Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey

Objectives To develop effective interventions to prevent publishing in presumed predatory journals (ie, journals that display deceptive characteristics, markers or data that cannot be verified), it is helpful to understand the motivations and experiences of those who have published in these journals...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: David Moher, Agnes Grudniewicz, Kelly D Cobey, Manoj M Lalu, Danielle B Rice, Hana Raffoul
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMJ Publishing Group 2019-03-01
Series:BMJ Open
Online Access:https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/3/e026516.full
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1823861349683298304
author David Moher
Agnes Grudniewicz
Kelly D Cobey
Manoj M Lalu
Danielle B Rice
Hana Raffoul
author_facet David Moher
Agnes Grudniewicz
Kelly D Cobey
Manoj M Lalu
Danielle B Rice
Hana Raffoul
author_sort David Moher
collection DOAJ
description Objectives To develop effective interventions to prevent publishing in presumed predatory journals (ie, journals that display deceptive characteristics, markers or data that cannot be verified), it is helpful to understand the motivations and experiences of those who have published in these journals.Design An online survey delivered to two sets of corresponding authors containing demographic information, and questions about researchers' perceptions of publishing in the presumed predatory journal, type of article processing fees paid and the quality of peer review received. The survey also asked six open-ended items about researchers' motivations and experiences.Participants Using Beall’s lists, we identified two groups of individuals who had published empirical articles in biomedical journals that were presumed to be predatory.Results Eighty-two authors partially responded (~14% response rate (11.4%[44/386] from the initial sample, 19.3%[38/197] from second sample) to our survey. The top three countries represented were India (n=21, 25.9%), USA (n=17, 21.0%) and Ethiopia (n=5, 6.2%). Three participants (3.9%) thought the journal they published in was predatory at the time of article submission. The majority of participants first encountered the journal via an email invitation to submit an article (n=32, 41.0%), or through an online search to find a journal with relevant scope (n=22, 28.2%). Most participants indicated their study received peer review (n=65, 83.3%) and that this was helpful and substantive (n=51, 79.7%). More than a third (n=32, 45.1%) indicated they did not pay fees to publish.Conclusions This work provides some evidence to inform policy to prevent future research from being published in predatory journals. Our research suggests that common views about predatory journals (eg, no peer review) may not always be true, and that a grey zone between legitimate and presumed predatory journals exists. These results are based on self-reports and may be biased thus limiting their interpretation.
format Article
id doaj-art-8d089ce4111d4f7a882202097068c500
institution Kabale University
issn 2044-6055
language English
publishDate 2019-03-01
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format Article
series BMJ Open
spelling doaj-art-8d089ce4111d4f7a882202097068c5002025-02-09T20:55:09ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552019-03-019310.1136/bmjopen-2018-026516Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a surveyDavid Moher0Agnes Grudniewicz1Kelly D Cobey2Manoj M Lalu3Danielle B Rice4Hana Raffoul5School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, CanadaTelfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada5 Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, CanadaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Waterloo Faculty of Engineering, Waterloo, Ontario, CanadaObjectives To develop effective interventions to prevent publishing in presumed predatory journals (ie, journals that display deceptive characteristics, markers or data that cannot be verified), it is helpful to understand the motivations and experiences of those who have published in these journals.Design An online survey delivered to two sets of corresponding authors containing demographic information, and questions about researchers' perceptions of publishing in the presumed predatory journal, type of article processing fees paid and the quality of peer review received. The survey also asked six open-ended items about researchers' motivations and experiences.Participants Using Beall’s lists, we identified two groups of individuals who had published empirical articles in biomedical journals that were presumed to be predatory.Results Eighty-two authors partially responded (~14% response rate (11.4%[44/386] from the initial sample, 19.3%[38/197] from second sample) to our survey. The top three countries represented were India (n=21, 25.9%), USA (n=17, 21.0%) and Ethiopia (n=5, 6.2%). Three participants (3.9%) thought the journal they published in was predatory at the time of article submission. The majority of participants first encountered the journal via an email invitation to submit an article (n=32, 41.0%), or through an online search to find a journal with relevant scope (n=22, 28.2%). Most participants indicated their study received peer review (n=65, 83.3%) and that this was helpful and substantive (n=51, 79.7%). More than a third (n=32, 45.1%) indicated they did not pay fees to publish.Conclusions This work provides some evidence to inform policy to prevent future research from being published in predatory journals. Our research suggests that common views about predatory journals (eg, no peer review) may not always be true, and that a grey zone between legitimate and presumed predatory journals exists. These results are based on self-reports and may be biased thus limiting their interpretation.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/3/e026516.full
spellingShingle David Moher
Agnes Grudniewicz
Kelly D Cobey
Manoj M Lalu
Danielle B Rice
Hana Raffoul
Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey
BMJ Open
title Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey
title_full Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey
title_fullStr Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey
title_full_unstemmed Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey
title_short Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey
title_sort knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals a survey
url https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/3/e026516.full
work_keys_str_mv AT davidmoher knowledgeandmotivationsofresearcherspublishinginpresumedpredatoryjournalsasurvey
AT agnesgrudniewicz knowledgeandmotivationsofresearcherspublishinginpresumedpredatoryjournalsasurvey
AT kellydcobey knowledgeandmotivationsofresearcherspublishinginpresumedpredatoryjournalsasurvey
AT manojmlalu knowledgeandmotivationsofresearcherspublishinginpresumedpredatoryjournalsasurvey
AT daniellebrice knowledgeandmotivationsofresearcherspublishinginpresumedpredatoryjournalsasurvey
AT hanaraffoul knowledgeandmotivationsofresearcherspublishinginpresumedpredatoryjournalsasurvey