- \n
- Legitimate open access and predatory journals are being conflated by some established actors, attempting to preserve legacy publishing.<\/li>\n
- Understanding how to identify a true predatory journal is essential to maintaining scientific integrity.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AdobeStock_1607799655.jpeg?resize=1024%2C574&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nWith the rise in open access<\/a> publishing, the presence of predatory journals<\/a> has become a notable issue. However, in a Research Information article<\/a>, Professor Emmanuel Andr\u00e8s addresses labelling of legitimate open access journals as predatory by some in the publishing ecosystem.<\/p>\n
Many accused journals have robust editorial standards and are indexed in respected databases like PubMed<\/a> and DOAJ<\/a>. So, why are they regarded as predatory? Prof. Andr\u00e8s describes how some established actors have weaponised the term \u2018predatory\u2019 to exclude newcomers and protect the monopoly of legacy journals.<\/p>\n
Open access versus exclusivity <\/strong><\/p>\n
Open access publishing can be affordable, accessible, and quick, enabling a broader range of individuals to publish, including those:<\/p>\n
- \n
- new to research<\/li>\n
- from non-elite universities or under-funded institutions<\/li>\n
- from under-represented regions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Historically, only a select few had the means to publish, largely due to the costs associated with legacy journals. Some may consider open access to result in a loss of publishing prestige. Prof. Andr\u00e8s highlights that some established actors are terming any open access journal \u2018predatory\u2019 as a \u201cconvenient label\u201d to dismiss them, in an attempt to preserve publishing exclusivity. On the contrary, Prof. Andr\u00e8s says questioning the legitimacy of \u201call open access, fast-review, digitally native journals\u2026is an intellectual laziness we can no longer afford\u201d.<\/p>\n
\n
\u201cSome established actors are terming any open access journal \u2018predatory\u2019 as a ‘convenient label’ to dismiss them, in an attempt to preserve publishing exclusivity\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Where can we draw the line?<\/strong><\/p>\n
Prof. Andr\u00e8s notes that true predatory journals remain a significant threat to academic publishing. To help detect them, Prof. Andr\u00e8s highlights 6 key characteristics to look out for:<\/p>\n
- \n
- no transparent fee structure<\/li>\n
- no visible or citable articles that can be corrected when necessary<\/li>\n
- no clear peer review and editorial policies<\/li>\n
- not indexed in recognised databases<\/li>\n
- not a member of COPE<\/a><\/li>\n
- not aligned with the Think.Check.Submit<\/a> checklist.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
While \u2018predatory\u2019 warns the research community of fraudulent journals, terming any journal that challenges traditional publishing\u00a0 as such can be just as damaging. Before dismissing an open access journal branded as predatory, Prof. Andr\u00e8s urges us to consider: is this truly fraudulent or is it just an outsider?<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Aspirations_Clare-Harris_1.png?resize=1024%2C125&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n - not aligned with the Think.Check.Submit<\/a> checklist.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n