[image] [image] Ressource protégée - Archive ouverte HAL Accéder directement au contenu

*[image] [image]*

* Documentation

• FR
Français (FR)

• Anglais (EN)
Se connecter

• [HAL science ouverte](#)

• Recherche
Loading...

Recherche avancée

Information de documents

Titres

○ [Titres](#)

○ [Sous-titre](#)

○ Titre de l'ouvrage

○ <u>Titre du volume (Série)</u>

○ <u>Champ de recherche par défaut (multicritères) + texte intégral des PDF</u>

○ Résumé

○ <u>Texte intégral indexé des documents PDF</u>

○ Mots-clés

○ Type de document

○ Sous-type de document

○ <u>Tous les identifiants du document</u>

○ <u>Identifiant HAL du dépôt</u>

○ <u>Langue du document (texte)</u>

○ Pays (Texte)

○ Ville

• À paraître (true ou false)

Ajouter

Auteur
# Predatory Journals: A Potential Threat to the Dissemination of Open Access Knowledge

Ana Bocanegra-Valle

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Ana Bocanegra-Valle. Predatory Journals: A Potential Threat to the Dissemination of Open Access Knowledge. Digital Scientific Communication, Springer International Publishing, pp.127-148, 2023, 10.1007/978-3-031-38207-9_6. hal-04407963

HAL Id: hal-04407963

https://hal.science/hal-04407963v1

Submitted on 21 Jan 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Public Domain
## Auteur (multicritères)

○ Auteur (multicritères)

○ Auteur : Nom complet

○ Auteur : Nom de famille

○ Auteur : Prénom

○ Auteur : Complément de nom, deuxième prénom

○ Auteur : Organisme payeur

○ Auteur : IdHal (chaîne de caractères)

○ Auteur : Fonction

○ Auteur : personID (entier)

○ Auteur : Identifiant de l'organisme payeur

○ Auteur : Identifiant de la structure

○ Directeur de thèse

○ Éditeur

○ Éditeur scientifique

○ Éditeur de la série

## Ajouter

### Structure

### Structure (multicritères)

○ Structure (multicritères)

○ Structure : Acronyme

○ Structure : Nom

○ Structure : Code

○ Structure : Pays

○ Structure : Type

○ Structure : État dans le référentiel

○ Structure : Identifiant HAL de la structure

○ Structure/équipe de recherche : Pays

○ Structure/regroupement d'équipes : Pays

○ Structure/laboratoire : Pays

○ Structure/regroupement de laboratoires : Pays

○ Structure/institution : Pays

○ Structure/regroupement d'institutions : Pays

## Ajouter

## Autres
"This is an Author Accepted Manuscript version of the following chapter: Bocanegra-Valle, A., "Predatory journals: A potential threat to the dissemination of open access knowledge", published in *Digital Scientific Communication. Identity and Visibility in Research Dissemination* (pp. 127-148), edited by Plo-Alastrué, R., & Corona, I. (2023), Palgrave Macmillan reproduced with permission of Springer Nature Switzerland. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38207-9_6"

# Predatory journals: A potential threat to the dissemination of open access knowledge

Ana Bocanegra-Valle
University of Cadiz (Spain)
ana.bocanegra@uca.es

## Abstract

Using qualitative analytical methods and a corpus of 50 unsolicited email messages sent by predatory publishers and collected over two years, this study sets out to investigate the main themes that prevail in predatory publishing to generate interest and convince authors for submitting their work. It also critically assesses deceptive editorial practices that may flout mainstream academic publication standards and put the quality of scientific research and the advantages of publishing open access at stake. The dataset was iteratively coded and qualitatively analysed by means of NVivo 11 Pro. Findings show that predatory discourse overuses boastful language and relies on self-promotional explicit references to high quality in order to persuade authors, and achieve their predatory aims. The last section discusses the implications of predatory journals for the dissemination of non-validated knowledge, the spread of misconduct and misdirection, and the impact on scholars aiming for visibility in a global academia.

**Keywords:** Academic discourse; Legitimate journals; Open access; Peer review; Predatory journals.

## 1. Introduction

The pressure-to-publish trend in academia has contributed to the proliferation and expansion of journals from predatory publishers (Fazel & Hartse, 2020; Forero et al., 2018; Kurt, 2018). Many of these publishers usually email scholars promising short peer review turnarounds, high acceptance rates, and fast publication (Beall, 2016; Bocanegra-Valle, 2017; Soler & Cooper, 2019). In the extant literature these journals are called *predatory* because, although they claim to be legitimate, they prey on unguarded scholars (Laine & Winker, 2017), misrepresent current academic publishing practices (Elmore & Weston, 2020) and exploit the author-pays model (gold open access) for their own profit with no intention of providing the expected editorial services in return (Beall, 2012; Fazel
Champ de recherche par défaut (multicritères)

○ <u>Champ de recherche par défaut (multicritères)</u>

○

○ <u>Revues (multicritères)</u>

○ <u>Revue : Éditeur</u>

○ <u>Revue : Titre abrégé</u>

○ <u>Revue : Titre</u>

○ <u>Revue : Identifiant interne</u>

○ <u>Revue : Date de début de publication</u>

○ <u>Revue : ISSN électronique</u>

○ <u>Revue : ISSN</u>

○ <u>Revue : Éditeur</u>

○ <u>Revue : Couleur dans SHERPA/RoMEO</u>

○ <u>Revue : État dans le référentiel</u>

○

○ <u>Colloque (multicritères)</u>

○ <u>Colloque : Titre</u>

○ <u>Colloque : Organisateur</u>

○ <u>Colloque : date de début (Année)</u>

○ <u>Colloque : date de fin (Année)</u>

○ <u>Conférence invitée (oui/non)</u>

○

○ <u>Projets ANR (multicritères)</u>

○ <u>Projet ANR : Acronyme</u>

○ <u>Projet ANR : Acronyme du programme</u>

○ <u>Projet ANR : Code décision (référence)</u>

○ <u>Projet ANR : Nom</u>

○ <u>Projet ANR : Identifiant interne</u>

○ <u>Projet ANR : État dans le référentiel</u>

○

○ <u>Projets européens (multicritères)</u>

○ <u>Projet européen : Acronyme</u>

○ <u>Projet européen : Identifiant de l'appel à projet</u>

○ <u>Projet européen : Référence</u>

○ <u>Projet européen : Nom</u>

○ <u>Projet européen : Date de fin</u>

○ <u>Projet européen : Financement</u>

○ <u>Projet européen : Date de début</u>

○ <u>Projet européen : État dans le référentiel</u>
& Hartse, 2020; Shamseer et al., 2017). By the beginning of 2017, Beall’s “List of predatory publishers” contained 1,294 titles of potential, possible, or probably predatory scholarly open access journals, showing a sharp increase from 18 journals in 2011.

Researchers within the health sciences are particularly concerned with predatory practices and how to identify them (e.g., Beall, 2013, 2016; Cobey et al., 2018; Elmore & Weston, 2020; Forero et al., 2018; Laine & Winker, 2017; Memon, 2019; Shamseer et al., 2017); even websites have been set up to help researchers identify trusted journals (e.g., <thinkchecksubmit.org>). In other disciplines, like Applied Linguistics, information for scholars and researchers is certainly very scant. Some notable exceptions are Fazel and Hartse (2018), who investigated the most notable features of twenty “potentially predatory” journals; Soler and Cooper (2019), who analysed the rhetorical moves of contact emails from predatory journals; Soler and Wang (2019), who compared the linguistic differences between a well-established and a predatory journal in political science; Fazel and Hartse (2020), who discussed the implications of predatory publishing for the field of English for research publication purposes (ERPP); Pecorari (2021), who examined the main features of predatory conferences; and Pflugfelder (2022), who explored the rhetorical features of predatory articles. More recently, this author has also investigated the interpersonal resources (like engagement markers) used by predatory journal editors to persuade prospective authors (Bocanegra-Valle, 2023).

This study investigates the narrative that predatory journal editors employ to appear trustworthy and generate interest among prospective authors. With a particular focus on predatory journals in the field of Applied Linguistics, this study pursues the general aims of raising awareness among applied linguists as well as providing guidance and educating prospective authors (particularly junior researchers) in recognising predatory journals. It also critically assesses the ways predatory publishing practices may impact on authors’ academic career, the dissemination of knowledge, and the expansion of open access practices in scholarly communication.

## 2. Predatory publishing practices

The expansion of digital editorial practices and the global trend towards the open dissemination of science has contributed to the flourishing of academic journals around the world. In this context some publishers email flattering paper requests to scholars that offer prompt peer reviews and fast open access publication. These unsolicited invitations, encompassed within *spam emails* (Beall, 2015; Kurt, 2018) or *fishing emails* (Gasparyan et al., 2015) are one of the most frequent strategies which predatory publishers employ, and which, from its very reception, should alert researchers about illegitimate publication practices (Forero et al., 2018).

As opposed to *legitimate* or *trusted* journals, the names of predatory journals abound in current literature: *illegitimate journals*, *counterfeit journals*, *pseudo-journals*, *pseudoscientific journals*, *fraudulent journals*, *questionable journals*, *sub-par journals*, *vanity journals*, *parasitic journals*, *spam journals*, *deceptive journals*, *scamming journals*, *fake journals*, *paradoxical journals*, *parodical journals*, *fast-turnaround journals*, *spoofy journals*, *dodgy journals*, *dark journals*, *sham journals*, or *journals operating in bad faith*.

Regardless of such diversity of labels, predatory journals share the same business model: on the one hand, researchers pay to have their article published and made freely
○ Projet européen : Identifiant interne

O

O Date de production : année

O Date de mise en ligne : année

O Date de publication : année

O Date d'écriture : année

O Date de modification du dépôt : année

O Date de dépôt : année

O Date de publication électronique : année

O

O Collection HAL (multicritères)

O Collection HAL : catégorie

O Collection HAL : Code

O Collection HAL : Nom

O Collection HAL : Identifiant interne

O

O Identifiant interne du contributeur/déposant

O Nom complet du contributeur/déposant

O

O Domaines

O Domaine primaire

O Domaine racine

O Sous-domaine niveau 1

O Sous-domaine niveau 2

O Sous-domaine niveau 3

O

O Statut du document

O Version du document

O Type de dépôt

O Type de document

O ISBN

O Numéro - référence

O Identifiant DOI

O

O Classification

O Audience

O Vulgarisation

O Comité de lecture - texte (oui ou non)

O Actes de colloque

O Référence interne
available on the internet; on the other, publishers exploit the author-pays model (gold open access model) for their own profit, without providing the editorial and publishing services associated with legitimate journals – namely, quality control thorough editorial and peer review, licensing, or indexing. In most cases, authors are unaware of the fact that they have to pay until they are surprised by an invoice from the publisher (Beall, 2013, 2015, 2016; Laine & Winker, 2017). Then, if authors do not want to pay the article publication charges and ask for the article to be withdrawn, they are required to pay a *withdrawal fee*. Because legitimate journals request a submission declaration from authors to assure that the work is original, that has not been published previously or that is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, by not accepting to pay this fee, authors are prevented from submitting their work to other journals, and therefore this article is held *hostage* until a *ransom* is paid (Beall, 2016). Another interesting concept within these security-related metaphors employed in the current literature to refer to predatory publishing practices is that of *highjacked* journals. These are journals that create a fake website that resembles the website of a trusted journal “for the purpose of soliciting submissions and collecting author fees from authors who believe they are sending their work to the legitimate journal” (Laine & Winker, 2017, p. 286).

The spread of predatory practices, particularly journals, is due to three main, and at the same time interrelated, factors that are well documented in the literature (e.g., Fazel & Hartse, 2020; Kurt, 2018; Laine & Winker, 2017; Memon, 2019; Shamseer et al., 2017; Xia et al., 2015): the pressure to “publish or perish”, the rise of open access, and the availability of electronic publishing.

In the first place, the publish-or-perish pressure to publish in English-language, internationally-renowned journals, prompts researchers and scholars to look for rapid publication, with high acceptance rates and quick peer reviews. This may seem an attractive and straightforward option for many researchers, particularly doctoral candidates and early-career researchers, who need to demonstrate publication outcomes. It may also be the case for both inexperienced and experienced researchers from emerging countries who need to be positively assessed in order to earn tenure or promotion, or are compelled to positioning their institution in prestigious rankings. Given this, deceptive journals thrive and prosper because they provide young researchers and scholars with “a low barrier to publication” (Laine & Winker, 2017, p. 289).

The second factor is the rise of open access publishing, which provides scholars with the opportunities to disseminate their work easily, quickly, and globally. “Open access” is a buzz-word in predatory-related bibliography, and it is widely acknowledged therein that, even though open access does not lie at the origin of fraudulent practices, it has created the conditions for predatory publishing practices to flourish and aggravated other problems related to open science. By way of example, it “impinges on the reputation of certain journals, particularly those accessed or published exclusively on line; young, small or peripheral journals (...); or those that are not (or not yet) abstracted or indexed in reputable databases and lists” (Bocanegra-Valle, 2017, pp. 121-122).

Thirdly, the growth of electronic publishing provides a broad and accessible platform for publication at the same time that handling and production costs are reduced. On line journals and websites that mimic legitimate journal websites can be easily launched from home with a good computer, internet connection, and some editorial skills. Thus, in this favourable context journals emerge, flourish and disappear rapidly and with impunity, creating “short-cuts for illegitimate publishers” (Gasparyan et al., 2015, p. 1014) and cheating authors who might have raised high expectations about their work.
○ Financement

○ Collaborations

Ajouter

Lancer la recherche

Recherche experte (SolR)

Recherche experte (SolR)

Lancer la recherche

Vers la recherche avancée

• Déposer

X

X

X

Loading...

X

Le document que vous demandez est en access restreint
jusqu'au 2025-01-01 !

Revenir a la notice

Retourner à l'accueil

[image]

[image]

[image]

[image]

Contact

• Support

Ressources

• Documentation

• FAQ

• API
Predatory journals should be clearly differentiated from *low-quality* journals. Whereas profit is the only driver for predatory journals, thereby flouting the expected ethical standards and editorial services from legitimate scientific publishers, low-quality journals may apply article processing charges simply because their infrastructure is poor. They are not supported by robust publishers and, thus, funding is insufficient; they might not (yet) be indexed in internationally-recognised databases; and they may face other problems like limited distribution or lack of readership. Yet, they implement rigorous peer review processes, abide by ethical codes of conduct, and work with sufficiently transparent editorial standards that allow for their trust – for specific criteria that differentiate deceptive journals, low-quality legitimate journals, and high-quality open access journals see Memon (2019).

# 3. The study

## 3.1. Research goals

This chapter aims at raising awareness of predatory publishing practices in the field of Applied Linguistics and at educating researchers and academics about the ways predatory publishing practices impact on authors' academic career, the dissemination of knowledge, and the growth of open access publishing practices. In particular, it sets out to (1) investigate the most salient themes that predatory email messages contain so as to appeal readers and generate interest for publication; (2) shed light on deceptive editorial practices that may threaten academic publication standards; and (3) reflect on the contribution of predatory publishers to the dissemination of non-validated knowledge and the ways these practices affect open access practices and scholars throughout the world.

## 3.2. Data collection and analysis

The investigation draws on a corpus of 50 email messages sent by predatory publishers and directly addressed to the author of this chapter. Seventy email messages were collected during the past two years, and 50 were found to be representative and selected for the corpus. The reasons for rejecting the other messages were three: same message sent from a different e-mail address, same message sent for another journal title, or messages containing cryptic or illegible text.

This dataset was qualitatively analysed by means of NVivo 11 Pro (Bocanegra-Valle, 2020). At this stage, three extremely helpful sources were: (1) Beall's (2015) criteria for determining predatory scholarly open access journals and publishers; (2) Cobey et al.'s (2018) characteristics of predatory journals in the health sciences; and (3) the interactive website <https://thinkchecksubmit.org>, which helps scholars in the identification of legitimate journals that can be trusted for research publication.

First, the texts were scanned for key issues as documented in the literature (see sections 1 and 2 above). Then, these issues were organised into categories at the same time that three main themes were identified. Next, detailed coding was conducted – that is, broad categories were coded into initial nodes per theme, and later combined and reorganised to yield tree and concept maps that could help to visually analyse results. After this, the categories were thematically grouped as first- and second-level categories; hence, establishing a relational hierarchy. Lastly, samples were extracted and text queries
• OAI-PMH

• AuréHAL

## Informations

• À propos

• Données personnelles

• Mentions légales

• Accessibilité

• Conformité RGAA

## Questions juridiques

• Je publie, quels sont mes droits ?

• Loi pour une République numérique

• Stratégie de non-cession des droits

• SHERPA/RoMEO

## Portails

• Portails institutionnels

• HAL

• HAL SHS

• HAL Thèses

• MédiHAL

## CCSD

• CCSD

• Episciences

• Sciencesconf
for key words and collocations were conducted in order to refine the analysis. Table 1 shows the three main themes and categories (that is, “nodes” according to NVivo) that were identified together with the total number of occurrences (that is, “references”) that are registered, and the total number of sources (e-mail message in the corpus) in which they were found.

<table><caption>Table 1: Main categories (node), sources, and occurrences (references) provided by NVivo.</caption><thead><tr><th>Node</th><th>Sources</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Journal information</td><td>44</td><td>169</td></tr><tr><td>Counterfeit titles</td><td>10</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Editors</td><td>26</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Contact email</td><td>6</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Location</td><td>16</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Faulty language</td><td>10</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Publication process</td><td>33</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>Cost</td><td>11</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Prompt and fast</td><td>25</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>Publication frequency</td><td>11</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Publication modes</td><td>6</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Publication times</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Submission</td><td>12</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Unusual editorial practices</td><td>17</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>Several journals</td><td>6</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Boastful language</td><td>35</td><td>97</td></tr><tr><td>Author recruitment</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Flattering scholar</td><td>23</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Kind phrasing</td><td>14</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Self-reference</td><td>15</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Unusual terminology</td><td>5</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Journal quality</td><td>44</td><td>151</td></tr><tr><td>Bibliometrics</td><td>30</td><td>60</td></tr><tr><td>Copyright</td><td>3</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Deceptive references</td><td>16</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Impact factor</td><td>8</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Indexing</td><td>15</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Other indicators</td><td>7</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Internationalisation</td><td>16</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Open access</td><td>13</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Originality</td><td>9</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Peer review</td><td>25</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>Reputed affiliations</td><td>13</td><td>15</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 4. Results and discussion

The coding results revealed three main themes: “Journal information”, “Boastful language”, and “Journal quality”; together with a number of first- and second-level categories per theme. These are presented and discussed in the next sections.

### 4.1. Theme 1: Journal information

Table 2 summarises the first- and second-level categories for the first theme “Journal information”. These mainly include journal titles (1.1), editors’ information (1.2a, 1.2b), use of faulty language (1.3), unusual editorial practices (1.4, 1.4a), and other issues related to the publication process (1.5a-f).

<table><caption>Table 2: Categories and examples for Theme 1 “Journal information”.</caption><caption>THEME 1: JOURNAL INFORMATION</caption><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Email excerpts</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.1 Counterfeit titles</td><td>Modern Journal of [...] (E41)<sup>1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1.2a Editors: contact email</td><td>Email: editor.[journal abbreviation]@gmail.com (E4)</td></tr><tr><td>1.2b Editors: location</td><td>[correspondence address], Malaysia (E13)</td></tr><tr><td>1.3 Faulty language</td><td>See typos marked with an * in excerpts here and in subsequent tables.</td></tr><tr><td>1.4 Unusual editorial practices</td><td>We are glad to inform you, now you will receive One Hard Copy of the Journal and Certificates for all the Authors (E14)</td></tr><tr><td>1.4a Unusual editorial practices: several journals</td><td>Journal for All Subjects. (E5)</td></tr><tr><td>1.5a Publication process: cost</td><td>It's requested the contribution* of the authors with the fee of $45 USD per article to be published. This amount, which can be paid through PayPal or bank deposit/transfer, is allocated to the costs of diagramming, formatting and maintenance of the magazine*. (E47)</td></tr><tr><td>1.5b Publication process: prompt and fast</td><td>All manuscripts are peer reviewed and reviewing process will be completed in one week (E19)</td></tr><tr><td>1.5c Publication process: frequency</td><td>12 issues for* year (E1)</td></tr><tr><td>1.5d Publication process: modes</td><td>Online and print versions (e-journal and print) with reasonable cost. (E1)</td></tr><tr><td>1.5e Publication process: times</td><td>Manuscript Submission: 25 April 2021. Acknowledgement Notification: within 24 hours. Acceptance Notification: Paper publication: within 10 days 05 May 2021. (E70)</td></tr><tr><td>1.5f Publication process: submission</td><td>The Journal accepts article submissions online or by e-mail (E13)</td></tr></tbody></table>

From table 2, we can deduce that in most predatory journals, titles mimic popular titles in legitimate journals (like the *Modern Language Journal*, or the *Journal of Language Teaching Research* – see excerpt 1.1). In an attempt to misrepresent their true location, predatory publishers do not usually state their headquarters location (Beall, 2015, 2016), or contact details are non-institutional addresses, always from free providers like g-mail or yahood (excerpt 1.2a). In agreement with the literature (e.g., Beall, 2012; Byard, 2016; Kurt, 2018; Shamseer et al., 2017), the data analysed showed that these journals are
mostly advertised from low-resourced countries like India, Nigeria, Iran, Turkey, Malaysia or Pakistan – nothing to do with countries in which international well-established journals are often located (excerpt 1.2b). These may suggest that low-resourced countries are breeding grounds for predatory publishers. Many spam emails are riddled with typographical, spelling, or grammatical errors, or use of inappropriate terms (see category 1.3). They also exhibit unusual editorial practices: the issuance of certificates as a proof of publication (excerpt 1.4); the publication of either a vast number of research areas under the same journal (journals are very broad) or different journals in a variety of disciplines by the same publishers (excerpt 1.4a). In agreement with Beall (2013, p. 48) and Laine and Winker (2017, p. 289), the publication process also contains a number of “warning signs” or “red flags” (see also, Fazel & Hartse, 2020; Gasparyan et al., 2015). These red flags are illustrated in excerpts 1.5a to 1.5f of the corpus under study and mainly refer to article processing charges, short turnarounds, and lack of archived content.

Article processing charges (APCs): APCs are all too often not clearly stated in the message, thereby lacking transparency. An author will become aware of the existence of APCs after submitting an article or if consulting the journal website (which may not exist, be inactive, or post the price in a concealed section). The charges may be disguised as open access fees, processing fees, operating costs, handling costs or editorial costs. It should be noted at this point that applying APCs alone does not qualify a journal as predatory, because small or poorly funded journals may need to defray editorial costs – as discussed above in section 2 with respect to low-quality journals. It is this key point of APCs, together with deceptive editorial practices (like lack of proper peer review or ethical standards, see publication process and journal quality categories in the next subsection) which contribute to the making of illegitimate journals.

Short turnarounds: the times and frequency of publication clearly indicate that peer review is much shorter than in legitimate journals. Journals promise rapid turnaround times (even 24 hours) from submission to publication, review included, and so they “make their peer review processes suspect if not impossible” (Kurt, 2018, p. 142). Short publication times have been found to be a key motivator when deciding to publish in predatory journals (Fazel & Hartse, 2020), but it is also a warning sign that should make prospective authors feel, at least, suspicious about journal legitimacy.

Lack of archived content: published content is not archived in third party sites and, because journals emerge and disappear rapidly, content may also become inaccessible in the future (Ferris & Winker, 2017). Articles are submitted by sending the manuscript to an email address and with no clear guidelines for authors. These journals do not usually process articles via editorial management software, which would help to exert greater control, minimise errors, improve the overall management quality of the journal, and safeguard perpetual content preservation (Bocanegra-Valle, 2017).

## 4.2. Theme 2: Boastful language

Table 3 contains the categories for the second theme “Boastful language”. These refer to the use of persuasive language with a view to eventual article submission.
<table><caption>Table 3: Categories and examples for Theme 2 “Boastful Language”.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">THEME 2: BOASTFUL LANGUAGE</th></tr><tr><th>Category</th><th>Email excerpts</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2.1 Unusual terminology</td><td>The perception of the journal is to bequeath with* an academic podium to researchers across the global* to publish their original, innovative, pragmatic and high-quality research work. (E14)</td></tr><tr><td>2.2 Self-reference</td><td>It provides a forum for the publication of the most-advanced and rigorous scientific research related to ... (E9)</td></tr><tr><td>2.3 Kind phrasing</td><td>My name is [...], and I am the editorial assistant of [...] I have had an opportunity to read your paper entitled [...] and can tell from you work that you are an expert in this field. (E2)</td></tr><tr><td>2.4 Flattering scholar</td><td>Your article under the title of [...], which has been published in [...], has left us a deep impression (E45)</td></tr><tr><td>2.5 Author recruitment</td><td>It is privileged* for us to invite you to join our team as the editorial board member or reviewer. We really hope you can be a part of our team. (E45)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Excerpts in table 3 reveal that predatory journals make use of recurrent flattering in their fishing emails. By praising authors and using direct and friendly language (see italics in excerpts 2.3, 2.4 & 2.5), predatory publishers aim at highlighting their academic standing and constructing email recipients as experts or opinion leaders in their respective fields (Soler & Cooper, 2019). This boastful language also applies to the journals themselves which are often presented as outstanding, rigorous, prestigious, highly scientific or leading in their fields (excerpts 2.1 & 2.2). As Shamseer et al. (2017, p. 2) observe, such attractive invitations may be “an easy solution to inexperienced or early career researchers who need to publish in order to advance their career, or to those desperate to get a publication accepted after a number of rejections, or to those simply not paying attention”. For others, this use of language may appear aggressive and therefore lead to journal questioning and scepticism (Xia et al., 2015).

Besides encouraging article submission, predatory emails often invite authors to join their editorial board, become reviewers on a permanent basis or edit special issues (excerpt 2.5). In the case of all these boastful language categories, the overuse of first person plural pronouns and adjectives help to build a feeling of community which may appeal authors, particularly inexperienced researchers and those “on the fringes of their communities of practice” (Bloch, 2021, p. 194) – that is, researchers working in isolation outside research groups and networks, or scholars from peripheral scientific countries (see a more in-depth discussion about this in section 5.3).

### 4.3. Theme 3: Journal quality

Table 4 contains the first- and second-level categories for the third theme “Journal quality”. These refer mainly to issues of internationalisation (3.1), open access (3.2), originality (3.3), affiliation (3.4), peer review (3.5), and bibliometrics (3.6a-e).
<table><caption>Table 4: Categories and examples for Theme 3 “Journal quality”.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">THEME 3: JOURNAL QUALITY</th></tr><tr><th>Category</th><th>Email excerpts</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3.1 Internationalisation</td><td>It will *be allow you to have millions of people worldwide reading your work (E20)</td></tr><tr><td>3.2 Open access</td><td>Adhere to the open access mode, we report the latest scientific achievements and academic trends in the relevant areas. (E18)</td></tr><tr><td>3.3 Originality</td><td>It intended* to publish original Research Papers and Review Papers. (E28)</td></tr><tr><td>3.4 Reputed affiliations</td><td>Our journal in association with American Society of Scientific Research (E8)</td></tr><tr><td>3.5 Peer review</td><td>Papers for publication in the International Journal of [...] are selected through precise peer-review to ensure quality, originality, appropriateness, significance and readability. (E39)</td></tr><tr><td>3.6a Bibliometrics: copyright</td><td>Copyrights for articles are retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. (E24)</td></tr><tr><td>3.6b Bibliometrics: deceptive references</td><td>All the papers shall be uploaded on Harvard Dataverse, Google Scholar, Academia and *Ochid (E3)</td></tr><tr><td>3.6c Bibliometrics: impact factor</td><td>Impact Factor:1.17; h5-index: 14; Downloads> 1,174,471; Published Articles> 371; Citations> 1635; Downloads/article: 3165.7; Citations/article:4.4. (E50)</td></tr><tr><td>3.6d Bibliometrics: indexing</td><td>Indexed and abstracted in Chemical Abstracts, Index Copernicus, DOAJ, Open J-Gate, New Jour, Science Central, and Google Scholar. (E19)</td></tr><tr><td>3.6e Bibliometrics: other indicators</td><td>[...] Journals provides* DOI (Digital Object Identifier) to each article. (E40)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Excerpts in table 4 indicate that issues of internationalisation, open access and originality are associated with the quality of a journal and perceived as positive indicators of journal trustworthiness (excerpts 3.1 to 3.3). References to the international scope of the journal address researchers' need for a global dissemination of their work. Open access is also an attractive option for researchers to make their work more visible and more citable – a clear driver in the case of national journals (Bocanegra-Valle, 2019). Lastly, requests for originality help to make the submission process legitimate and more credible.

In line with many international and national journals (see Bocanegra-Valle, 2019), journals claim to be affiliated with universities, established scholarly societies, academic institutions or reputed organisations (excerpt 3.4). Nevertheless, these may be fake or do exist but have not given consent to such supposed affiliation (Shamseer et al., 2017). Importantly enough, literature has attested that some of these journals list renowned scholars on their editorial boards without their knowledge or consent (Byard, 2016; Laine & Winker, 2017). Journal affiliations also contain the adjectives European, American or British to appear more trustworthy (even though the journal's headquarters are located in other continents). It may also be the case that journals are located “in odd places such as deserts and garages” (Bloch, 2021, p. 194).

Peer review is the hallmark for quality in scholarly publishing and, therefore, the most contentious attribute in predatory practices discussions (e.g., Byard, 2016; Fazel & Hartse, 2020; Gasparyan et al., 2015). Even though peer review is advertised in most
spam messages, which assure that the article will be subjected to that process (excerpt 3.5), there are other signs (like rapid publication acceptance and prompt publication) which warn against the rigour of such peer review and cast doubt on whether proper peer review has actually been conducted. A short peer-review time is indicative of journal poor quality (Cobey et al., 2018; Gasparyan et al., 2015; Memon, 2019). When writing a research paper, scholars take for granted that they will be involved in a submission-acceptance/rejection-revision/rejection-publication cycle that may take months. It may also be the case that, after a long time of back-and-forth revisions, the article is eventually rejected. As discussed in the literature (e.g., Beall, 2016; Kurt, 2018), this does not happen with sub-par journals because it is contrary to the business model of predatory publishers, who are more interested in generating as much revenue as possible.

A last and relevant category is “bibliometrics” which, broadly speaking, entail bogus metrics and other misleading data (excerpts 3.6a-e). Spam messages forwarded by predatory publishers claim high impact factors which are usually self-calculated (Soler & Cooper, 2019), fake (Bloch, 2021), neither legitimate (Cobey et al., 2018) nor derived from recognised sources (Byard, 2016). They may also state dubious impact factors, or factors from unknown indexing agencies (excerpt 3.6c). Very often, impressive (if not false) figures are given; in most cases, these are impossible to verify. The “indexing” of predatory journals on databases such as Google Scholar or DOAJ, or academic social networks such as ResearchGate (see excerpt 3.6d), nurtures “a discourse of authenticity” (Pecorari, 2021, p. 352), particularly among inexperienced and junior researchers, who are not yet familiar with those indexes that are reputable in their areas and who are not yet aware of the fact that these databases and platforms incorporate almost any (published or draft) study that is available on line – hereby diminishing their use for bibliometric analysis (Gasparyan et al., 2015). Lastly, other indicators like references to digital object identifiers (DOIs) or copyrights (see excerpts 3.6a & 3.6e) are misleading to authors because they might be taken as an evidence for journal quality – that is, DOIs are issued for article identification, and by accepting open access publication, authors, as copyright holders, consent to free distribution via open-content licences such as Creative Commons.

**5. What are the implications for open access and the dissemination of knowledge?**

From the extant literature and the findings of this study, it can be claimed that predatory journals appear to clearly contribute to the dissemination of non-validated knowledge in academia; therefore, causing damage to true science, researchers, and society. The implications of predatory publishing for the open access movement and the dissemination of scientific knowledge are multifarious and, at the same time, interrelated. They may be grouped into three main realities as discussed in the next subsections.

**5.1. *Spread of non-validated knowledge***

Open access and questionable (even lack of) peer review contribute to strengthening the spread of “junk science” (Forero et al., 2018, p. 586) and the validation of “bogus experts” (Byard, 2016, p. 392). As I argued elsewhere (Bocanegra-Valle, 2017), particular research areas (like Applied Linguistics, or the Humanities in general) are more likely to be impacted by predatory practices if compared with journals in the hard or natural sciences. One reason for this is that there are many national and international reputed
journals that offer free and unrestricted on line access to full-text articles. Another reason
is that these other areas have a longer tradition in the dissemination of research findings
with well-established quality benchmarks.

As predatory practices stand, anything can be published for a fee, “even the most
bizarre theories with inadequate or no scientific validation” (Byard, 2016, p. 392). This
means that non-validated knowledge can be published easily and disseminated rapidly –
thereby “polluting” (Beall, 2016; Gasparyan et al., 2015; Shamseer et al., 2017) scholarly
literature, and undermining the scientific conversation (Elmore & Weston, 2020). The
consequences of this practice may be disastrous for scientific knowledge because, if
fringe theories and invalid sources are trusted by unwary authors, misinformation may
spread out of control, spoof articles may be legitimised, and fraudulent research may be
given a safe conduct to freely transit academia and society – by way of example, it is not
difficult to imagine the impact of inaccurate health-related data if disseminated on line
without control. In this regard, Pflugfelder (2022, p. 309) notes that predatory journals
function as “evidence engines” that “thrive in a state of posttruth discourse” because (i)
actors connected to larger conspiracy theories can use fraudulent articles to circulate their
erroneous (usually ideologically-driven) beliefs; and (ii) the public use of these articles
will make illegitimate claims become evidence, therefore helping to promote
pseudoscience. On a final note, confidence in research literature may be undermined
because authors may misunderstand the distinction between predatory and legitimate
journals, thereby questioning the scientific process and losing public faith in research
literature (Ferris & Winker, 2017).

## 5.2. Misconduct and misdirection

It has been claimed that predatory journals are “veritable reservoirs of author misconduct” (Beall, 2013: 48; see also Byard, 2016). Besides absent or questionable peer review procedures and ethical standards (issues that have been discussed in this chapter), practices of research misconduct include all types of plagiarism (direct, patchwork, translational or self-plagiarism), data and image manipulation, or retraction policy. Because articles are not subjected to a rigorous peer review and knowledge is not validated, misconduct is another threat to scholarly publication. It casts further doubts on the study that has been published, and thus leads readers to approach findings with caution and to avoid the citation of research that may appear suspicious.

Predatory practices also involve a “strategy of misdirection” (Pecorari, 2021, p. 356) or “misrepresentation” (Ferris & Winker, 2017, p. 280); that is, scholars are driven into “a sort of fallacious thinking” (Pecorari, 2021, p. 356) because fraudulent journals contain signs that intentionally create a misleading impression and that scholars recognise from legitimate journals (like some of the categories in the analysis of this study – e.g., the use of invalid self-reported metrics). Misrepresentation has been identified by Ferris and Winker (2017) as a main ethical issue in academic publishing because, firstly, these journals misrepresent who they are and the services they offer; and, secondly, authors misrepresent their research by choosing to publish in predatory journals and listing them on their CVs as if they had been published in legitimate journals.
5.3. *Impact on researchers and global scholarship*

To assume that deceptive journals prey on vulnerable scholars, or that researchers publish
their work in these journals because they are naive or unconcerned, is a simplistic way to
address the problem. The institutional and contextual factors that determine scholars'
publication decisions are diverse and complex (Mills & Inouye, 2020). These include,
among others, publication incentives and pressures on individuals, the relatively
underdeveloped nature of a scholarly research publication culture, the role played by these
journals in providing effective outlets for research, or additional hurdles like English
language proficiency (Bloch, 2021; Collyer, 2016; Memon, 2019; Mills & Inouye, 2020).
Xia et al. (2015) found that there was a preponderance of young and inexperienced
researchers from developing countries, especially from India, Nigeria and some African
and Middle East countries, who were in serious need of becoming visible in academic
circles and increasing their CVs in a very short time by building their list of publications
quickly and easily. These findings concur with Forero et al. (2018) and Kurt (2018), for
whom inexperienced young scholars from developing countries with a need to advance
their careers are the most vulnerable victims of these practices.

It may also be the case that when some countries systematically publish their
research in fake journals, articles will decrease in top-tier journals, therefore lowering
their position in global academic ranking systems (Forero et al., 2018). In the same vein,
Kurt (2018) warns of research published in predatory journals becoming “lost science”
(p. 143) – that is, published research may not be located via formal academic searches
and this will inevitably lead to the decrease of the research profile of the researcher’s
institution and country as well as the loss of future funding. Likewise, Ferris and Winker
(2017) raise a relevant ethical concern: the illegitimate consideration of a journal will
question the legitimacy of the research published therein; thus, wasting funding and
resources.

To my understanding, all these circumstances create a divide between mainstream
authors, who publish in legitimate journals and can therefore be trusted, and authors,
usually from emerging or developing countries, who publish untested findings in dubious
or predatory journals; the former contribute to the expansion of validated knowledge
whereas the latter promote invalid or fraudulent science. This publication patterns might
help to create and sustain the inequalities of global academic knowledge production
between mainstream and non-mainstream countries, so that scholarship from “emerging
markets of scientific research” (Shamseer et al., 2017, p. 2) may be systematically
alienated or under-valued.

**6. Conclusions**

Different voices have claimed the need to promote scholarly publishing literacy or
educate authors in science writing in order to improve their understanding of predatory
practices and recognise publishing fraud (e.g., Beall, 2012; Memon, 2019; Soler & Wang,
2019). Aligning with this literature, this study has sought to identify the main features
that characterise predatory publishing to generate interest and convince authors for
submitting their work. It has also assessed deceptive editorial practices that may flout
mainstream academic publication standards and put the dissemination of validated
knowledge and open access at stake. Specifically, the analysis of predatory emails has
shown that predatory discourse overuses boastful language and relies on self-promotional
explicit references to high quality in order to persuade authors and achieve publishers'
predatory aims. The implications of deceptive journals and predatory practices for
knowledge dissemination and the open access movement have been discussed with
particular reference to the spread of suspicious knowledge, misconduct practices and
misdirection strategies, and impact on scholars (usually inexperienced and from emerging
countries) who need to build up their publication portfolios and gain visibility in global
academia.

The main recommendations that derive from this study are three: avoid distrusting
open access journals from the outset (“predatory” and “open access” are not
interchangeable terms); disbelieve prompt and swift publication; and make sure that peer
review is safeguarded. Also, lessons learned from this study point at the need to examine
journal websites, particularly for unrealistic author-pay processing or publication; keep a
wary eye on misleading data (like apparently well-known index lists and databases);
investigate who has previously published in that journal and whether the journal is often
cited in a particular field; and look for reputed scholars who are relevant in that field,
either as authors or members of scientific/editorial boards.

Doubtlessly, all researchers and academics will benefit if they gain the skills and
awareness to differentiate legitimate from scam journals. If they are able to identify the
“red flags” of deceptive publishing practices, they will also be ready to identify high-
quality venues and make informed choices of the most appropriate journal for their
research. Becoming alert of the existence of predatory publishers and learning the signs
of fraudulent practices offer bottom-up benefits in academia. Firstly, it will prevent early-
career researchers from putting faith in a piece of research whose publication will not
compensate for the effort in terms of curriculum reward. It will also help experienced
researchers in their role of supervisors and mentors to streamline junior researchers’ work
and results. At the institutional level, evaluating and tenure committees in charge of
examining scholars’ credentials will be able to conduct informed assessments on the
quality of the published research, and based on journal legitimacy.

This study is a first exploration into the ways academic research is impacted by
predatory practices, although further investigation is needed to have a better
understanding of the academic dynamics in which predatory publishing is flourishing.
Further explorations of how authors are engaged in predatory practices could help us
better understand how engagement strategies are used to create a persuasive appeal, above
all on junior researchers (Bocanegra-Valle, 2023). Likewise, the multimodal features and
paratextual elements that prevail in predatory messages are issues that could be addressed.
For these purposes the group of messages under analysis in this chapter could be
extended. Conducting ethnographically-oriented analyses is another direction for further
research. Junior and experienced researchers as well as journal editors and publishers
could be approached to tap their views and concerns on predatory publishing. Also,
scholars who have actually published in predatory journals could be surveyed and
interviewed to gather more insights into the reasons and expectations when submitting
their work for eventual publication.
## Acknowledgements

This study is a contribution to the project *Digital Genres and Open Science*, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (PID2019-105655RB-100, funded by MCIN/AEI/ 10.13039/501100011033)

## Notes

¹ Code in brackets refers to the message in the corpus. To safeguard anonymity, journal details which might lead to journal or publishers' identification have been removed in some excerpts.

## References

* Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. *Nature*, 489(7415), 179.

* Beall, J. (2013). Medical publishing triage – Chronicling predatory open access publishers. *Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 2*(2), 47–49.

* Beall, J. (2015). *Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers*. URL: https://beallslist.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/criteria-2015.pdf

* Beall, J. (2016). Dangerous predatory publishers threaten medical research. *J Korean med Sci, 31*, 1511–1513. http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.10.1511

* Beall, J. (2017). *Beall's list of predatory open access publishers 2017*. URL: https://scholarlyoa.com/2017/01/03/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2017/

* Bloch, J. (2021). *Creating digital literacy spaces for multilingual writers*. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/BLOCH0794

* Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2017). How credible are open access emerging journals? A situational analysis in the humanities. In M. Cargill, & S. Burgess (Eds.), *Publishing research in English as an additional language: Practices, pathways and potentials* (pp. 121–149). University of Adelaide Press.

* Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2019). Building a reputation in global scientific communication: A SWOT analysis of Spanish humanities journals. *Canadian Journal of Sociology, 44*(1), 39–66. https://doi.org/10.29173/cjs28935

* Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2020). Researching academic genres, language and discourse with computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software. In M. L. Carrió-Pastor (Ed.), *Corpus Analysis in different genres: Academic discourse and learner corpora* (pp. 146–166). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367815905

* Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2023). Engaging in predatory practices: How editors persuade prospective authors. *Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 93*, 117–129. https://dx.doi.org/10.5209/clac.82441

* Byard, R. W. (2016). The forensic implications of predatory publishing. *Forensic Sci Med Pathol, 12*, 391–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-016-9771-3

* Cobey, K. D., Lalu, M. M., Skidmore, B., Ahmadzai, N., Grudniewicz, A., & Moher, D. (2018). What is a predatory journal? A scoping review. *F1000Research, 7*, 1001. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15256.2
Collyer, F.M. (2016). Global patterns in the publishing of academic knowledge: Global north, global south. *Current Sociology*, 66(1), 56–73.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116680020.

Elmore, S. A., & Weston, E. H. (2020). Predatory journals: What they are and how to avoid them. *Toxicol Pathol*, 48(4), 607–610.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623320920209

Fazel, I., & Hartse, J. H. (2018). Reconsidering ‘predatory’ open access journals in an age of globalised English-language academic publishing. In M. J Curry, & T. Lillis (Eds.), *Global academic publishing. Policies, perspectives and pedagogies* (pp. 200–213). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/CURRY9238.

Fazel, I., & Hartse, J.H. (2020). Gray areas of academic publishing. ‘Predatory journals’ under the lens. *Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes*, 1(2), 184–194. https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.20008.faz

Ferris, L. E., & Winker, M. A. (2017). Ethical issues in publishing in predatory journals. *Biochemia Medica*, 27(2), 279–284. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.030

Forero, D. A., Oermann, M. H., Manca, A., Deriu, F., Mendieta-Zerón, H., Dadkhah, M., Deshpande, S. N., Wang, W., & Cifuentes, M. P. (2018). Negative effects of “predatory” journals on global health research. *Annals of Global Health*, 84(4), 584–589. https://doi.org/10.29024/aogh.2389

Gasparyan, A. Y., Yessirkepov, M., Diyanova, S. N., & Kitas, G. D. (2015). Publishing ethics and predatory practices: A dilemma for all stakeholders of science communication. *J Korean Med Sci*, 30, 1010–1016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.8.1010

Kurt, S. (2018). Why do authors publish in predatory journals? *Learned Publishing*, 31, 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1150

Laine, C., & Winker, M. A. (2017). Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. *Biochemia Medica*, 27(2), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.031

Memon, A. R. (2019). Revisiting the term predatory open access publishing. *J Korean Med Sci*, 34(13), e99. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e99

Mills, D., & Inouye, K. (2020). Problematizing ‘predatory publishing’: A systematic review of factors shaping publishing motives, decisions, and experiences. *Learned Publishing*, 34(2), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1325

Pecorari, D. (2021). Predatory conferences: What are the signs? *Journal of Academic Ethics*, 19, 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09406-4

Pflugfelder, E. H. (2022). Evidence engines: Common rhetorical features of fraudulent academic articles. *Written Communication*, 39(2), 303–331.
https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883211069332

Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Maduekwe, O., Turner, L., Barbour, V., Burch, R., Clark, J., Galipeau, J., Roberts, J., & Shea, B. J. (2017). Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: Can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. *BMC Medicine*, 15(28), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9

Soler, J., & Cooper, A. (2019). Unexpected emails to submit your work: Spam or legitimate offers? The implications for novice English L2 writers. *Publications, 7*(1), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010007

Soler, J., & Wang, Y. (2019). Linguistic differences between well-established and predatory journals: A keyword analysis of two journals in political science. *Learned Publishing*, 32(3), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1244
Xia, J., Harmon, J. L., Connolly, K. G., Donnelly, R. M., Anderson, M. R., & Howard, H. A. (2015). Who publishes in “predatory” journals? *Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66*(7), 1406–1417.
http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23265