![\"magnifying-glass-1019982_960_720\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/magnifying-glass-1019982_960_720.jpg?resize=319%2C319&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)<\/a> has published guidance<\/a> on how to differentiate legitimate journals from predatory ones. The rise in predatory journals is a real problem and a worry for all those involved in the publication of scientific research. Predatory publishers do not follow the publication ethics and standards promoted by organisations such as WAME, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) <\/a>, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)<\/a> and the Council of Science Editors (CSE)<\/a>. Predatory journals offer rapid publication at a reduced cost but do not carry out external peer review, the trademark of scholarly publication, which may allow the publication of poorly carried out studies and even fake papers. Worryingly, the number of predatory journals is increasing and in 2014 one study<\/a>\u00a0estimated 8,000 active journals published 420,000 articles.<\/p>\n So how can an author distinguish predatory and legitimate journals? Resources include Beall\u2019s List and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)<\/a>. Beall\u2019s List contained a record of potential, possible, or probable predatory journals, but is no longer available<\/a>. Although it provided a good starting point, WAME\u2019s guidance outlines some potential limitations of Beall\u2019s criteria. The DOAJ aims to identify and certify legitimate open access journals but is not an exhaustive list, and those journals not included should not be presumed to be predatory. The \u201cThink. Check. Submit\u201d checklist<\/a> is another helpful initiative, but again not completely foolproof. WAME has developed a new predatory journal algorithm<\/a>, building on these earlier resources, and identified a series of warning signs that should prove helpful to authors. WAME advise that \u201cThe more \u201cred flags\u201d that are present, the more hesitant one should be to consider the journal a desirable publication venue\u201d.\u00a0WAME<\/a> conclude that it is going to take a great deal of effort from the whole industry to remove predatory journals from the system, and that authors need to share their experiences and educate junior researchers to ensure that all articles are published in legitimate journals. If the publication costs and lead time seem \u201ctoo good to be true\u201d then investigate and be willing to reconsider your choice of journal.<\/p>\n \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013<\/p>\n Summary by\u00a0Jo Chapman, PhD<\/a>\u00a0from\u00a0Aspire Scientific<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"