Skip to main content
. 2015 Aug 13;2:22. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2015.00022

Table 2.

Definitions of “predatory journal” by participants in scientific writing workshops, categorized according to theme.

Practices considered as predatorya Definitions given by respondents for predatory journals (No.)

  • Editor and editorial board lack legitimacy: unqualified, concocted, appointed without permission or knowledge, exempt from editorial contributions

  • Hard to pinpoint responsible leaders (1)

  • Editors or website may not even be affiliated to journal (1)

  • Entice big name scientists to lend name (only) to editorial board (1)

  • Essentially the reviewers are fake as well as the editorial board (1)

  • Publishing operations lack transparency and legitimacy: hidden fees, lack of standard policies or practices for digital preservation, indexing, searches

  • A journal that does not exist, is a scam, is not legit (2)

  • Unscrupulous journals that do not uphold business standards (1)

  • Authors led to submit material, then left paying for it all (1)

  • Lack integrity: journal title does not reflect mission or origin; false claims about impact factor, international standing, indexing; spam requests to unqualified peer reviewers; repeated plagiarism, other ethical breaches

  • Journals solicit manuscripts under false pretenses (4)

  • Low-quality journal trying to get submissions by marketing techniques (1)

  • Other: republish papers without attribution; operate in a Western country but function mainly as vanity press for scholars in a developing country; minimal or no copyediting or proofing; publishes non-academic papers; hidden contact information

  • Reprint papers published in other journals, without permission (4)

  • Offer authors incentives; claim to be better than other journals (3)

  • Editorial board has specific agenda to publish articles from certain groups of researchers (1)

  • Hide behind offline-looking operations, hard to pinpoint location (1)
Poor practices, but not considered predatorya

  • Journal excessively broad in scope or combines fields not normally grouped

  • Journal lacks specific scientific focus (1)

  • Excessive spam mail to solicit manuscripts or editorial board memberships

  • Journals that aggressively or indiscriminately solicit authors, e.g., with email or spam (20)

  • Prominently state promise for unusually rapid peer review and publication

  • Offers immediate publication of any work (1)

  • Evidence that the journal does not really conduct a bona fide peer review

  • Journals that solicit, accept, and publish manuscripts without review, with substandard review or without regard for scientific quality and accuracy (10)

  • Journals that publish poor quality works rejected by respected journals (2)

  • Publisher appears to focus exclusively on billing and procuring the article processing fee, while not providing services for readers or not making an effort to vet submissions; optional “fast-track” fee-based service that appears to provide assured publication with little or no vetting; entrepreneurial behavior rises to the level of sheer greed, oblivious to business ethics

  • Journal whose primary goal is to obtain high article fees for financial gain, without regard for scientific or ethical standards (45)

  • Journals that solicit and charge high fees to authors but then do not publish the paper or give it exposure or make it easily available (6)

  • A less-than-qualified, disreputable, low tier, or unknown journal whose primary goal is profits at the expense of scientific or ethical standards (4)

  • Journal’s primary focus is profit through high publication fees (3)

  • Journal publishes manuscripts rejected by others for high fees (1)
Other themes

  • Takes advantage of authors

  • A journal that preys on or takes advantage of new or inexperienced authors (7)

  • A journal that targets authors with unkept promises of publication or compensation (2)

  • Journals that try to publish studies ± the author’s agreement (1)

  • Journals that do not look at all submitting authors fairly (1)

  • Journals that shut down ideas and results of submitted articles (1)

  • Takes advantage of other publishers

  • Journal that makes a profit out of preying on publishers (1)

  • Actively seeks manuscripts to prevent other journals from publishing (1)

  • A “reputable” journal that seeks to discredit another journal (1)

  • A journal that commercially encroaches on existing journals (1)

  • An organization seeking to collect information for less-than-honorable purposes (1)

  • A high-quality journal

  • A strict, good quality journal with a high impact factor; first choice for authors (4)

  • Editors ask or invite researchers/authors to write for their journal (3)

  • Journal request papers on new topics or papers that will improve their standing (3)

  • A journal that rejects a large percentage of submissions; difficult to get accepted (2)

aCriteria adapted from Jeffrey Beall, 3rd edition, January 1, 2015. Readers are referred to the website for a complete and detailed list of criteria.1