Predatory journal

Predatory journals exploit the open-access, pay-to-publish model and disproportionately target researchers under strong publication pressure with limited access to well-resourced, recognised venues — a pattern documented as falling heavily on early-career researchers and on the Global South. The widely cited 2019 Nature consensus definition (Grudniewicz et al.) identifies four core features: prioritising self-interest at the expense of scholarship; providing false or misleading information about the journal; deviating from best editorial and publication practice; and lacking transparency about fees, process, or governance.

Why no single blacklist settles the question

Jeffrey Beall’s “Beall’s List,” the best-known early attempt at a named blacklist of predatory publishers, was taken offline in January 2017 and is no longer maintained; it also drew criticism for inconsistent inclusion criteria and disputed additions and removals over its lifetime. Because status can be contested, change over time, or vary by imprint or individual journal within a large publisher, this page deliberately does not name specific publishers as predatory — the more durable approach is to check a venue against a set of criteria rather than a static list. The DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) maintains transparent inclusion criteria and reviews complaints; COPE membership signals adherence to a documented set of publication-ethics standards; and Think.Check.Submit (thinkchecksubmit.org), a checklist developed by a coalition including COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, ALPSP and others, walks an author through practical checks — editorial board verifiable, peer-review process described, fees disclosed upfront — before submission.

A knowledge-equity problem, not just a compliance one

From a knowledge-equity perspective, predatory journals reproduce and worsen existing inequalities: they extract fees from researchers least able to absorb them, pollute the citable literature, and damage the credibility of legitimate regional and Global-South publishing by association. An effective institutional response therefore combines researcher education, use of the indexes above, clear institutional guidance on acceptable venues, and structural reform that reduces the publish-or-perish pressure predatory venues are built to exploit.

References

• Grudniewicz A et al. ‘Predatory journals: no definition, no defence’ Nature 576:210-212, 2019. Think.Check.Submit (thinkchecksubmit.org). COPE and DOAJ guidance.