n = 160 (49.3%) n(%) |
p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age Categories (n = 328) | ||||
| 18–30 years | 153(46.6) | 89(54.2) | 64(40.0) | 0.036^ |
| 31–50 years | 135(41.1) | 58(35.3) | 75(46.8) | |
| ≥ 51 years | 40(12.2) | 17(10.4) | 21(13.1) | |
| Gender (n = 327) | ||||
| Male | 149(45.5) | 59(36.2) | 88(55.0) | 0.0007^ |
| Females | 178(54.4) | 104(63.8) | 72(45.0) | |
| Qualification (n = 323) | ||||
| Undergraduate | 43(13.1) | 28(17.0) | 15(9.4) | 0.0002^ |
| Bachelors/Masters | 156(48.3) | 89(54.9) | 64(40.5) | |
| PhD/Medical/Surgical Board | 124(38.3) | 45(27.7) | 79(50.0) | |
| Profession (n = 328) | ||||
| Physicians | 117(35.6) | 56(34.1) | 60(37.5) | 0.01^ |
| Students | 38(11.5) | 23(14.0) | 15(9.3) | |
| Researchers | 37(11.3) | 15(9.1) | 22(13.7) | |
| Dentists | 27(8.2) | 12(7.3) | 15(9.3) | |
| Nursing | 26(7.9) | 16(9.7) | 10(6.2) | |
| Applied Medical Science | 23(7.0) | 15(9.1) | 8(5.0) | |
| Professors | 14(4.2) | 1(0.6) | 13(8.1) | |
| Statistician/public health/epidemiologist | 14(4.2) | 8(4.8) | 5(3.1) | |
| Pharmacist | 9(2.7) | 3(1.8) | 6(3.7) | |
| Lecturers | 3(0.9) | 1(0.6) | 1(0.6) | |
| Others (respiratory/occupational therapy) | 20(6.1) | 14(8.5) | 5(3.1) | |
| *Working in a Government Hospital (n = 175) (yes) | 177(53.9) | 92(52.5) | 83(47.4) | 0.445^ |
| *Working in a University (n = 91) (yes) | 92(28.1) | 42(46.1) | 49(53.8) | 0.315^ |
| *Working in a Research Center (n = 54) (yes) | 54(16.4) | 18(33.3) | 36(66.6) | 0.005^ |
| *Working in a Laboratory (n = 16) (yes) | 17(5.2) | 10(62.5) | 6(37.5) | 0.329^ |
| Professional training (n = 259) | ||||
| Locally | 164(63.3) | 90(74.3) | 73(53.6) | 0.0006^ |
| Abroad | 95(36.6) | 31(25.6) | 63(46.3) | |
| Nationality (n = 328) | ||||
| Saudi | 257(78.3) | 131(79.8) | 123(76.8) | 0.511^ |
| Non-Saudi | 71(21.6) | 33(20.1) | 37(23.1) | |
| Specialty (n = 257) | ||||
| Hematology | 40(15.4) | 18(14.8) | 22(16.1) | |
| Pediatrics | 31(12.3) | 16(13.2) | 15(11.0) | |
| Basic Sciences | 20(7.7) | 8(6.6) | 12(8.8) | |
| Internal/family Medicine | 19(7.3) | 10(8.2) | 9(6.6) | |
| Emergency Medicine | 15(5.7) | 1(1.6) | 14(10.2) | |
| Oncology | 12(4.6) | 7(5.7) | 5(3.6) | |
| Dermatology | 11(4.2) | 4(3.3) | 7(5.1) | |
| Surgery | 10(3.8) | 2(1.6) | 8(5.8) | - |
| Others | 99(38.5) | 55(21.4) | 44(17.1) | |
| Professional years of experience (n = 241) (mean ± SD) | 10.4 ± 8.9 | 9.4 ± 8.8 | 11.3 ± 9.0 | 0.057** |
n is reported for group comparison
Others (anesthesia, biostatistics, bioinformatics, critical care, dentists, GP, Gyne/OBS, pathology, population health, radiology)
*Reported percentage is a row percent
**Wilcoxon rank sum test
^Chi-square test
Medical research & scientific publishing experience reported by the study participants
The majority had reported literature search using PubMed/Medline database 297(91%), followed by Google Scholar 196(60%), Up-to-date 95(29%), and SCOPUS 53(16%). Almost two third of the sample 283(86%) had reported that they have conducted medical research. 242(74%) had an experience in scientific writing and 237(72%) had published at least one research paper. 81(24%) had published in the high impact factor journal of more than 10 (Source of impact factor Journal Citation Report (JCR) by Clarivate). Total number of authored publications reported were (median, IQR: 2, 0–7) (Table 2).
Table 2.
Medical research & publications experience reported by the study participants
| n(%) | |
|---|---|
| Attended courses on research (yes) (n = 328) | 278(84.7) |
| Conducted research (yes) (n = 328) | 283(86.2) |
| Published research (yes) (n = 328) | 237(72.2) |
| Which database you use commonly for literature search? (n = 328) | |
| PubMed/Medline | 297(90.5) |
| Google Scholar | 196(59.7) |
| Up-to-Date | 95(28.9) |
| SCOPUS | 53(16.1) |
| Cochrane | 51(15.5) |
| Experience in scientific writing/publishing (yes) (n = 328) | 242(73.7) |
| Experience as a scientific reviewer (yes) (n = 328) | 123(37.5) |
| Published in a high impact journal (IF > 10) (yes) (n = 328) | 81(24.7) |
| Total number of authored publications (median, IQR, max) (n = 328) | (2, 7, 140) |
| Number of publications as first/Corresponding author (median, IQR, max) (n = 328) | (1, 3, 100) |
| Number of publications as a co-author (median, IQR, max) (n = 328) | (1.5, 5, 100) |
Awareness of predatory medical journals among clinical and non-clinical researchers
Out of total 328 participants, 167(51%) had reported they heard the term “predatory medical journals”. Based on Red Flag identifiers 160(49.4%) were aware of the predatory journals. However, only 56(17%) reported knowing ‘how to spot a predatory journal’ (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1.
a Awareness of predatory journals based on question “if heard the term predatory journal” vs. “based on red flags identifiers” (b) awareness of ‘how to spot a predatory journal?’
Only 90(27%) reported knowing the term “hijacked or cloned journals”. The majority 246(75%) did not know if the term “hijacked or cloned journals” means a “predatory journal”. 15(4.6%) reported they had published in a predatory journal, the reported reasons to publish in a predatory medical journal were; lack of knowledge (6/15; 40%), (3/15; 20%) had to meet a deadline, (3/15; 20%) suggested by a colleague, and (1/15; 6.6%) reported due to fast publication process.
Among the top most identified red alerts of a predatory medical journal were; no editorial board 198(61%), no peer review process 196(61%), unknown publisher 190(59%), use of non-authenticated domain 181(56%), and fast publication process 169(51%) (Table 3). The reported sources of information if familiar with a predatory medical journal were informed by peers/colleagues 141(42%), followed by attending a workshop 78(24%), with experience 76(23%), and spam emails 73(22%) (Table 3).
Table 3.
Awareness of predatory medical journals among clinical and non-clinical researchers in Saudi Arabia
| n(%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Have you heard a term “Predatory Medical Journals’(yes) (n = 328) | 167(50.9) | ||
| Have you heard terms ‘Hijacked’ or ‘Cloned’ journals? (yes) (n = 328) | 90(27.4) | ||
| In your understanding ‘Hijacked’ or ‘Cloned’ journals are ‘Predatory’ journals? (n = 326) | |||
| Yes | 80(24.5) | ||
| No | 59(18.1) | ||
| Not sure | 187(57.3) | ||
| Source of information if familiar with predatory journals (n = 328) | |||
| Peers/Colleagues | 141(42.9) | ||
| Attending a course/training | 78(23.7) | ||
| Personal experience | 76(23.1) | ||
| Spam emails | 73(22.2) | ||
| From the literature | 62(18.9) | ||
| Media | 59(17.9) | ||
| Attending a conference | 39(11.8) | ||
| Have you ever published in a predatory journal? (yes) (n = 328) | 15(4.6) | ||
| Reasons for publishing in a predatory journal [n = 15] | |||
| Lack of knowledge | 6(40.0) | ||
| Meet a deadline | 3(20.0) | ||
| Suggested by a colleague | 3(20.0) | ||
| Fast publication process | 1(6.6) | ||
| Received invitation email | - | ||
| Pressure for job acceptance | - | ||
| Spam email | - | ||
| Low publication fee | - | ||
| Others | 2(13.3) | ||
| Do you know how to spot a predatory medical journal? (n = 326) | Yes | No | Somewhat |
| 56(17.1) | 164(50.3) | 106(32.5) | |
| Red alerts for identifying predatory journals | Yes | No | Not sure |
| Ambiguous or no editorial board (n = 324) | 198(61.1) | 25(7.7) | 101(31.1) |
| No impact factor (n = 324) | 164(50.6) | 60(18.5) | 100(30.8) |
| Fast publication process (n = 324) | 169(52.1) | 56(17.2) | 99(30.5) |
| Journal in a newly industrializing country (n = 324) | 103(31.7) | 67(20.6) | 154(47.5) |
| Missing or incomplete author's guidelines (n = 324) | 178(54.9) | 44(13.5) | 102(31.4) |
| High publication fee (n = 324) | 71(21.9) | 111(34.2) | 142(43.8) |
| No contact details (n = 324) | 178(54.9) | 49(15.1) | 97(29.9) |
| Use of non-authenticated domain (n = 324) | 181(55.8) | 38(11.7) | 105(32.4) |
| No indexing (n = 324) | 181(55.8) | 40(12.3) | 103(31.7) |
| No peer review (n = 324) | 196(60.4) | 33(10.1) | 95(29.3) |
| Unknown publisher (n = 324) | 190(58.6) | 40(12.3) | 94(29.0) |
Open access publication preferences and perception among clinical and non-clinical researchers
The perception of differences between Open Access and subscription-based journal has been summarized in Table 4. 197(60%) preferred publishing in an open access journal, with the most common reason of publishing in an open access (i) the accessibility to the scientific community 224(68%), (ii) more likely to be cited 158(48%), and (iii) easy to publish in an open access 144(44%).
Table 4.
Open access publication preferences and perception among clinical and non-clinical researchers in Saudi Arabia
| n(%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Have you published in an OA journal? (yes) (n = 328) | 186(56.7) | ||
| Do you prefer publishing in an OA journal? (yes) (n = 328) | 197(60.0) | ||
| Reasons for choosing OA publishing (n = 328) | |||
| It is easier to publish in OA | 144(43.9) | ||
| It is accessible to the scientific community | 224(68.2) | ||
| More chances of citation if published in an OA journal | 158(48.1) | ||
| More chances of citation if published in a subscribed journal | 55(16.7) | ||
| Publishing fee is of secondary importance | 58(17.6) | ||
| Perception of differences between OA and subscription-based journals | Agree/Strongly Agree | Uncertain | Disagree/Strongly Disagree |
| In OA, the author pays the article processing charge (n = 324) | 143(44.1) | 120(37.1) | 61(18.8) |
| In a subscription journal, the reader pays the fee (n = 324) | 182(56.1) | 88(27.1) | 54(16.6) |
| In OA, authors retain the copyright (n = 324) | 104(32.1) | 147(45.3) | 73(22.5) |
| In a subscription journal, the journal owns the copyrights (n = 324) | 125(38.5) | 141(43.5) | 58(17.9) |
| Both OA and subscription journals have the review process (n = 324) | 193(59.5) | 83(25.6) | 48(14.8) |
| The review process for OA is faster than for subscribed journals (n = 324) | 105(32.4) | 153(47.2) | 66(20.3) |
| The manuscript is more likely to be accepted in OA (n = 324) | 107(33.0) | 145(44.7) | 72(22.2) |
Awareness related to medical journal search and selection among clinical and non-clinical researchers
The participants had reported searching journal mainly based on the mentor/colleagues’ recommendation 189(57%), followed by using Clarivate Master Journal List 69(21%), SCImago Journal & Country Rank list 54(16%), or using DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) 48(15%). Ten criteria were summarized to identify a legitimate and best-fit journal. The reported top most criteria to consider while selecting a journal were (i) aim of the journal 238(74%), (ii) indexing on (PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science etc.) 232(72%), (iii) impact factor 229(71%), (iv) target audience 225(70%), (v) article processing time 187(58%), (vi) peer review process 176(55%). Only 76(23%) reported ‘no’ for the question if a predatory journal poses a risk to the scientific contribution. Think Check Submit provides the researcher a guide on how to identify a trusted journal. The majority 282(85%) didn’t hear of the educational website Think.Check.Submit (Table 5).
Table 5.
Awareness related to medical journal search among clinical and non-clinical researchers in Saudi Arabia
| How do you usually search for a journal? (n = 328) | n(%) | ||
| Via DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) | 48(14.6) | ||
| Clarivate Master Journal List | 69(21.1) | ||
| SCImago Journal & Country Rank | 54(16.4) | ||
| Mentor/Colleague’s recommendation | 189(57.6) | ||
| Criteria to look for while selecting a journal (n = 322) |
Agree/ Strongly Agree |
Uncertain |
Disagree/ Strongly Disagree |
| Aim of the journal | 238(73.9) | 33(10.2) | 51(15.8) |
| Target audience | 225(69.8) | 49(15.2) | 48(14.9) |
| Impact factor | 229(71.1) | 46(14.2) | 47(14.6) |
| Indexing on authentic databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science etc.) | 232(72.1) | 47(14.6) | 43(13.3) |
| Who is the publisher? | 157(48.7) | 98(30.4) | 67(20.8) |
| Article processing charge (APC) | 165(51.2) | 90(27.9) | 67(20.8) |
| Article processing time | 187(58.1) | 72(22.3) | 63(19.5) |
| Do you look for the peer review process? | 176(54.6) | 84(26.1) | 62(19.2) |
| Do you check if the journal has a COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) membership? | 105(32.6) | 126(39.1) | 91(28.2) |
| Do you verify the editorial board of the journal? | 113(35.1) | 129(40.1) | 80(24.8) |
| Are you familiar of the “Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)? | 91(28.2) | 118(36.6) | 113(35.1) |
| Yes | No | ||
| Have you heard of Think. Check. Submit. Website? (n = 328) | 46(14.0) | 282(85.9) | |
| In your opinion, do predatory journals pose a risk to the scientific contribution? (n = 328) | 252(76.8) | 76(23.1) | |
Predictors of predatory medical journals awareness
Based on 7/11 cut-off of the red flags criteria to identify a predatory journal awareness; 164(51%) were aware of the predatory medical journals. The predictors of being aware of a predatory medical journal has been summarized in Table 6. While comparing males vs. females; the crude OR (0.46) suggests a protective association. However, after adjusting for confounders male participants were 1.9 (Adjusted odds ratio; AOR) times more likely to be aware of predatory medical journals (95% CI 1.15, 3.29, p = 0.01). This shift indicates that confounding factors masked the true relationship in the unadjusted analysis. Participants with higher qualification were twice more likely to be aware (95% CI 0.81, 8.63, p = 0.06). The participants working in a research center were 2.7 (AOR) times more likely to be aware (95% CI 1.16, 6.49, p = 0.021). Professors were 9 (AOR) times more likely to be aware compared to students (95% CI 0.88, 98.1, p = 0.042). Although the crude analysis suggested that researchers were twice more likely to be aware, this relationship was attenuated after adjusting for confounders (Table 6).
Table 6.
Predictors of predatory medical journals awareness
| Crude OR | 95% CI | p-value | Adjusted OR | 95% CI | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (males vs. females) | 0.46 | 0.29–0.72 | 0.0007 | 1.95 | 1.15–3.29 | 0.012 |
| Age categories (18–30 vs. ≥ 51 years) | 0.58 | 0.28–1.19 | 0.138 | 1.29 | 0.54–3.07 | 0.504 |
| Age categories (31–50 vs. ≥ 51 years) | 1.04 | 0.51–2.16 | 0.901 | 1.05 | 0.46–2.39 | 0.817 |
| Profession (Professors vs. Students) | 19.93 | 2.35–168.6 | 0.006 | 9.31 | 0.88–98.18 | 0.042 |
| Profession (Dentists vs. Students) | 1.91 | 0.71–5.21 | 0.202 | 1.33 | 0.36–4.83 | 0.816 |
| Profession (Physicians vs. Students) | 1.64 | 0.78–3.46 | 0.191 | 1.05 | 0.33–3.33 | 0.266 |
| Profession (Researchers vs. Students) | 2.24 | 0.89–5.66 | 0.085 | 0.86 | 0.21–3.71 | 0.233 |
| Profession (Others vs. Students) | 1.09 | 0.49–2.41 | 0.831 | 0.90 | 0.26–3.02 | 0.131 |
| Qualification (Bachelors/Masters vs. undergraduate) | 1.34 | 0.66–2.71 | 0.412 | 1.48 | 0.52–4.23 | 0.788 |
| Qualification (PhD/Medical/surgical board vs. undergraduate) | 3.27 | 1.58–6.77 | 0.001 | 2.63 | 0.81–8.63 | 0.061 |
| Working in a University (yes vs. no) | 1.28 | 0.78–2.08 | 0.316 | 1.24 | 0.64–2.39 | 0.515 |
| Working in a Research Center (yes vs. no) | 2.35 | 1.27–4.35 | 0.006 | 2.75 | 1.16–6.49 | 0.021 |
Discussion
The scientific research has grown over the years with increase in publications and citation rate. With the surge in the scientific publications, number of medical journals has also increased [23]. Open access journal was proposed in 1999 to ensure scientific research availability to a broader audience. During 2000–2009 the number of open access had an exponential rise [24]. With the rise in journals, the concept of predatory publishing was evolved [25]. This survey is the first to focus on the awareness of predatory medical journals in clinical and non-clinical researchers in Saudi Arabia. The most notable finding in the current survey, is that overall awareness is low, only few respondents had responded positively on how to spot a predatory medical journal. The reported predatory journal awareness in the literature is based on the question if heard the term predatory journal, which is a subjective definition. Just hearing the term should not be described as knowledge, as knowledge should be based on being able to identify the predatory journals. Hence, the current study rationale of quantifying the awareness yes/no is supported by the study results. (50.9%) participants responded yes to question “Have you heard a term “Predatory Medical Journals’, which is more or less close to the quantified response awareness (49.3%).
Though, very few respondents had published in a predatory journal, one of a key finding is that very few respondents had disagreed that predatory journals pose a risk to the scientific contribution. The main reasons of publishing in a predatory journal were lack of knowledge, and a pressure due to a deadline. The findings also state that most of the respondents were not aware of predatory journals lists or sites helpful in identifying a predatory journal. However, the predatory journals’ list is an evolving document due to continuous changes overtime, hence awareness requires being up to date prior to article submission. We have not assessed awareness related to Beall’s list since it has been removed.
Several studies had reported awareness of predatory journals across different disciplines; medical residents, trauma surgeons, researchers, medical oncologists, and dermatologists [16–19, 26]. Noticeably a major concern is the operational definition of awareness of predatory journals and predatory publishing. The level of awareness of predatory medical journals in our study was (50.9%), that is higher than what is reported among trauma surgeons (39.9%), [18] and dermatologists (29.4%), [16] however, less than what is reported by medical oncologists (69.7%) [19]. A study investigated the awareness of predatory journals among researchers and found that a substantial number of respondents were familiar with the concept. However, the level of awareness varied across disciplines and regions. Researchers from fields such as medicine, social sciences, and engineering demonstrated higher levels of awareness compared to those from less established or newer disciplines. This variation underscores the importance of targeted educational efforts to ensure that researchers across all domains can distinguish between legitimate and predatory journals [27]. The breakdown of profession by awareness has a particular implication. The research and publication are a fundamental and core component of researchers, professors, statisticians, public health, and epidemiologists’ job. Hence, we have also reported predictors of awareness of a predatory medical journal. Being a professor or working in a research center are more likely to be aware. However, we do not have any explanation why males were more likely to be aware compared to females.
A growing number of academic publishers has led to dishonest and predatory journals with low academic standards and questionable integrity [3, 4]. Apart from that the criteria of quality of a research paper varies across institutions [2]. This pressure is one of the reasons, which has led to publishing malpractices, e.g. plagiarism, and supporting predatory journals. The publication pressure is one of a risk factor of becoming a victim to predatory journals. The findings of publication pressure are also affirmed, by a study conducted among medical interns and residents, who had reported publication pressure, form the residency program [17]. Medical residents were mainly unaware of predatory publishing, despite having prior research methodology training [17]. Based on our results, the other reasons of publishing in a predatory journal were; lack of knowledge, pressure to meet deadline, recommendation by a colleague, and a fast publication process. The other reported reasons from literature are spam or unsolicited emails, [17] the journal’s appearance and easy publication process [28]. A study had highlighted they had a pressure to publish for promotion and annual assessment [29]. A review has reported publication pressure, lack of competency, and being unaware as the reasons of predatory publishing [30].
The literature search reported by the current participants is mainly conducted by utilizing PubMed/Medline (90% vs. 96%), consistent with prior publication [19]. Prior to submission, a researcher should carefully consider which journal would be the most suitable and a best fit for their findings [4]. The studies have reported participants were mainly not aware of selecting a suitable or best-fit journal [17]. Resources and platforms that can be helpful in identifying a predatory journal or to assess a journal’s credibility are (i) ThinkCheckSubmit.org (ii) Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) (iii) Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (iv) SCImago Journal Rank (v) Journal Citation Reports (JCR) [22]. However, across studies very few participants were aware of ThinkCheckSubmit.org [17, 18] which is consistent with our findings. DAOJ was reported to be utilized by (14.6%) in our survey, while (21%) was reported by the trauma surgeons [18].
Several criteria were reported across studies to identify a legitimate and best-fit journal. The top most identified in our survey were journal’s aim (74%), indexing on authentic databases (e.g. PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science) (72%), impact factor (71%), target audience (70%), article processing time (58%), and peer review process (55%). Similar criteria have been reported by other surveys; medical residents had identified impact factor (91.9%), and quality of the peer review process (84.4%) [17], medical oncologist have reported the peer review process (76.1%), impact factor (70.7%), and indexing (52.1%) [19]. Just to highlight a point having a no impact factor does not mean that journal is not legitimate. It requires time to acquire an impact factor, hence is not applicable for a newly launched journal.
The most common publishing models are open access vs. subscription based. In the subscription based, model the reader pays the fee, journal owns the copyrights, and the journal’s permission is required for using the paper’s content. In the open access model, the author will pay the article processing charge (APC), the authors retain the copyright, and the publication can be accessed immediately. The immediate access is very helpful for the scientific community and openness in science. There are list of papers published decades ago, however, not yet available publicly.
On the other hand, OA journals have been criticized for being money oriented; some of them might have published articles with an impact on the scientific quality [31]. Moreover, having an open access does not mean predatory. In the current survey based on the responses it seems the differences between two models were not clear.
Publishing in a predatory journal leads to poor quality articles, [32] which in turn affects scientific integrity of the published work. Certain consequences of publishing in a predatory journal have been reported; (i) damaging the reputation of authors (ii) unable to track publication since there is no assigned DOI (digital object identifier) (iii) no or low citation (iv) fake peer review spreading the misinformation (v) losing work once published in a predatory journal [22, 33].
In summary, publishing in a predatory journal is a global scientific community problem [29, 34]. An exponential rise in predatory publishing has been reported across all healthcare literature [30]. Predatory journals pose a threat to the scientific integrity as well community, which is not limited to developing countries. A study has reported predatory publishing from middle and high-income countries, as well association with high ranked university affiliations [32]. An interesting term has been reported in the literature ‘zombie professorship’ due to publishing without quality metrics and counting for quantity only [35].
The consensus definition of predatory journal was published in 2019: “Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices” [36]. But the question arises why despite of having number of comments, editorials, and opinions published over recent years [36–38] the authors are still not aware of predatory publishing?
Predatory publishing is a multifaceted problem; (i) Substantial number of researchers are not aware of predatory medical journals, and are not familiar with the resources for identifying a predatory journal. Just not having a peer review process is not the only criteria, but an important identifying criterion. (ii) No comprehensive list of predatory journals is available; however it is not feasible due to emergence of new journals (iii) Another key aspect of publishing in a predatory journal, which is not yet inspected but highlighted in a report, is the funded research ending up in a predatory journal, [29] that mandates funding bodies to develop relevant policy, and last but not the least (iv) intentional predatory publishing.
Publishing in a predatory journal damages researcher’s academic reputation, and undermines the work credibility. Several preventive measures can be taken; checking DOAJ, consulting senior mentors, and libraries. We recommend (i) educating future researchers by including predatory journals and publishers’ information in the curriculum (ii) to add guidelines at universities and libraries (iii) to include flyers/brochures in the conferences (iv) to advertise in social media (v) awareness campaigns (vi) involving relevant stakeholders for prevention, and (vii) funders to have strict policy against predatory publishing. We also endorse policy at the institution level to prevent publishing in a predatory journal. Last but not the least we suggest junior researchers or students to publish under strict supervision.
The persistence of predatory publishers and journals is influenced by supply and demand. These decentralized platforms are difficult to eliminate and may continue to exist. Their impact can be lessened by encouraging researchers and medical professionals to publish in reputable International Scientific Indexing (ISI)-indexed journals and to emphasize quality rather than quantity. The presence of predatory journals is also sustained by researchers seeking rapid and assured publication. Addressing this issue may require changes to academic promotion and point systems, creating incentives for scholars to choose reputable outlets.
An important aspect which needs drawing attention is the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in scientific publication. As per the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the Large Language Models (LLMs) cannot be qualified as authors [39]. AI is already been utilized for scientific writing but must not replace researcher’s knowledge and expertise [40]. Though use of AI has become inevitable; however, it is crucial to use AI efficiently and effectively in editorial process. LLMs can generate instant summary of manuscript, however can create false positive or negative reports. Although faster decision making by using AI seems appealing, but AI reviews introduce new risks such as breach in confidentiality by using public language models, compromise of identifiers and unpublished data, or unauthorized use [41]. It is worth noting the use of ChatGPT by predatory journals for automating peer review process [40].
The role of AI is multifaceted in scientific publishing. With the evolution in predatory publishing over the years the AI automated or factitious peer review process has created fraudulent research which has infiltrated legitimate journals, authentic databases, and citation networks [42]. On the other hand, it has been reported that AI can correctly classify and distinguish predatory vs. legitimate journals. High sensitivity (0.93) was reported in detecting predatory journals by ChatGPT, along with the element of false positive (29%) and false negative (7.5%) reports [15]. Several types of AI machine learning models (e.g. Random Forest Classifier, Natural Language Processing) can be effective in identifying the predatory journals [43]. Further discussion is beyond the scope of this article.
Strength and limitations
The key strength point of the study is the enrollment of participants from different disciplines, working place, and three regions. Among the limitations; one of the limitations of study is the inability to reach the estimated sample size. One reason was the enrollment challenge of the electronic survey. The other limitations were attributed to the electronic survey design; (i) sampling could be biased for researchers not using electronic mediums and (ii) lack of supervision for responses (iii) the survey questions were not validated. Comparisons with prior reported studies should be interpreted with caution, as differences in targeted population, measurement tools, and operational definitions of awareness may limit direct comparability. Lastly the definition for professional categories was not specified, as researcher’s total sample was 37, not mutually exclusive by working place; government hospital (n = 11), university (n = 10), or research center (n = 27). This had diluted the sample across an important category.
Conclusion
Publishing in a predatory medical journal is a threat to scientific integrity that needs to be addressed by policy makers, and relevant stakeholders. We recommend launching awareness campaigns at universities and research centers for raising awareness. We also recommend students/junior researchers to publish under strict supervision at the institution level. Predatory publishing is a multifaceted problem. Efficient steps need to be taken in order to address predatory journals’ invasion, and raising awareness in scientific community. We also recommend to develop a rubric with compiled indicators identifying predatory journals and publishers, in order to objectively quantify predatory journals’ awareness.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Professor Rabih O.Al-Kaysi for critical review of the paper.
Authors’ contributions
NS: Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, data curation, formal analysis, writing original draft, supervision, and project administration. TA: Methodology, data curation, writing review & editing. MA: Data curation, writing review & editing. HA: Methodology, data curation, writing review & editing. AA: Data curation, writing review & editing. OA: Methodology, writing review & editing. AA: Methodology, supervision, writing review & editing.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to the institutional rules and regulations but are available from the author on a reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Ethical approval was obtained from the King Abdullah International Medical Research Center Institutional Review Board with the approval no NRC23R/609/10. The informed consent to participate was taken prior to the survey initiation. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Moher D, Srivastava A. You are invited to submit…. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):180. 10.1186/s12916-015-0423-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Shyam A. Predatory journals: what are they? J Orthop Case Rep. 2015;5(4):1–4. 10.13107/jocr.2250-0685.300. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Kurt S. Why do authors publish in predatory journals? Learn Publ. 2018;31(2):141–7. 10.1002/leap.1150. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Kharumnuid SA, Singh Deo P. “Researchers’’ perceptions and awareness of predatory publishing: a survey. Account Res. 2022:1-18. 10.1080/08989621.2022.2145470. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 5.Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature. 2012;489(7415):179. 10.1038/489179a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Aso S, Muhialdeen, et al. Kscien’s list; a new strategy to discourage predatory journals and publishers (second version). Barw Med J. 2023;1(1). SE-Review Articles. 10.58742/bmj.v1i1.14.
- 7.Panda S. Predatory journals. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2020;86:109–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Clark J, Smith R. Firm action needed on predatory journals. BMJ Br Med J. 2015;350:h210. 10.1136/bmj.h210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Macháček V, Srholec M. Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross-country differences. Quantitative Science Studies. 2022;3(3):859–87. 10.1162/qss_a_00213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Burgiss L, Tatum B, Henshaw C, Boswell M, Michaels A. Predatory Publication of {AI}-Generated Research Papers,” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Artificial Intelligence for Cyber Security, R. Mitkov, S. Ezzini, T. Ranasinghe, I. Ezeani, N. Khallaf, C. Acarturk, M. Bradbury, M. El-Haj, and P. Rayson, Eds. Lancaster, UK: International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Artificial Intelligence for Cyber Security; 2024. pp. 1-9. Available: https://aclanthology.org/2024.nlpaics-1.1/.
- 11.U. of S. F. Libraries. Identifying predatory publishers. Available: https://guides.lib.usf.edu/predatorypublishing. Accessed: 12 Jan 2025.
- 12.G. of Canada. Identifying predatory publishers: a checklist. Available: https://rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/idp-vrr.html. Accessed: 12 Jan 2025.
- 13.Wikipedia. Predatory publishing. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_publishing. Accessed: 12 Jan 2025.
- 14.ThinkCheckSubmit. Available: https://thinkchecksubmit.org/. Accessed: 12 Jan 2025.
- 15.Al-Moghrabi D, Abu Arqub S, Maroulakos MP, Pandis N, Fleming PS. Can ChatGPT identify predatory biomedical and dental journals? A cross-sectional content analysis. J Dent. 2024;142:104840. 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104840. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Richtig G, et al. Knowledge and influence of predatory journals in dermatology: a Pan-Austrian survey. Acta Derm Venereol. 2019;99(1):58–62. 10.2340/00015555-3037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Ibrahim H, Elhag SA, Elnour SM, Abdel-Razig S, Harhara T, Nair SC. Medical resident awareness of predatory journal practices in an international medical education system. Med Educ Online. 2022;27(1):2139169. 10.1080/10872981.2022.2139169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Maurer E, et al. Awareness of predatory journals and open access publishing among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons – results from an online survey in Germany. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22(1):365. 10.1186/s12891-021-04223-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Richtig G, et al. Awareness of predatory journals and open access among medical oncologists: results of an online survey. ESMO Open. 2019;4(6):e000580. 10.1136/esmoopen-2019-000580. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Martinino A, Smeenk FWJM, Basile V, Soto A, Pouwels S. Understanding the influence of predatory journals articles included within systematic reviews: a scoping review. Ser Libr. 2025;86(3–4):213–22. 10.1080/0361526X.2025.2523389. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Shen C, Shah L. Predatory publishing practices: what researchers should know before submitting their manuscript. Insights UKSG J. 2023;19(36). https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.631.
- 22.Elmore SA, Weston EH. Predatory journals: what they are and how to avoid them. Toxicol Pathol. 2020;48(4):607–10. 10.1177/0192623320920209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Bornmann L, Mutz R. Growth rates of modern science: a bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2015;66(11):2215–22. 10.1002/asi.23329. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Björk B-C. A study of innovative features in scholarly open access journals. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e115. 10.2196/jmir.1802. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Cartwright VA. Authors beware! The rise of the predatory publisher. Australia: 2016. 10.1111/ceo.12836. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 26.Rupp M, Anastasopoulou L, Wintermeyer E, Malhaan D, El Khassawna T, Heiss C. Predatory journals: a major threat in orthopaedic research. Int Orthop. 2019;43(3):509–17. 10.1007/s00264-018-4179-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Shamseer L, et al. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):28. 10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Ayeni P, Adetoro N. Growth of predatory open access journals: implication for quality assurance in library and information science research. Libr Hi Tech News. 2017;34:17–22. 10.1108/LHTN-10-2016-0046. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Cobey KD, Grudniewicz A, Lalu MM, Rice DB, Raffoul H, Moher D. Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey. BMJ Open. 2019;9(3):e026516. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026516. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Frandsen TF. Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature. Learned Publ. 2019;32(1):57–62. 10.1002/leap.1214. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Malkawi L, Al-Ryalat N, Al Hadidi E, Serrieh D, AlRyalat SA. The impact of open access status on journal indexes of radiology journals. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019;213(4):736–9. 10.2214/AJR.19.21215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Moher D, et al. Stop this waste of people, animals and money. Nature. 2017;549(7670):23–5. 10.1038/549023a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Sengupta S, Honavar SG. Publication ethics. India: 2017. 10.4103/ijo.IJO_483_17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 34.Bagues MF, Labini MS, Zinovyeva N. A walk on the wild side: An investigation into the quantity and quality of ‘predatory’ publications in Italian academia. Pisa: Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM); 2017. Available: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/174551.
- 35.Balehegn M. Increased publication in predatory journals by developing countries’ institutions: what it entails? And what can be done? Int Inf Libr Rev. 2017;49(2):97–100. 10.1080/10572317.2016.1278188. [Google Scholar]
- 36.JMW, MML, Grudniewicz A, Moher D, Cobey KD, Bryson GL, Cukier S, Allen K, Ardern C, Balcom L, Barros T, Berger M, CiroJB, Cugusi L, Donaldson MR, Egger M, Graham ID, Hod M. Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. Nature. 2019;576:210–212. 10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 37.Rorke RO, White C, Bhujel N. The rise of predatory publishing and journals. Br Dent J. 2024;237(9):699–700. 10.1038/s41415-024-8006-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Christine L, et al. Predatory journals — what can we do to protect their prey? N Engl J Med. 2025;392(3):283–5. 10.1056/NEJMe2415937. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.I. C. of M. J. Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Available: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/. Accessed: 12 Jan 2025. [PubMed]
- 40.Salvagno M, Taccone FS, Gerli AG. Can artificial intelligence help for scientific writing? Crit Care. 2023;27(1):75. 10.1186/s13054-023-04380-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Perlis RH, et al. Artificial intelligence in peer review. JAMA. 2025;334(17). 10.1001/jama.2025.15827. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 42.EditorsCafé. Predatory Publishing 2.0: No Longer Fake — Now AI-Polished and ‘Legitimized. Available: https://editorscafe.org/details.php?id=108. Accessed: 11Jan 2026.
- 43.Alt A. The evolution of predatory Journals - New strategies and threats. A letter to the editor. Eur J Physiother. 2025:1–3. 10.1080/21679169.2025.2537442.
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to the institutional rules and regulations but are available from the author on a reasonable request.