blog

Predatory journals pose a serious threat to the scientific community and the publishing industry alike. With many researchers still failing to distinguish between predatory journals and legitimate open research publishers, how can we stop predatory publishing for good? Here, Larissa Shamseer, a postdoctoral fellow at the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, suggests a multi-stakeholder approach to tackling predatory publishing and the underlying issues that uphold it. Shamseer draws on findings from her latest study on the role of health research funders’ guidance for selecting journals for funded research.

Predatory publishing has been prompted and enabled by a confluence of actions and inaction by multiple stakeholders. So naturally, combatting it requires a multi-stakeholder solution. ‘Publish or perish’—the idea that academics must continue to publish rapidly and continually to advance their career—is likely one of the top drivers of predatory publishing. Moreover, authors with few publications may have little publishing experience to draw on when looking to distinguish between credible and questionable journal practices. These authors may also be in desperate need of publications to advance or kickstart their careers.

Beyond the authors themselves, there’s also the unregulated, fee-based digital publishing model, which allows virtually anyone with an internet connection to set up a publishing entity (or a façade of one) and charge fees to publish. The lack of transparency in publisher operations inadvertently allows journals with questionable practices to blend in with those regarded as trustworthy.

The inequities propping up predatory journals

Overarching across these areas are inequities that drive some authors towards lower barrier publishing options such as predatory journals. For instance, some groups of researchers face systematic barriers in scholarly publishing related to their identity (e.g., women, indigenous and BIPOC people, non-native English speakers, researchers from low-income countries). Others are stalled by the cost-prohibitive nature of reading and publishing in scholarly journals.

The role of academic institutions

These inequities are compounded when academic institutions then reward researchers based on their publications since some people are systematically less able to publish. If academic institutions insist that researchers must publish (or perish), they should provide formal education during graduate training on the topic of scholarly publishing.

Even better would be if the academic reward structure was not so reliant on publications. There are many other activities that researchers participate in or which are required of them (teaching, mentorship, committees, peer review, team science) for which little credit is currently received. The focus on publications is problematic and disadvantages certain groups of researchers.

The role of publishers and learned societies

Publishers and learned societies can, and are, starting to do more to address equity, diversity, and inclusion. Earlier this year, the Royal Society of Chemistry spearheaded the initiation of a joint committee for action on inclusion and diversity in publishing, of which F1000Research is one of 44 publisher signatories. The goal is to ensure that the diversity of the research community is reflected among authors, editors, and peer reviewers and to develop solutions, toolkits, and shared resources.

Additionally, publishing platforms and servers that support research outputs beyond the research article are enabling other means for research dissemination and impact. For example, researchers can register Study Protocols and create DOIs for their research manuscripts, materials, and data.  Researchers also have the option of using free preprint servers as a way of rapidly sharing their research while getting a publicly citable document (with DOI and metadata

Publishers and learned societies certainly have a role to play in ensuring those who might fall victim to predatory publishing have access to credible outlets to publish their varied research outputs. However, academic institutions must also consider giving proper credit for these contributions given their potential to ensure equity and transparency.

The role of funder guidance

Funders also have a responsibility to help prevent authors from publishing in predatory journals. I recently worked on a study that investigated health research funders’ guidance on selecting journals for funded research. We found that only a minority of funders provided guidance on what constitutes a credible outlet for publishing.

We only need to look to Plan S to realize the impact funders can have on the publishing industry when they act en masse. Although Plan S ultimately received less initial uptake among funders than desired, it paved the way for a new and intended-to-be temporary “model” of publishing: transformative agreements. Transformative agreements enable journals that agree to transition to open access within a pre-set time frame to be eligible for publication under Plan S. I’d say this is a major evolution in publishing because of funder policies.

If all funders provided guidance to authors to ensure funded research meets specified requirements about how research should be shared, we would be one step closer to tackling the problem of predatory publishing.

The role of funder agreements

Perhaps the most concerning problem presented by predatory journals is their failure to archive content. This jeopardizes the future availability of research, its potential impact, and funders’ return on investments. Moreover, predatory journals do not appear to use metadata, thereby preventing optimal discovery of their content.

There are several existing solutions for ensuring funded outputs are permanent and discoverable. Several funders, including the NIH and the major US federal agencies, mandate that all funded research must be deposited in a central repository: PubMed Central (PMC). While we may think of PMC as a database, it is in fact an archive for funded research. PMC has agreements with many pre-vetted journals to automatically deposit their content into the archive. It also accepts manual submissions from authors. Funders benefit from such as funded research is guaranteed to b permanently available and discoverable in a bibliographic database. Other funding organizations may consider following suit with such agreements and mandate grantee submissions to the archive.

The role of the open research community

Open research is important in all areas, not just here. The aforementioned study was carried out on the basis that funders’ guidance to funded researchers should be publicly accessible. If funders did not adhere to this, they were not considered in this study. Therefore, for future such studies to be useful not only should researchers operate using open science principles (i.e., publicly available/accessible protocols, methods, analysis, data, and materials), so too should organizations involved in the research enterprise. For instance, we have little information about submitted grant applications to funders, submitted manuscripts to journals, and the related peer review of these documents. Without this information, we can learn very little about the effectiveness, efficiency, discrepancies, equity, and inclusiveness of grant allocation and journal decision processes.

Interested to learn more about the role health funders can play when it comes to preventing predatory publishing? Read our interview with Larissa or explore her latest study for yourself on F1000Research.