Characteristics of predatory journals proposed by Eriksson & Helgesson
Publisher:
- Not a member of a professional organization committed to best publishing practices like COPE
- Released a large suite of new journals during a very short period of time
- Is new, yet claims to be a leading publisher
- Journal and publisher are unfamiliar to you and your colleagues
- Publication schedule is not clearly stated
|
Website:
- Is unprofessional
- Does not present an editorial board or gives insufficient details
- Does not list the journal’s editorial office location or uses an incorrect address
- Mimics another journal title and/or its website (hijacking)
- Posts non-related or non-academic advertisements
|
Content:
- Articles are of poor research quality
- Articles have fundamental errors in the title/abstract or throughout the manuscript
- Articles are outside of journal's scope
|
Communication:
- Sends unsolicited invitations to submit an article for publication with no idea about your field of expertise
- Solicitation emails are written in poor language, include exaggerated flattering, and make contradictory claims
- Unrealistic promises regarding the speed of the peer review process
|
Fees and Copyright:
- Charges a submission fee instead of a publication fee
- Submission/publication fees are not clearly stated
- Copyright agreements are unclear or contradictory
|
Other:
- No strategies for handling misconduct, conflicts-of-interests, etc.
- Editor-in-chief is editor-in-chief for other journals with widely different focus
- Journal title claims a national affiliation that does not match its location
- Provides an impact factor before IF can be calculated
- Claims an unrealistically high impact factor
- Journal is not indexed in electronic databases like Medline or Web of Science
|
Eriksson, S., & Helgesson, G. (2017). The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics. Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 20(2), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3