Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from BMC Medicine
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E Open Access
Potential predatory and legitimate
biomedical journals: can you tell the
difference? A cross-sectional comparison
Larissa Shamseer
1,2*
, David Moher
1,2
, Onyi Maduekwe
3
, Lucy Turner
4
, Virginia Barbour
5
, Rebecca Burch
6
,
Jocalyn Clark
7
, James Galipeau
1
, Jason Roberts
8
and Beverley J. Shea
9
Abstract
Background: The Internet has transformed scholarly publishing, most notably, by the introduction of open access
publishing. Recently, there has been a rise of online journals characterized as ‘predatory’, which actively solicit
manuscripts and charge publications fees without providing robust peer review and editorial services. We carried
out a cross-sectional comparison of characteristics of potential predatory, legitimate open access, and legitimate
subscription-based biomedical journals.
Methods: On July 10, 2014, scholarly journals from each of the following groups were identified –potential
predatory journals (source: Beall’s List), presumed legitimate, fully open access journals (source: PubMed Central),
and presumed legitimate subscription-based (including hybrid) journals (source: Abridged Index Medicus). MEDLINE
journal inclusion criteria were used to screen and identify biomedical journals from within the potential predatory
journals group. One hundred journals from each group were randomly selected. Journal characteristics (e.g.,
website integrity, look and feel, editors and staff, editorial/peer review process, instructions to authors, publication
model, copyright and licensing, journal location, and contact) were collected by one assessor and verified by a
second. Summary statistics were calculated.
Results: Ninety-three predatory journals, 99 open access, and 100 subscription-based journals were analyzed; exclusions
were due to website unavailability. Many more predatory journals’homepages contained spelling errors (61/93, 66%) and
distorted or potentially unauthorized images (59/93, 63%) compared to open access journals (6/99, 6% and 5/99, 5%,
respectively) and subscription-based journals (3/100, 3% and 1/100, 1%, respectively). Thirty-one (33%) predatory journals
promoted a bogus impact metric –the Index Copernicus Value –versus three (3%) open access journals and no
subscription-based journals. Nearly three quarters (n= 66, 73%) of predatory journals had editors or editorial board
members whose affiliation with the journal was unverified versus two (2%) open access journals and one (1%) subscription-
based journal in which this was the case. Predatory journals charge a considerably smaller publication fee (median $100
USD, IQR $63–$150) than open access journals ($1865 USD, IQR $800–$2205) and subscription-based hybrid journals ($3000
USD, IQR $2500–$3000).
Conclusions: We identified 13 evidence-based characteristics by which predatory journals may potentially be distinguished
from presumed legitimate journals. These may be useful for authors who are assessing journals for possible submission or
for others, such as universities evaluating candidates’publications as part of the hiring process.
Keywords: Predatory, Open access, Scientific publishing, Publishing models, Biomedical journal, Journalology
* Correspondence: lshamseer@ohri.ca
1
Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital
Research Institute, Ottawa K1H 8L6, Canada
2
School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventative Medicine, University
of Ottawa, Ottawa K1H 8M5, Canada
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
© The Author(s). 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Shamseer et al. BMC Medicine (2017) 15:28
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Background
The Internet has transformed scholarly publishing. It
has allowed for the digitalization of content and subse-
quent online experimentation by publishers, enabling
print journals to host content online, and set the course
for online open-access publishing. Nevertheless, an un-
welcome consequence of the Internet age of publishing
has been the rise of so-called predatory publishing.
In the traditional subscription model of publishing, jour-
nals typically require transfer of copyright from authors for
articles they publish and their primary revenue stream is
through fees charged to readers to access journal content,
typically subscription fees or pay-per-article charges. Open
access publishing, in contrast, typically allows for authors
to retain copyright, and is combined with a license (often
from Creative Commons), which enables free and immedi-
ate access to published content coupled with rights of reuse
[1]. Some open access journals [2] and many hybrid jour-
nals (i.e., those with some open access content and also
with non-open access content) [3] use a business model
that relies upon publication charges (often called article
publication or processing charges, or APC) to the author or
funder of the research to permit immediate and free access.
Predatory publishing is a relatively recent phenomenon
that seems to be exploiting some key features of the open
access publishing model. It is sustained by collecting APCs
that are far less than those found in presumably legitimate
open access journals and which are not always apparent to
authors prior to article submission. Jeffrey Beall, a librarian
at the University of Colorado in Denver, first sounded the
alarm about ‘predatory journals’andcoinedtheterm.He
initiated and maintains a listing of journals and publishers
that he deems to be potentially, possibly, or probably preda-
tory, called Beall’s List [4] (content unavailable at the time of
publishing). Their status is determined by a single person
(Jeffrey Beall), against a set of evolving criteria (in its 3rd edi-
tion at the time of writing) that Beall has based largely on
The Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of
Conduct for Journal Editors and membership criteria of the
Open Access Scholarly Publisher’sAssociation[5–7]. Others
have suggested similar criteria for defining predatory jour-
nals [8, 9].
The phenomenon of predatory publishing is growing
and opinions on its effects are divided. Critics say that it
is extremely damaging to the scientific record and must
be stopped [10, 11]. Others feel that, while problematic,
predatory publishing is a transient state in publishing
and will disappear or become obvious over time [12]. A
fundamental problem of predatory journals seems to be
that they collect an APC from authors without offering
concomitant scholarly peer review (although many claim
to [13]) that is typical of legitimate journals [14].
Additionally, they do not appear to provide typical
publishing services such as quality control, licensing,
indexing, and perpetual content preservation and may
not even be fully open access. They tend to solicit manu-
scripts from authors through repeated email invitations
(i.e., spam) boasting open access, rapid peer review, and
praising potential authors as experts or opinion leaders
[13]. These invitations may seem attractive or an easy
solution to inexperienced or early career researchers
who need to publish in order to advance their career, or
to those desperate to get a publication accepted after a
number of rejections, or to those simply not paying at-
tention. Predatory journals may also be a particular
problem in emerging markets of scientific research,
where researchers face the same pressure to publish, but
lack the skills and awareness to discern legitimate
journals from predatory ones.
Still, many researchers and potential authors are not
aware of the problem of predatory journals and may not
be able to detect a predatory journal or distinguish one
from a legitimate journal. In order to assist readers,
potential authors, and others in discerning legitimate
journals from predatory journals, it would be useful to
compare characteristics from both predatory and non-
predatory journals to see how they differ.
In this study, we undertook a cross-sectional study com-
paring the characteristics of three types of biomedical
journals, namely (1) potential predatory journals, (2)
presumed legitimate, fully open access journals, and (3)
presumed legitimate subscription-based biomedical jour-
nals that may have open access content (e.g., hybrid).
Methods
Design
This was a cross-sectional study.
Journal identification and selection
We searched for journals on July 10, 2014. For feasibility,
only journals with English-language websites were consid-
ered for inclusion and we set out to randomly select 100
journals within each comparison group. The following se-
lection procedures were used to identify journals within
each comparison group:
Potential predatory journals (‘Predatory’): We
considered all journals named on Beall’s List of
single publishers for potential inclusion. We applied
the MEDLINE Journal Selection criteria [15]:
“[Journals] predominantly devoted to reporting
original investigations in the biomedical and health
sciences, including research in the basic sciences;
clinical trials of therapeutic agents; effectiveness of
diagnostic or therapeutic techniques; or studies
relating to the behavioural, epidemiological, or
educational aspects of medicine.”Three independent
assessors (OM, DM, LS) carried out screening in
Shamseer et al. BMC Medicine (2017) 15:28 Page 2 of 14
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
duplicate. From the identified biomedical journals, a
computer-generated random sample of 100 journals
was selected for inclusion. Journals that were ex-
cluded during data extraction were not replaced.
Presumed legitimate fully open-access journals
(‘Open Access’): A computer-generated, random
sample of 95 journals from those listed on PubMed
Central as being full, immediate open access, were
included. In addition, five well-established open
access journals were purposefully included: PLOS
Medicine,PLOS One,PLOS Biology,BMC Medicine,
and BMC Biology.
Presumed legitimate subscription-based journals
(‘Subscription-based’): A computer-generated, random
sample of 100 journals from those listed in the Abridged
Index Medicus (AIM) was included. AIM was initiated
in 1970 containing a selection of articles from 100 (now
119) English-language journals, as a source of relevant
literature for practicing clinicians [16]. AIM was used
here since all journals in this group were initiated prior
to the digital era and presumed to have a maintained a
partially or fully subscription-based publishing model
[confirmed by us].
For all journals, their names and URLs were automatic-
ally obtained during the journal selection process and col-
lected in Microsoft Excel. Screening and data extraction
were carried out in the online study management soft-
ware, Distiller SR (Evidence Partners, Ottawa, Canada).
Journals with non-functioning websites at the time of data
extraction or verification were excluded and not replaced.
Data extraction process
Data were extracted by a single assessor (OM) between
October 2014 and February 2015. An independent audit
(done by LS) of a random 10% of the sample showed
discrepancies in 34/56 items (61%) on at least one occa-
sion. As such, we proceeded to verify the entire sample
by a second assessor. Verification was carried out in
April 2015 by one of eight assessors (RB, JC, JG, DM, JR,
LS, BJS, LT) with experience and expertise on various
aspects of biomedical publishing process. Any disagree-
ments that arose during the verification process were
resolved by third party arbitration (by LS or LT). It was
not possible to fully blind assessors to study groups due
to involvement in the journal selection process (OM,
DM, LS).
Data extraction items
Items for which data were extracted were based on a
combination of items from Beall’s criteria (version 2,
December 2012) for determining predatory open-access
publishers [6], the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal
Publishers (http://publicationethics.org/resources/code-
conduct), and the OASPA Membership criteria (http://
oaspa.org/membership/membership-criteria/). Data for
56 items were extracted in the following nine categories:
aims and scope, journal name and publisher, homepage
integrity (look and feel), indexing and impact factor,
editors and staff, editorial process and peer review, publi-
cation ethics and policies, publication model and copy-
right, and journal location and contact.
Data analysis
Data were descriptively summarized within each arm.
Continuous data were summarized by medians and
interquartile range (IQR); dichotomous data were sum-
marized using proportions.
Results
Ninety-three potential predatory journals, 99 open ac-
cess journals, and 100 subscription-based journals were
included in the analysis. The process of journal identifi-
cation, inclusion, and exclusions within each study group
is outlined in Fig. 1; 397 journals were identified as
potential predatory journals. After de-duplication and
screening for journals publishing biomedical content,
156 journals were identified, from which a random sam-
ple of 100 were chosen. Seven journals from the preda-
tory group and one from the legitimate open access
group were excluded during data extraction due to non-
functional websites. No journal appeared in more than
one study group.
There were four unanticipated journal exclusions
during data extraction in the presumed legitimate open
access and subscription-based groups for which ran-
domly selected replacement journals were used. One
journal was listed twice in the open access group and
was deemed to be a magazine rather than a scientific
journal. Two journals in the subscription-based journal
group were deemed to be a magazine and a newsletter,
respectively. The decision to exclude and replace these
was made post-hoc, by agreement between LS and DM.
Our main findings of journal characteristics for each
data extraction category are summarized in Tables 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
Homepage and general characteristics
About half of the predatory journals in our sample indi-
cated interest in publishing non-biomedical topics (e.g.,
agriculture, geography, astronomy, nuclear physics)
alongside biomedical topics in the stated scope of the
journal and seemed to publish on a larger number of
topics than non-predatory journals (Table 1). Predatory
journals included pharmacology and toxicology (n= 59)
in the scope of their journal four and a half times more
often than open access journals (n= 13) and almost 30
times more than subscription-based journals (n= 2).
Shamseer et al. BMC Medicine (2017) 15:28 Page 3 of 14
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
When we examined the similarity of the journal name
to other existing journals (e.g., one or two words differ-
ent on the first page of Google search results), we found
that over half of predatory journals (n= 51, 55.84%) had
names that were similar to an existing journal compared to
only 17 open access journals (17.17%) and 22 subscription-
based journals (22.00%) (Table 2). In all study groups, the
journal name was well reflected in the website URL. For
journals that named a country in the journal title, some
journals named a different country in the journal contact
information (11/21 (52.38%) predatory; 4/13 (30.77%)
open access; 1/31 (3.23%) subscription-based) (Table 3).
There was a high prevalence of predatory journals from
low or low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) (48/64,
75.00%) compared to open access journals (18/92,
19.56%); none of the subscription-based journals listed
LMIC addresses.
We assessed the integrity of the homepage by examin-
ing the content for errors (Table 4). Spelling and gram-
matical errors were more prevalent in predatory journals
(n= 61, 65.59%) compared to in open access (n=6,
6.06%) and subscription-based journals (n= 3, 3.00%). In
addition, we found a higher frequency of distorted or
potentially unauthorized image use (e.g., company logos
Fig. 1 Flow diagram of journal identification, selection, and inclusion in each study group. aPotential predatory journals identified from Beall’s
list. bPresumed legitimate fully open access journals identified from PubMed Central including five purposely selected journals: PLOS Medicine,
PLOS One,PLOS Biology,BMC Medicine, and BMC Biology.cSubscription-based journals identified from AIM
Table 1 Aims and scope
Predatory,
N= 93, n(%)
Open Access,
N= 99, n(%)
Subscription-based,
N= 100, n(%)
General research
area
Biomedical only 47 (50.53) 99 (100) 100 (100)
Biomedical
& non-biomedical
46 (49.46) N/A N/A
a
Medical subject
categories
Top 5 listed (n) Pharmacology/Toxicology (59)
Research/Laboratory Medicine
& Medical Technology (37)
Immunology (22)
Nursing (18)
Dentistry (17)
Research/Laboratory Medicine
& Medical Technology (28)
Immunology (20)
Pharmacology/Toxicology (13)
Nursing (12)
General and Internal Medicine (12)
General and Internal Medicine (15)
Surgery (13)
Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems (12)
Public, Environmental & Occupational
Health (10)
Endocrinology, Metabolism
& Nutrition (9)
Number of medical
categories
b
Median (IQR) 2 (1–4)
(Range 1–31)
2(1–2)
Range (1–23)
1(1–2)
Range (1–16)
a
Not assessed; presumed biomedical due to source
b
Number of journals providing this information: Predatory, n= 86; Open Access, n= 94; Subscription, n=99
Shamseer et al. BMC Medicine (2017) 15:28 Page 4 of 14
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 2 Journal name and publisher
Predatory,
N= 93, n(%)
Open Access,
N= 99, n(%)
Subscription-based,
N= 100, n(%)
Journal name similar to another
journal
Yes 51 (54.84) 17 (17.17) 22 (22.00)
Journal URL reflects journal name Yes 84 (90.32) 95 (95.96) 94 (93.49)
Journal name represents aims
and scope
Yes 82 (88.17) 96 (96.97) 95 (95.00)
No 7 (7.53) 2 (2.02) 1 (1.00)
Aims/scope not stated 4 (4.30) 1 (1.01) 4 (4.00)
Publisher name indicated Yes 49 (52.69) 99 (100.00) 98 (98.00)
No 44 (47.31) 0 (0) 2 (2.00)
Publisher name
a
Top 5 listed (n) Laxmi Book Publications (2)
All other publishers publish
a single journal
BioMed Central (27)
Hindawi (14)
Medknow (6)
Libertas Academica
(4)
PLOS and
OceanSide Publications
(3 each)
Elsevier (29)
Lippincott Williams
& Wilkins (14)
BMJ (6)
Wiley (6)
Oxford University Press (6)
Publisher URL provided
b
Yes 16/49 (32.65) 86/99 (86.87) 97/98 (98.98)
No, found using Google 11/33 (33.33) 6/13 (46.15) 0/1 (0.00)
No, not found on Google 22/33 (66.67) 7/13 (53.87) 1/1 (100.00)
Publisher/owner listed
as Editor-in-Chief
c
Yes 6/37 (16.22) 1/82 (1.22) 0/89 (0)
No 23/37 (62.16) 81/82 (98.78) 89/89 (100)
Cannot tell 8/37 (21.62) 0/82 (0) 0/89 (0)
a
Data presented for journals where publisher was identified
b
Denominator of fractions indicates the number of journals where the variable concerned was relevant
c
Denominator is the number journals where both publisher and Editor-in-Chief names were provided
Table 3 Location and contact information
Predatory,
N= 93, n(%)
Open Access,
N= 99, n(%)
Subscription-based,
N= 100, n(%)
Country name in journal title differs from country listed in ‘contact us’
a
Yes 11/21 (52.38) 4/13 (30.77) 1/31 (3.23)
Country named in contact address
b
Top 5 listed (n)
e
India (40)
UK (5)
USA (4)
Romania (3)
Bulgaria (2)
UK (34)
South Korea (9)
Iran (5)
New Zealand (4)
Germany (3)
USA (66)
UK (16)
Australia (1)
Canada (1)
New Zealand (1)
Addresses in low/low- to middle-income countries
f
48/64 (75.00%) 18/92 (19.56%) 0/83 (0.00%)
‘Contact us’mechanism Email address 90 (96.77) 91 (91.92) 87 (87.00)
Fillable web form 42 (45.16) 22 (22.22) 25 (25.00)
No contact apparent 1 (1.08) 1 (1.01) 7 (7.00)
Non-professional email address provided (e.g., Yahoo, Google, AOL)
c
Yes 57/90 (63.33) 9/91 (9.89) 5/87 (5.75)
Email address provided for Editor-in-Chief
d
Yes 39/71 (54.93) 23/82 (28.05) 29/91 (31.87)
a
Denominator of fraction represents number of journals naming a country in the title
b
More than one country named by some journals
c
Denominator of fractions indicates the number of journals where the variable concerned was relevant
d
Denominator of fractions indicates the number of journals where an Editor-in-Chief was listed
e
Number of journals providing this information: Predatory, n= 64; Open access n= 92; Subscription, n=83
f
Categorized using 2014 World Bank Data: http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-and-lending-groups
Shamseer et al. BMC Medicine (2017) 15:28 Page 5 of 14
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
such as Google, MEDLINE, COPE, Crossref ) in preda-
tory journals (n = 59, 63.44%) versus in open access (n=
5, 5.05%) and subscription-based journals (n= 1, 1%).
Readers were the main target of language used on
subscription-based journal webpages (n= 58, 58%) but
less so in open access (n= 14, 14.14%) and predatory
(n= 3, 3.23%) journals, where authors (predatory jour-
nals) or both authors and readers (open access jour-
nals)weretheprimarytarget.
Metrics and indexing
Most subscription-based journals indicated having a
journal impact factor (assumed 2-year Thomson Reuters
JIF unless otherwise indicated) (n= 80, median 4.275
(IQR 2.469–6.239)) compared to less than half of open
access journals (n= 38, 1.750 (1.330–2.853)) and fewer
predatory journals (n= 21, 2.958 (0.500–3.742)) (Table 5).
More than half of predatory journals (n= 54, 58.06%)
and subscription-based journals (n= 62, 62%) mentioned
Table 4 Homepage integrity (look and feel)
Predatory, N= 93, n(%) Open Access, N= 99, n(%) Subscription-based, N= 100, n(%)
Presence of spelling and grammatical errors Yes 61 (65.59) 6 (6.06) 3 (3.00)
Colloquialisms/slang used Yes 2 (2.15) 1 (1.01) 0 (0)
Presence of distorted/unauthorized images Yes 59 (63.44) 5 (5.05) 1 (1.00)
Type of user targeted by homepage language Readers 3 (3.23) 14 (14.14) 58 (58.00)
Authors 46 (49.46) 13 (13.13) 2 (2.00)
Both 28 (30.11) 51 (51.51) 26 (26.00)
Cannot tell 16 (17.20) 21 (21.21) 14 (14.00)
Table 5 Indexing and impact factor
Predatory,
N= 93, n(%)
Open Access,
N= 99, n(%)
Subscription-based,
N= 100, n(%)
Indicate having Thomson ISI
‘Journal Impact Factor’(JIF)
Yes 21 (22.58) 38 (38.38) 80 (80.00)
If yes, median JIF (IQR)
a
2.958 (0.500–3.742) 1.750 (1.330–2.853) 4.275 (2.469–6.239)
Other journal-level
metric indicated
Yes 54 (58.06) 16 (16.16) 62 (62.00)
Number of other metrics,
median (IQR)
2(1–2) 1 (1–2) 1 (1–2)
Other metric Top 5 listed (n) Index Copernicus Value (31)
Global Impact Factor (9)
Scientific Journal Impact
Factor (9)
Scientific Journal Rankings/
SciMago/Scopus (7)
Total citations (7)
Scientific Journal Rankings/
SciMago/Scopus (6)
Total citations (5)
Index Copernicus Value (3)
h-index (2)
5-year impact factor (2)
5-year impact factor (27)
Overall ranking (15)
Scientific Journal Rankings/
SciMago/Scopus (8)
Source Normalized Impact
Factor (8)
Eigenfactor (7)
Databases indexed/listed PubMed
MEDLINE
CINAHL
EMBASE
PsycInfo
Google Scholar
Other
6 (6.65)
2 (2.15)
0 (0)
14 (15.05)
0 (0)
47 (50.54)
83 (89.25)
85 (85.86)
21 (21.21)
4 (4.04)
42 (42.42)
7 (7.07)
59 (59.60)
94 (94.95)
17 (17.00)
39 (39.00)
15 (15.00)
32 (32.00)
6 (6.00)
1 (1.00)
55 (55.00)
DOAJ mentioned (indexed
or applying for indexing)
Yes 48 (51.61) 65 (65.65) 1 (1.00)
ISSN found/identified Yes 91 (97.85) 95 (95.96) 72 (72.00)
Editorial organizations
mentioned
ICMJE
WAME
CSE
EASE
OASPA
Other
b
None
16 (17.2)
4 (4.30)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (2.15)
70 (75.27)
79 (79.8)
8 (8.08)
2 (2.02)
2 (2.02)
6 (6.06)
7 (7.07)
10 (10.10)
74 (74.00)
14 (14.00)
2 (2.00)
0 (0)
1 (1.00)
3 (3.00)
20 (20.00)
ICMJE International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, WAME World Association of Medical Editors, CSE Council of Science Editors, EASE European Association of Science Editors
a
Number of journals providing this information: Predatory, n= 21; Open Access, n= 37; Subscription, n=80
b
Other: Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, Council of Biology editors, European Medical Writers Association, Higher Attestation
Commission of the Russian Ministry of Education and Science, International Association of Scientific, Technical, & Medical Publishers, Korean Association of
Medical Journal Editors, OAIster - The Open Access Initiative
Shamseer et al. BMC Medicine (2017) 15:28 Page 6 of 14
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
another journal-level metric, compared to only 16
(16.16%) open access journals. A metric called the Index
Copernicus Value was the most common other metric
mentioned in 31 predatory journals (33.33%) and in
three open access journals (3.03%), followed by the 5-
year impact factor (Thomson Reuters) mentioned in two
open access journals (2.02%) and 27 subscription-based
journals (27.00%), followed by the Scientific Journal
Rankings (i.e., SCImago Journal Rank by Scopus)
mentioned in seven predatory, six open access, and eight
subscription-based journals. The top databases in which
journals indicated being indexed were Google Scholar
for predatory journals (n= 47, 50.54%), PubMed for
open access journals (n= 85, 85.86%), and MEDLINE for
subscription-based journals (n= 39, 39%). About half of
predatory journals (n= 48, 51.61%) and 65 (65.65%) open
access journals mention DOAJ (indexed in or applied for
indexing). International Committee of Medical Journal
Table 6 Editors and staff
Predatory,
N= 93, n(%)
Open Access,
N= 99, n(%)
Subscription-based,
N= 100, n(%)
Named Editor-in-Chief Yes 71 (76.34) 82 (82.83) 91 (91.00)
Formal editorial board named Yes 60 (64.52) 92 (92.93) 72 (72.00)
If yes, number of members (median, IQR) 23 (14–37) 32.5 (22–50) 27.5 (16.5–62)
Composition of journal staff Managing/handling editor 22 (23.66) 18 (18.18) 41 (41.00)
Associate editor 30 (32.26) 47 (47.47) 68 (68.00)
Academic editor 0 (0) 0 (0) 1(1.00)
Statistical editor 2 (2.15) 4 (4.04) 20 (20.00)
Editorial staff 8 (8.60) 7 (7.07) 19 (19.00)
Other
a
43 (46.24) 45 (45.45) 75 (75.00)
None of the above 26 (27.96) 24 (24.24) 3 (3.00)
Validity check
b,c
Legitimate 24/90 (26.67) 95/98 (96.94) 97/97 (100.00)
False/made up 41/90 (45.56) 2/98 (2.04) 1/97 (1.03)
Used without permission 66/90 (73.33) 2/98 (2.04) 1/97 (1.03)
Institutional affiliation indicated
c
Editor-in-Chief 40/71 (56.33) 71/82 (86.59) 57/91 (62.64)
Editors/staff 42/67 (62.69) 56/75 (74.67) 48/97 (49.48)
Editorial board members 48/60 (80.00) 81/92 (88.04) 31/72 (43.06)
a
163 different terms were described, e.g., Editorial office, co-editors, editor(s), deputy editors, acting editor, acting deputy editor, assistant managing editor
b
Assessors were asked to perform a Google search of the Editor-in-Chief and two other randomly selected editors/staff/board members along with their affiliation
(if provided) and make a subjective assessment of whether the names appear to be legitimate, false/made up, used without permission. Assessments were based
on searches through online profiles (i.e., LinkedIn, faculty bio, etc.) for mention of journal affiliation; categories not distinct since judgments based on
multiple editors
c
Denominator of fractions indicates the number of journals where the variable concerned was relevant
Table 7 Editorial process and peer review
Predatory,
N= 93, n(%)
Open Access,
N= 99, n(%)
Subscription-based,
N= 100, n(%)
Stated manuscript handling process Yes 53 (56.99) 90 (90.91) 86 (86.00)
Submission system Third party 2 (2.15) 26 (26.26) 75 (75.00)
Journal-specific system 47 (50.54) 70 (70.71) 21 (21.00)
Emailed to journal 65 (69.89) 2 (2.02) 3 (3.00)
Other
a
2 (2.15) 5 (5.05) 0 (0)
Not found 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (3.00)
States using peer review Yes 89 (95.70) 99 (100) 92 (92.00)
Indicated processing time ‘Rapid’publication 38 (40.86) 16 (16.16) 9 (9.00)
<1 week peer review turnaround 17 (18.28) 3 (3.03) 1 (1.00)
Expedited peer review 9 (9.68) 4 (4.04) 7 (7.00)
Not indicated 47 (50.54) 84 (84.85) 85 (85.00)
a
Other: mailed to journal, publisher-specific system
Shamseer et al. BMC Medicine (2017) 15:28 Page 7 of 14
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Editors (ICMJE) was mentioned in some capacity in 16
predatory journals and about three quarters of non-
predatory journals.
Editors and editorial process
Nearly a quarter (n= 22, 23.66%) of predatory journals, 17
(17.17%) open access journals, and 9 (9%) subscription-
based journals did not name an editor-in-chief (EIC)
(Table 6). Of those that did, 40 (56.33%) predatory, 71
(86.59%) open access, and 57 (62.64%) subscription-based
journals provided an institutional affiliation for the named
EIC. An editorial board listing individual members was pro-
vided in 60 (64.52%) predatory journals, 92 (92.93%) open
access journals, and 72 (72%) subscription-based journals,
each comprising a median of 23 (IQR 14–37), 32.5 (22–50),
and 27.5 (16.5–62) board members, respectively. If editors,
journal staff, or editorial board members were identified,
we completed a subjective assessment of the validity of
three arbitrary names and the likelihood of their association
with the journal by performing a Google search of their
name (in quotations) and searching any online profiles for
affiliation with the journal. Details of this assessment can be
found in Table 6. For journals with names of editors, staff,
or board members available, 100% of names checked in
subscription-based journals were found to be legitimate as
well as in 95/98 (96.94%) open access journals. Only 24/90
(26.67%) named editors, staff, or board members were
assessed as having a legitimate association with the journal
among predatory journals. Almost 100% of non-predatory
journals appear to use a manuscript submission system,
whereas just over half of predatory journals use such a sys-
tem; almost 70% of predatory journals request that authors
send their manuscripts by email and 63% of those journals
provide what appears to be a non-professional (e.g., Gmail,
Yahoo) email address to do so. Almost all journals (95%
predatory journals, 100% open access journals, 92% of
subscription-based journals) indicate using peer review dur-
ing publication consideration (Table 7).
Publication ethics and policies
We examined journals’promotion and practices
around publications ethics (Table 8). About three
quarters (n= 77, 77.78%) of open access journals and
about a third (n= 33, 33.00%) of subscription-based
journals mentioned COPE somewhere on their web-
site whereas only 13 predatory journals (13.98%) did.
Few predatory journals had policies about retractions
(n= 12, 12.90%), corrections/errata (n= 22, 23.66%), or
plagiarism (n= 44, 47.31%) whereas more than half of
all non-predatory journals had available policies for
Table 8 Publication ethics and policies
Predatory,
N= 93, n(%)
Open Access,
N= 99, n(%)
Subscription-based,
N= 100, n(%)
COPE mentioned Yes 13 (13.98) 77 (77.78) 33 (33.00)
Publication ethics technologies: ORCID 2 (2.15) 9 (90.91) 3 (3.00)
Crossref 10 (10.75) 23 (23.23) 7 (7.00)
Crossmark 0 (0) 1 (1.01) 2 (2.00)
Crosscheck/iThenticate 1 (1.08) 57 (57.58) 16 (16.00)
none 81 (87.10) 40 (40.40) 77 (77.00)
Retraction policy Yes 12 (12.90) 44 (44.44) 68 (68.00)
Corrections or errata policy Yes 22 (23.66) 50 (50.51) 50 (50.00)
Plagiarism policy Yes 44 (47.31) 70 (70.71) 49 (49.00)
Instructions to authors available Yes 90 (96.77) 98 (98.99) 97 (97.00)
If yes, manuscript preparation guidance
a
Yes 86/90 (95.56) 98/98 (100) 97/97 (100.00)
If yes, reporting guideline(s) mentioned
a
EQUATOR 0/90 (0.00) 25/98 (25.25) 24/97 (24.00)
CONSORT 4/90 (4.44) 37/98 (37.76) 57/97 (58.76)
PRISMA 1/90 (1.11) 26/98 (26.53) 32/97 (32.99)
STROBE 1/90 (1.11) 27/98 (27.55) 23/97 (23.71)
STARD 1/90 (1.11) 29/98 (29.59) 22/97 (22.68)
Other
b
2/90 (2.22) 30/98 (30.61) 27/97
None 85/90 (91.40) 54/98 (54.55) 35/97 (35.00)
Study registration required Yes 6 (6.45) 56 (56.57) 62 (62.00)
ORCID Open Researcher and Contributor ID
a
Denominator of fractions indicates the number of journals where the variable concerned was relevant
b
21 other reporting guidelines mentioned, including ARRIVE, CARE, CHEERS, COREQ, ENTREQ, HuGENet, MIAME, MIBBI, MOOSE, QUOROM, ORION, PRISMA-P, RATS,
REDHOT, REFLECT, SPIRIT, SQUIRE, STREGA, TREND, TRIPOD, a custom journal checklist
Shamseer et al. BMC Medicine (2017) 15:28 Page 8 of 14
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
all three (retractions: n= 112, 56.28%; corrections/er-
rata: n= 100, 50.25%; plagiarism: n= 199, 59.80%).
Sixty-two subscription-based (62%), 56 open access
(56.57%), and only 6 predatory (6.45%) journals
suggested, recommended or required study registra-
tion. No predatory journals mentioned the Enhan-
cing the Quality and Transparency of health
Research (EQUATOR) Network, whereas about a
quarter (49/195) of presumed legitimate journals did
so.
Publication model, fees, and copyright
We assessed whether journals made any indication
about accessibility, fees, and copyright (Table 9). Forty-
Table 9 Publication model and copyright
Predatory,
N= 93, n(%)
Open Access,
N= 99, n(%)
Subscription-based,
N= 100, n(%)
Mentions digital preservation of content Yes 6 (6.45) 46 (46.46) 30 (30.00)
Claims to be Open Access Yes 83 (89.25) 94 (94.95) 0 (0)
No 10 (10.75) 5 (5.05) 39 (39.00)
Partial (some content) 0 0 42 (42.00)
Number of apparent revenue sources None apparent 14 (15.05) 8 (8.08) 2 (2.00)
1 62 (66.67) 52 (50.51) 17 (17.00)
2 16 (17.20) 27 (27.27) 40 (40.00)
3 1 (1.08) 7 (7.07) 27 (27.00)
4 0 (0) 5 (5.05) 14 (14.00)
Type of revenue source Article processing charge 73 (78.49) 74 (74.75) 60 (60.00)
Submission fee 0 (0) 2 (2.02) 3 (3.00)
Subscription fee 13 (13.98) 26 (28.28) 95 (95.00)
Reprints 5 (5.38) 28 (28.28) 42 (42.00)
Advertisements 3 (3.23) 10 (11.11) 27 (26.00)
Cannot tell 15 (16.13) 8 (8.08) 4 (4.00)
Other
a
3 (3.23) 7 (7.07) 7 (7.00)
APC (USD 04/2015) Total indicating
b
59/73 (80.82) 70/74 (94.59) 44/60 (73.33)
Amount (Median [IQR])
c
100 (63–150) 1866 (800–2205) 3000 (2500–3000)
Not stated/found 11 (15.07) 0 (0) 8 (13.11)
Difficult to find 13 (17.81) 2(2.78) 12 (19.67)
Copyright retention Total indicating 75 (80.65) 94 (94.95) 87 (87.00)
Author retains 9 (12.00) 64 (68.09) 32 (36.78)
Journal/publisher retains 66 (88.00) 28 (29.79) 54 (62.07)
Other 0 (0) 2 (2.02) 1 (1.00)
Not found/reported 18 (19.35) 5 (5.05) 13 (13.00)
Creative Commons mentioned Total indicating 22 (23.66) 89 (89.90) 43 (43.00)
Attribution (CC BY) 12/22 (54.55) 62/89 (69.66) 21/43 (48.84)
Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) 0/22 (0) 1/89 (1.12) 0/43 (0)
Attribution-NoDerivs (CC BY-ND) 0/22 (0) 1/89 (1.12) 0/43 (0)
Attribution-Non-Commercial (CC BY-NC) 2/22 (9.09) 19/89 (21.35) 17/43 (39.53)
Attribution-Non-Commercial-ShareAlike
(CC BY-NC-SA)
4/22 (18.18) 7/89 (7.87) 6/43 (13.95)
Attribution-Non-Commercial-NoDerivs
(CC BY-NC-ND)
3/22 (13.64) 2/89 (2.25) 30/43 (69.77)
No specific license indicated 1/22 (4.55) 0 (0) 0 (0)
a
Other: per page fee, per author fee, per colour figure fee, and other one-time publication fee
b
Denominator of fractions indicates the number of journals where an article processing charge (APC) was specifically identified
c
Data presented for journals indicating an APC
Shamseer et al. BMC Medicine (2017) 15:28 Page 9 of 14
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
two (42.00%) subscription-based journals indicated being
partially open access in some capacity (e.g., hybrid or de-
layed access), with the remainder not mentioning open
access. Almost all (n= 95, 95.00%) subscription-based
journals indicated that there was a subscription charge.
Eighty-three potential predatory (89.25%) and 94 open
access (94.95%) journals claimed to be open access (pre-
sumed to be full, immediate open access as no qualifica-
tion regarding partial or delayed access was stated). For
the five (5.05%) open access journals that did not specif-
ically indicate being open access, all had content that
was free to access (we did not investigate this further).
Subscription-based journals and open access journals
seemed to collect revenue from a range of sources
(Table 9), while predatory journals appeared to mainly
collect revenues from APCs (n= 73, 78.49%) and to a
lesser extent, subscription fees (n=13, 13.98); in 14 preda-
tory journals (15.05%), no sources of revenue (including
an APC) could be found. Of journals listing an APC, the
median fee (USD) was $100 ($63–$150) in predatory jour-
nals (n= 59), $1866 ($800–$2205) in open access journals
(n= 70), and $3000 ($2500–$3000) in subscription-based
hybrid journals (n= 44). Almost 90% of all journals indi-
cated which party retained copyright of published work.
Explicit statements that authors retained copyright were
present in 68.09% (n= 64) of open access journals, 36.78%
(n2 = 32) of the time in subscription-based journals, and
in only 12% (n= 9) of predatory journals.
Discussion
This study demonstrates that our sample of potential
predatory journals is distinct in some key areas from
presumed legitimate journals and provides evidence of
how they differ. While criteria have been proposed
previously to characterize potential predatory journals
[7], measuring each journal against a long list of cri-
teria is not practical for the average researcher. It can
be time consuming and some criteria are not straight-
forward to apply, as we have learned during this
study. For instance, whether or not the listed editors
of a journal are real people or have real affiliations
withajournalisquitesubjectivetoassess.Another
example pertains to preservation and permanent
access to electronic journal content. We found that
not all presumed legitimate journals made explicit
statements about this; however, we know that in
order to be indexed in MEDLINE, a journal must
“Have an acceptable arrangement for permanent
preservation of, and access to, the content”[17].
From our findings, we have developed a list of
evidence-based, salient features of suspected predatory
journals (Table 10) that are straightforward to assess; we
describe them further below. We recognize that these
criteria are likely not sensitive enough to detect all
potentially illegitimate, predatory journals. However, we
feel they are a good starting point.
Non-biomedical scope of interest
We found that predatory journals tend to indicate interest
in publishing research that was both biomedical and non-
biomedical (e.g., agriculture, geography, astrophysics)
within their remit, presumably to avoid limiting submis-
sions and increase potential revenues. While legitimate
journals may do this periodically (we did not assess the
scope of presumed legitimate biomedical journals), the
topics usually have some relationship between them and
represent a subgroup of a larger medical specialty (e.g.,
Law and Medicine). Authors should examine the scope
and content (e.g., actual research) of the journals they in-
tend to publish in to determine whether it is in line with
what they plan to publish.
Spelling and grammar
The home page of a journal’s website may be a good initial
indicator of their legitimacy. We found several homepage
indicators that may be helpful in assessing a journal’s legit-
imacy and quality. The homepages of potential predatory
journals’websites contained at least 10 times more spell-
ing and grammar errors than presumed legitimate jour-
nals. Such errors may be an artefact of foreign language
translation into English, as the majority of predatory jour-
nals were based in countries where a non-English lan-
guage is dominant. Further, legitimate publishers and
journals may be more careful about such errors to main-
tain professionalism and a good reputation.
Fuzzy, distorted, or potentially unauthorized image
Potential predatory journals appeared to have images
that were low-resolution (e.g., fuzzy around the edges)
or distorted ‘knock-off’versions of legitimate logos or
images.
Language directed at authors
Another homepage check authors can do is to examine
the actual written text to gauge the intended audience.
We found that presumed legitimate journals appear to tar-
get readers with their language and content (e.g.,
highlighting new content), whereas potential predatory
journals seem to target prospective authors by inviting
submissions, promising rapid publication, and promoting
different metrics (including the Index Copernicus Value).
Manuscript submission and editorial process/policies
Authors should be able to find information about what
happens to their article after it is submitted. Potential
predatory journals do not seem to provide much infor-
mation about their operations compared to presumed le-
gitimate journals. Furthermore, most potential predatory
Shamseer et al. BMC Medicine (2017) 15:28 Page 10 of 14
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
journals request that articles be submitted via email ra-
ther than a submission system (e.g., Editorial Manager,
Scholar One), as presumed legitimate journals do. Typic-
ally, journals have requirements that must be met or
checked by authors or the journal during submission
(e.g., declaration of conflicts of interest, agreement that
the manuscript adheres to authorship standards and
other journal policies, plagiarism detection). When a
manuscript is submitted via email, these checks are not
automatic and may not ever occur. Authors should be
cautious of publishing in journals that only take submis-
sions via email and that do not appear to check manu-
scripts against journal policies as such journals are likely
of low quality. In addition, the email address provided
by a journal seems to be a good indicator of its legitim-
acy. Predatory journals seem to provide non-professional
or non-academic email addresses such as from providers
with non-secured servers like Gmail or Yahoo.
Very low APC and inappropriate copyright
Finally, authors should be cautious when the listed APC
of a biomedical journal is under $150 USD. This is very
low in comparison to presumed legitimate, fully open
access biomedical journals for which the median APC is
at least 18 times more. Hybrid subscription journals
charge 30 times the amount of potential predatory jour-
nals to publish and make research openly accessible. It
has been suggested that hybrid journals charge a higher
fee in order to maintain their ‘prestige’(e.g., journals can
be more selective about their content based on who is
willing to pay the high fee) [18]. On the contrary, ex-
tremely low APCs may simply be a way for potential
predatory journals to attract as many submissions as
possible in order to generate revenue and presumably to
build their content and reputation. Evidently, the APC
varies widely across journals, perhaps more than any
other characteristic we measured. Journal APCs are con-
stantly evolving and increasing requirements by funders
to make research open access may have a drastic impact
on APCs as we know them over the coming years.
Researchers should be trained on author responsibil-
ities, including how to make decision about where to
publish their research. Ideally, authors should start with
a validated or ‘white’list of acceptable journals. In
addition to considering the items listed in Table 10 in
their decision-making, tools to guide authors through
the journal selection process have started to emerge,
such as ThinkCheckSubmit (http://thinkchecksubmit.org/).
Recently, COPE, OASPA, DOAJ, and WAME produced
principles of transparency against which, among other mea-
sures, DOAJ assesses journals in part, before they can be
listed in the database (https://doaj.org/bestpractice). We also
encourage researchers to examine all journals for quality
and legitimacy using the characteristics in Table 10 when
making a decision on where to submit their research. As the
journal landscape changes, it is no longer sufficient for au-
thors to make assumptions about the quality of journals
based on arbitrary measures, such as perceived reputation,
impact factor, or other metrics, particularly in an era where
bogus metrics abound or legitimate ones are being imitated.
This study examined most of Beall’s criteria for identi-
fication of predatory publishers and journals together
with items from the COPE and OASPA. While many of
the characteristics we examined were useful to distin-
guish predatory journals from presumed legitimate jour-
nals, there were many that do not apply or that are not
unique to predatory journals. For instance, defining cri-
teria of predatory journals [4] suggest that no single in-
dividual is named as an editor and that such journals do
not list an editorial board. We found that this was not
the case in over two thirds of predatory journals and, in
fact, a named EIC could not be identified for 26
(13.07%) of the presumed legitimate journals in our sam-
ple. Such non evidence-based criteria for defining jour-
nals may introduce confusion rather than clarity and
distinction.
The existing designation of journals and publishers as
predatory may be confusing for other reasons. For in-
stance, more than one presumed-legitimate publisher
has appeared on Beall’s list [19]. In October 2015, Fron-
tiers Media, a well-known Lausanne-based open access
publisher, appeared on Beall’s List [20]. Small, new, or
under-resourced journals may appear to have the look
and feel of a potential predatory journal because they do
not have affiliations with large publishers or technologies
(e.g., manuscript submission systems) or mature systems
Table 10 Salient characteristics of potential predatory journals
1. The scope of interest includes non-biomedical subjects
alongside biomedical topics
2. The website contains spelling and grammar errors
3. Images are distorted/fuzzy, intended to look like
something they are not, or which are unauthorized
4. The homepage language targets authors
5. The Index Copernicus Value is promoted on the website
6. Description of the manuscript handling process is lacking
7. Manuscripts are requested to be submitted via email
8. Rapid publication is promised
9. There is no retraction policy
10. Information on whether and how journal content will
be digitally preserved is absent
11. The Article processing/publication charge is very low
(e.g., < $150 USD)
12. Journals claiming to be open access either retain
copyright of published research or fail to mention copyright
13. The contact email address is non-professional and non-journal
affiliated (e.g., @gmail.com or @yahoo.com)
Shamseer et al. BMC Medicine (2017) 15:28 Page 11 of 14
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
and the features of a legitimate journal. This is in line
with our findings that journals from low-resourced
(LMIC) countries were more often in the potentially
predatory group of journals than either of the
presumed-legitimate journal arms. However, this does
not imply that they are necessarily predatory journals.
Another limitation is that the majority of the open ac-
cess biomedical journals in our sample (95%) charged an
APC, while generally many open access journals do not.
May 2015 was the last time that the DOAJ provided
complete information regarding APCs of journals that it
indexes (fully open access, excluding delayed or partial
open access). At that time, approximately 32% of jour-
nals charged an APC. At the time of writing this article,
approximately 40% of medical journals in DOAJ appear
to charge an APC. However, these figures do not ac-
count for the hybrid-subscription journals that have
made accommodations in response to open access, many
of which are included in our sample of subscription-
based journals. For such journals, our data and that of
others [21] show that their fees appear to be substan-
tially higher than either potential predatory or fully open
access journals.
In context of other research
To the best of our knowledge this is the first compara-
tive study of predatory journal publishing and legitimate
publishing models aimed at determining how they are
different and similar. Previously, Shen and Björk [22] ex-
amined a sample of about 5% of journals listed on Beall’s
List for a number of characteristics, including three that
overlap with items for which we collected data: APC,
country of publisher, and rapidity of (submission to)
publishing [22]. In a large part, for the characteristics ex-
amined, our findings within the predatory journal group
are very similar. For example, Shen and Björk [22] found
the average APC for single publisher journals to be $98
USD, which is very similar to our results ($100 USD).
They also found that 42% of single predatory journal
publishers were located in India, whereas our estimates
were closer to 62%. Differences between their study and
ours may exist because we focused on biomedical
journals while they included all subject areas.
Limitations
It was not possible to fully blind assessors to study
groups since, given the expertise of team members, a
minimum knowledge of non-predatory publishers was
expected. In addition, we could only include items that
could be assessed superficially rather than those requir-
ing in-depth investigations for each journal. Many items
can and should be investigated further.
Since some characteristics are likely purposely similar
between journals (e.g., journals from all groups claim to
be open access and indicate carrying out peer review)
[14], and it was difficult to anticipate which, we did not
carry out a logistic regression to determine whether
characteristics were likely to be associated with preda-
tory or presumed legitimate journals.
Conclusions
This research initiates the evidence-base illuminating the
difference between major publishing models and, moreover,
unique characteristics of potential predatory (or illegitimate)
journals (Table 10).
The possibility that some journals are predatory is
problematic for many stakeholders involved in research
publication. Most researchers are not formally trained
on publication skills and ethics, and as such may not be
able to discern whether a journal is running legitimate
operations or not. For early career researchers or for
those who are unaware of the existence or characteristics
of predatory journals, they can be difficult to distinguish
from legitimate journals. However, this study indicates
that predatory journals are offering at least 18-fold lower
APCs than non-predatory journals, which may be at-
tractive to uninformed authors and those with limited
fiscal resources. Assuming that each journal publishes
100 articles annually, the revenues across all predatory
journals would amount to at least a $USD 100 million
dollar enterprise. This is a substantial amount of money
being forfeited by authors, and potentially by funders
and institutions, for publications that have not received
legitimate professional editorial and publishing services,
including indexing in databases.
Established researchers should beware of predatory
journals as well. There are numerous anecdotes about
researchers (even deceased researchers [23]) who have
been put on a journal’s editorial board or named as an
editor, who did not wish to be and who were unable to
get their names delisted [24]. Aside from this potentially
compromising the reputation of an individual that finds
him or herself on the board, their affiliation with a po-
tential predatory journal may confer legitimacy to the
journal that is not deserved and that has the potential to
confuse a naïve reader or author. As our findings indi-
cate, this phenomenon appears to be a clear feature of
predatory journals.
In addition to the costs and potential fiscal waste on
publication in predatory journals, these journals do not
appear to be indexed in appropriate databases to enable
future researchers and other readers to consistently
identify and access the research published within them.
The majority of predatory journals indicated being
‘indexed’in Google Scholar, which is not an indexing
database. Google does not search pre-selected journals
(as is the case with databases such as Medline, Web of
Science, and Scopus), rather it searches the Internet for
Shamseer et al. BMC Medicine (2017) 15:28 Page 12 of 14
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
scholarly content. Some potentially predatory journals
indicate being indexed in well-known biomedical data-
bases; however, we have not verified the truthfulness of
these claims by checking the databases. Nonetheless, if
legitimate clinical research is being published in predatory
journals and cannot be discovered, this is wasteful [25], in
particular when it may impact systematic reviews. Equally,
if non-peer reviewed, low quality research in predatory
journals is discovered and included in a systematic review,
it may pollute the scientific record. In biomedicine, this
may have detrimental outcomes on patient care.
Future research
What is contained (i.e., ‘published’) within potential preda-
tory journals is still unclear. To date, there has not been a
large-scale evaluation of the content of predatory journals to
determine whether research is being published, what types
of studies predominate, and whether or not data (if any) are
legitimate. In addition, we have little understanding of who
is publishing in predatory journals (i.e., experience of author,
geographic location, etc.) and why. Presumably, the low
APC is an attractive feature; however, whether or not au-
thors are intentionally or unintentionally publishing within
these journals is critical to understanding the publishing
landscape and anticipate future potential directions and
considerations.
The findings presented here can facilitate education
on how to differentiate between presumed legitimate
journals and potential predatory journals.
Abbreviations
AIM: Abridged Index Medicus; APC: article processing charge;
CONSORT: CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials; COPE: Committee On
Publication Ethics; DOAJ: Directory Of Open Access Journals; EIC: editor-in-chief;
EQUATOR: Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of health Research;
ISSN: international standard serial number; JIF: journal impact factor; LMIC: low-
or middle-income country; OASPA: Open Access Scholarly Publishers
Association; PLOS: Public Library Of Science; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items
for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses; STARD: STAndards for Reporting
Diagnostic accuracy; STROBE: STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational
studies in Epidemiology; USD: United States Dollar
Funding
No funding was received for this project.
Availability of data and materials
The screening and data extraction forms used, and the data generated, in
this study are available from the authors on request.
Authors’contributions
DM and LS conceived of this project and drafted the protocol, with revisions
by VB. RB, JC, JG, OM, DM, JR, LS, BJS, and LT were involved in the conduct
of this project. LS and LT performed analysis of data. LS drafted the
manuscript. All authors provided feedback on this manuscript and approved
the final version for publication.
Competing interests
VB is the Chair of COPE and the Executive Director of the Australasian Open
Access Strategy Group.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Transparency declaration
David Moher affirms that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and
transparent account of the study being reported, that no important aspects
of the study have been omitted, and that any discrepancies from the study
as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.
Author details
1
Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital
Research Institute, Ottawa K1H 8L6, Canada.
2
School of Epidemiology, Public
Health and Preventative Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa K1H 8M5,
Canada.
3
School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen’s
University Belfast, Belfast BT9 7BL, UK.
4
Clinical Epidemiology Program,
Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa K1H 8L6, Canada.
5
Office of
Research Ethics and Integrity, Queensland University of Technology (QUT),
Brisbane QLD 4000, Australia.
6
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard
Medical School, Boston 02115, USA.
7
icddr,b, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh.
8
Origin Editorial, Plymouth, MA 02360, USA.
9
Knowledge Synthesis Group,
Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa
K1H 8L6, Canada.
Received: 11 November 2016 Accepted: 9 January 2017
References
1. Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing. http://legacy.earlham.
edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm. Accessed 31 Mar 2016.
2. Morrison H, Salhab J, Calve-Genest A, Horava T. Open access article
processing charges: DOAJ survey May 2014. Publications. 2015;3:1–16.
3. Crotty D. Is it True that Most Open Access Journals Do Not Charge an APC?
Sort of. It Depends. The Scholarly Kitchen on WordPress.com. The Scholarly
Kitchen. 2015. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/08/26/do-most-oa-
journals-not-charge-an-apc-sort-of-it-depends/. 4 Apr 2016.
4. Beall J. Beall’s List: Potential, Possible, or Probable Predatory Scholarly Open-Access
Publishers. 2015. http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/. Accessed 7 Jan 2016.
5. Beall J. Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers. 1st ed.
2012. http://wp.me/p280Ch-g5. Accessed 1 Apr 2014.
6. Beall J. Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers. 2nd ed.
2012. http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/11/30/criteria-for-determining-predatory-
open-access-publishers-2nd-edition/. Accessed 5 July 2016.
7. Beall J. Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers. 3rd ed.
2015. https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/criteria-2015.pdf.
Accessed 1 July 2016.
8. Dadkhah M, Bianciardi G. Ranking predatory journals: solve the problem
instead of removing it! Adv Pharm Bull. 2016;6(1):1–4.
9. Glick M, Springer MD, Bohannon J, Bohannon J, Shen C, Björk B-C. Publish
and perish. J Am Dent Assoc Elsevier. 2016;147(6):385–7.
10. Clark J, Smith R. Firm action needed on predatory journals. BMJ. 2015;
350(jan16_1):h210.
11. Caplan AL, Bohannon J, Beall J, Sarwar U, Nicolaou M, Balon R, et al. The
problem of publication-pollution denialism. Mayo Clin Proc. 2015;90(5):565–6.
12. Eisen M. Door-to-Door Subscription Scams: The Dark Side of The New York
Times. It is NOT Junk. 2013. http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1354.
Accessed 22 Jun 2016
13. Moher D, Srivastava A. You are invited to submit…. BMC Med. 2015;13:180.
14. Bohannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review. Science. 2013;342:60–5.
15. Fact SheetMEDLINE® Journal Selection. U.S. National Library of Medicine.
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/jsel.html. Accessed Apr 2014.
16. Selection C. Abridged Index Medicus. N Engl J Med. 1970;282(4):220–1.
17. U.S. National Library of Medicine. MEDLINE Policy on Indexing Electronic Journals.
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/policy/ejournals.html. Accessed 26 Jul 2016.
18. Van Noorden R. Open access: the true cost of science publishing. Nature.
2013;495(7442):426–9.
19. Butler D. Investigating journals: the dark side of publishing. Nature. 2013;
495(7442):433–5.
20. Bloudoff-Indelicato M. Backlash after Frontiers journals added to list of
questionable publishers. Nature. 2015;526(7575):613.
Shamseer et al. BMC Medicine (2017) 15:28 Page 13 of 14
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
21. Wellcome Trust. Wellcome Trust and COAF Open Access Spend, 2014-15.
Wellcome Trust blog. 2015. https://blog.wellcome.ac.uk/2016/03/23/wellcome-
trust-and-coaf-open-access-spend-2014-15/. Accessed 21 Jun 2016
22. Shen C, Bjork B-C. ‘Predatory’open access: a longitudinal study of article
volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med. 2015;13:230.
23. Spears T. The Editor is Deceased: Fake Science Journals Hit New Low.
Ottawa: Ottawa Citizen; 2016.
24. Kolata G. For Scientists, an Exploding World of Pseudo-Academia. NYTimes.
com. 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-
exploding-world-of-pseudo-academia.html?pagewanted=all. Accessed July
2016.
25. Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, Jefferson T, Dickersin K, Gøtzsche PC, et al.
Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research.
Lancet. 2014;383(9913):257–66.
• We accept pre-submission inquiries
• Our selector tool helps you to find the most relevant journal
• We provide round the clock customer support
• Convenient online submission
• Thorough peer review
• Inclusion in PubMed and all major indexing services
• Maximum visibility for your research
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
and we will help you at every step:
Shamseer et al. BMC Medicine (2017) 15:28 Page 14 of 14
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
