Purpose Predatory publishing remains a persistent concern in nursing scholarship, yet identification approaches often rely on binary classifications or list-based designations that obscure variation among journals. This study examined predatory publishing in nursing using a systems-based, behavior-focused approach. Methods A dataset of 265 nursing journals was assessed using the Predation Index, a behavior-based instrument that evaluates observable publishing practices associated with predatory risk. Journals with publicly available information were scored and categorized as 1–3 (lower levels of predatory indicators), 4–6 (moderate levels of predatory indicators), or 7–10 (high levels of predatory indicators). Findings were interpreted using the Journal Systems Framework, which conceptualizes journals as systems shaped by governance, capacity, and intent. Longitudinal comparison was conducted with journals identified in a 2016 study. Results Of 265 journals, 166 had sufficient information for assessment. Among these, 27 (16%) scored in the lowest range (1–3), 45 (27%) in the intermediate range (4–6), and 94 (57%) in the highest range (7–10). The remaining 99 journals were no longer available for assessment. Journals drawn from exclusionary lists were distributed across all score categories, indicating that lists function as risk screens rather than definitive classifications. Longitudinal analysis found many journals identified in 2016 had ceased operation, reflecting system instability. Conclusion Predatory publishing in nursing is best understood as a systems-level phenomenon rather than a quality continuum. Using behavior-based criteria within a systems framework helps distinguish structurally stressed journals from exploitative ones and supports more precise, ethically grounded responses to research integrity concerns.
Nicoll et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: