Questioning the Predator of the Predatory Journals: How Fair Are Global Publishing Standards?

… This journal was on a list. I think it is predatory. But why? I don't know. I saw it on a list. We better not send our papers there … In fact, conversations as such are not only confined to universities, but there are also newspaper articles that are currently emerging to inform the public about this worrying trend of predatory publishers. Both academics and even government bodies are urged to take action to tackle the issue of publishing in predatory journals. This is typically done by the funding agencies discouraging, or even penalising, researchers who publish in predatory journals. This can result in the withholding or retraction of grants, as seen with stricter policies from organisations like the European Research Council, which mandates publishing in reputable journals. Academic institutions often warn against publishing in predatory journals, whereas funding bodies like UK Research and Innovation and the National Science Foundation actively promote publishing in credible outlets. Researchers who publish in predatory journals risk losing future funding opportunities, as the lack of rigour can damage their credibility and harm their reputation and the funding institutions. Publishing in predatory journals undermines the academic integrity essential for continued support from grant agencies. Additionally, researchers associated with predatory journals may face difficulties in advancing their careers, further limiting access to critical funding and collaboration opportunities. Nevertheless, there seems to be a broader misunderstanding of what predatory means. What is concerning now is far from just publishing in predatory journals. It is the new emerging trend where academics and non-academics misuse the term ‘predatory’ by applying it to any lesser-known publishers or those publishers mentioned in blog lists of predatory journals. This oversimplification can blur the boundary between what is actually predatory and what is not. It prevents from having any possible scholarly discussions. It can delegitimise any legitimate emerging journal and even discourage researchers who lack funding from attaining any form of publication. Which means that this misuse of the term, even unintentionally, has the potential to marginalise academic communities. Considering this trend, it is vital to educate ourselves on the distinction between predatory journals and what is regarded as a new, lesser-known emerging journal. So, what exactly is a predatory journal? When the term predatory journal first emerged, it highlighted a worrying ongoing trend in academia. When Jeffrey Beall coined the term ‘predatory journal’ in 2010, his aim was to identify potential publishers exploiting authors by misusing the open-access model (Beall 2012). The term ‘predatory’ exposed several malpractices by the publishers (Cobey et al. 2018), who often circumvented rigorous peer review processes and editorial policies, thereby compromising the quality of the scholarly submissions. Moreover, these publishers typically demand large sums of money (or sometimes a small flat fee) and present themselves as open-access journals to exploit the works of emerging researchers (Beall 2012). When predatory publishers mimic legitimate ones, it raises significant concerns. The situation is particularly dire in non-western regions (Demir 2018), where predatory journals have infiltrated the publishing system, exploiting vulnerable researchers. But why non-western regions in particular? Several compelling reasons can be identified. First, researchers from these regions are often pressured to publish in high quantities without any effort to improve the quality of their publications. The push to publish-or-perish phenomenon drives researchers to predatory publishers who promote rapid publications and lower fees. Recently, in Malaysian media, there has been a trend of emerging articles in newspapers highlighting how government agencies have begun boycotting well-known journals (Chawla 2023; Kendall 2024) due to many Malaysian researchers contributing to questionable ones. This issue was spotted when Malaysian universities began competing in global ranking systems, increasing researchers' reliance on predatory journals for rapid publication opportunities. This trend raises another significant question about how public funds are being utilised by those who receive funding from government grant agencies. Second, academic institutions often do not provide adequate support for publication efforts due to budget limitations. Financial resources are usually directed towards social services and infrastructure projects and less often for academic initiatives which hinders faculty members' capacity to publish in reputable journals. These institutions also prioritise teaching over research, further restricting the funding available for publications. Moreover, the steep subscription costs associated with high-impact journals based in the west can be a significant barrier for institutions in non-western regions (Rodrigues, Savino, and Goldenberg 2022). Unlike their western counterparts, where journal subscriptions and publication fees are frequently subsidised, non-western institutions lack similar financial support, placing them at a distinct disadvantage. This disparity restricts researchers' access to the latest research and limits opportunities for global visibility and recognition. Without sufficient institutional backing, non-western scholars struggle to meet the publication demands of prestigious journals, further widening the gap between regions in terms of academic output and impact. Consequently, publishing in predatory journals becomes appealing due to their affordable cost, and rapid publication and dissemination strategies, which is greatly worrying. The main question remains: how did we get here? Beall's list certainly sparked controversy worldwide about existing publication strategies. Especially when the blog was shut down in 2017, the need for regulatory practices within the academic publishing community started to attract broader discussions. The discussions revolve around the publisher's legitimacy, the issue of malpractice, and the methods of enforcing transparency in publishing practices. Notably, the closure of Beall's list further highlighted the inherent complexities of identifying predatory journals. What was more intriguing were the benefits and controversies surrounding this classification system. Most of the discussions that revolve around predatory journals are primarily positive. They have raised critical questions and have increased awareness about the existing rapid publishing practices. Researchers became more vigilant about the publishers whose aim was to tarnish the reputation of the open-access model. To support this concern, educational institutions have taken proactive steps to educate academics by issuing warning notices concerning this worrying trend (Hokkaido University Library n.d.). As a result, researchers, especially those who are in their early research careers, are now vigilant about the fact that choosing the correct and reputable publication platforms can showcase their research to a broader population. Moreover, proactive measures were taken by the publishers themselves. There are now workshops and training sessions issued by reputable publishers to educate researchers on how to skilfully navigate the complexities of publishing in reputable journals to improve their scholarly contributions and safeguard the integrity of their work. On the other hand, the spotlight on the issue of predatory publishers has sparked controversies about what exactly constitutes a predatory journal. Beall's original list included criteria about editorial and peer review policies, fees and so on, but there was no standardised guide on identifying such publishers (Cobey et al. 2018; Grudniewicz et al. 2019). This lack of standardisation was worrying because several reputable publishers were also included in the list, potentially tarnishing the reputation of those publishers. To make matters further complicated, there is a growing focus on identifying predatory journals indexed in reputable databases such as PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, which creates significant issues for the credibility of scientific research (Manca et al. 2018; Duc et al. 2020). Predatory journals can easily bypass screening because they often meet minimal requirements for indexing, allowing them to infiltrate respected platforms. As a result, these journals, though predatory, gain legitimacy by association with trusted databases. This misrepresentation further misleads researchers into citing low-quality studies, undermining scientific integrity. So, one could ask, ‘if a predatory journal meets the minimal requirements for indexing, how can it still be considered predatory?’ The question of what exactly a reputable journal is should become the centre of attention because to identify predatory journals, we must first know to whom they should be compared. Of course, this oversimplified binary classification of legitimate vs. predatory was quickly under rapid fire. Perhaps some journals on the list did not have any malicious intent; they could have been lesser-known, newer, or underfunded journals. Even with the emergence of Cabell's Blacklist in 2018, the issue of identifying a predatory journal could not be solved due to the assessment criteria that were used to identify a predatory journal (Das and Chatterjee 2018; Dony et al. 2020). Therefore, the discussion regarding what is predatory should extend beyond merely listing them in a list. A notable consideration should be given to those publishers from underfunded nations and academic communities. Who are the victims of these predatory journals? Statistics show that researchers from non-western nations are unfairly targeted (Demir 2018; Erfanmanesh and Pourhossein 2017; Taşkın, Krawczyk, and Kulczycki 2023). The original intention of identifying predatory journals was to educate researchers about the exploitative practices of such journals. Because researchers from these nations were often pressured to publish their scholarly work in any journal regardless of the reputation of that journal, there is a biased perception that the research published in African or Southeast Asian regions, for instance, is less valuable and does not meet publication standards. Such biases can tumble research careers and limit the inclusion of researchers in the global scientific arena from those regions (Xia et al. 2014; Macháček and Srholec 2021 retracted). Unfortunately, the issue does not end there. Perhaps the bias is due to the non-westerner's mediocre language proficiency? Language proficiency is a significant barrier for non-native English speakers in academic publishing. The inability to meet linguistics standards often leads to a higher rejection rate compared to native speakers. This, in turn, delays the publication process and undermines their competitiveness in the global academic market. Non-native speakers may be less likely to participate in international conferences, limiting their networking and academic visibility. As a result, the allure of predatory journals, offering rapid publication, can become an attractive but problematic option for disseminating their research (see Amano et al. 2023). Even publishers from these regions are scrutinised for not attracting quality scholarly research articles. This is an issue; when the focus is already on avoiding journals that are labelled as predatory, there is little to no effort to support legitimate journals that are trying to emerge and attract scholarly work. Marginalising such journals leads to less emphasis on improving these regions' publishing standards, which then becomes a secondary concern. This leads to a far more substantial issue, which is the issue of global research equality. Because of lower publication fees, researchers from underfunded academic communities are more prone to approach less reputable journals. Reputable journals often charge higher fees for open-access publishing, and the grants typically do not cover such amounts. Furthermore, academic institutions from non-western nations particularly may not allocate sufficient funds for publishing. In other words, research from these regions receives less visibility in the global scientific arena, which is deeply concerning. Additionally, the misuse of the term predatory has become widely popular among academics in these non-Western regions, undermining the value of their already published works. When academics see a journal cited in an outdated list without any legitimate reasons, even if the journal has attracted quality scholarly works globally and has made statements about ill-motive predatory lists (Fenter 2023), any attempt to publish in such journals is now being criticised, and funding is often withheld (Chawla 2023; Kendall 2024). This is because it is easy to label a journal as predatory without considering the ever-evolving criteria of predatory practices. Consequently, delegitimising competitors within the academic communities and downplaying the significance of their scholarly work can also be done with ease. Such practices highlight the critical need for education on refining the criteria for identifying a predatory journal to ensure the term is applied fairly and without bias. There must be a holistic approach to address the issue of predatory publishing. Reforms must target multiple layers of the research publishing ecosystem, prioritising education and knowledge dissemination alongside stringent evaluation criteria. Predatory publishers are not merely a region-specific issue; they are a global issue that affects publication ethics and integrity. We must work together across borders to find solutions to strengthen the integrity of scholarly publishing. International collaborations between academic institutions, publishers, and government regulatory bodies are essential to uphold universal publishing standards. Developing publishing standards can ensure that journals worldwide adhere to these ethical guidelines. Since the issue lies within identifying what is ‘predatory’, developing a consensus definition of what constitutes a predatory journal is warranted (see Grudniewicz et al. 2019). By utilising expert survey methods, efforts have been made to identify unique characteristics of predatory journals, which include deceptive and lack of transparency in journal operations, often misleading or inaccurate impact factors, non-existent best publication practices, promising rapid peer review and publication, inability to verify contact details of the publishers, and the journal not being included in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) or Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) (see Cukier et al. 2020; Grudniewicz et al. 2019). The consensus definition of what constitutes ‘predatory’ helps create a standard framework for identifying predatory journals, reducing ambiguity. The support for non-western journals is equally crucial and must be identified. Avenues must be implemented to assist emerging publishers in collaborating with established publishers to help them achieve international standards. This support can be in the form of financial aid, and tiered partnerships with reputable journals, assisting them in gaining reputation and recognition with standards of conduct. Academic institutions in emerging nations must cultivate policies that value quality and the impact of the research work over the mere quantity of publications in low-cost journals, which can perpetuate the practices of predatory journals. How can one distinguish a predatory and a legitimate journal? Researchers must be well-educated to identify legitimate journals. This process should begin in academia, incorporating publication ethics into the curriculum of all disciplines. Identifying predatory journals can be aided by technology, particularly with the emergence of generative AI, and specific guidelines must be implemented to categorise journals as predatory vs. legitimate. Instead of a blog post anybody with an internet connection can write, there must be a globally accepted peer-reviewed database that lists legitimate journals with further explanations as to why these journals are considered legitimate. Such measures can aid researchers in making informed decisions. As of now, I am not convinced that there is an easy way out. Implementing stringent publication standards means reputable global publishers can now easily monopolise the academic publishing systems, which is not what the scientific community is calling for. Yes, predatory journals are a significant problem, and those promises of rapid publication for a small fee do impact the integrity of scholarly works and research dissemination. We are now aware that such practices particularly impact researchers from non-western regions, which emphasises the need for appropriate measures that do not damage their reputations. For now, what can we do about it? First, we must educate researchers at all levels about the dangers of predatory publishers to safeguard the research ecosystem. Second, we need a credible set of criteria that is fair to all journals and publishers, regardless of geographical boundaries, established through a global collaboration initiative. Third, supporting researchers and publishers from developing nations is essential to avoid discouraging emerging scholars and their valuable contributions to scientific knowledge. Institutions should emphasise quality over quantity by adjusting existing policies on incentives. Institutions must identify and reward impactful publications. So, not all hope is lost. Predatory publishers have forced us to rethink publication strategies. We must take proactive measures to maintain the integrity of the academic publishing landscape. Hiran Shanake Perera: conceptualization, validation, writing, and reviewing of the opinion piece. The author declares no conflicts of interest. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no data sets were generated or analysed during the current study.