Safeguarding Scholarly Integrity Across Health Services: A Comparative Analysis of Publishing Risk

Predatory publishing threatens scholarly integrity, yet little is known about its prevalence in Australian health services. This study examined potentially predatory publishing using a custom risk-assessment framework incorporating Beall’s List, MEDLINE, Scopus, DOAJ, and ERA indicators. Analysis of 1,651 journal titles from Monash Health and 464 from Grampians Health, found most publications were classified as “no risk” (85.94% and 77.59% respectively), while high-risk publications were rare (approximately 0.2% at each service). Despite limitations, the framework supports researcher publishing decisions and highlights opportunities for Health Libraries to strengthen awareness and education around publishing risk and research integrity.