Science for sale: the rise of predatory journals
Authors: Robert E Bartholomew
Journal: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (2014)

A new threat has emerged to the integrity of academic publishing: predatory journals. These unscrupulous publishers are exploiting the open-access (OA) model by corrupting the peer-review process, which is often absent or minimal. Their motivation is the procurement of evaluation and publication fees, which in the absence of traditional subscription rates are necessary to cover operating costs. Some claim to assess submissions within 72 h and digitally publish them upon acceptance and receipt of the fee. If the peer-review process were only that simple! While most medical professionals keep abreast of their fields by consulting a collection of established journals in their specialties, the existence of a large body of essentially unevaluated material in dubious OA journals is cause for concern. While many predatory publications would be easily recognised as such by most in their respective professions, some are highly sophisticated and operate websites that mirror prominent mainstream journals. Even experienced scientists have been duped into joining the editorial boards of bogus journals, or submitting articles, only to realise their mistake after noticing irregularities and being asked to pay hefty publication fees. While the dream of OA journals is a noble concept that was supposed to herald a revolution in scholarly publishing by making research freely assessable to anyone online, it has quickly turned into a quagmire. The extent of the problem is highlighted by Jeffrey Beall, an associate professor of Library Science at the University of Colorado and creator of Beall’s List (http://scholarlyoa.com/), a register that monitors dubious journals. There are several hundred OA publications on the list. Beall does not support a regulatory body to oversee scholarly publishers; instead, he believes that the best defence against unethical publishers is education, and ‘the ability to recognise publishing fraud’ through scientific literacy. After recognising the troubling trend of OA journals mixing business with science, biologist John Bohannon decided to conduct an experiment to gauge the extent of the problem. Between January and August 2013, he submitted an error-ridden study extolling the benefits of a new cancer drug, under the name of an imaginary African researcher working at a fictitious institute in Eritrea. He observed that ‘Any researcher with more than a high school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper’s shortcomings immediately’. He said the experiments were ‘so hopelessly flawed’ as to be meaningless. Of 304 submissions, 157 were either accepted for further review or outright publication. Some of the journals that accepted the paper were hosted by industry giants in the journal publishing world. Another issue is the likelihood that some researchers may knowingly use sham publications to pad their CV, essentially serving as a vanity press in order to obtain employment, grants and promotions. The existence of so many marginal journals has made the vetting process for each of these categories, more difficult and time-consuming. There is also the problem of non-experts conducting online research and being unable to distinguish between credible research and junk science. While many OA journals are legitimate enterprises that contribute to the ever-growing body of scientific knowledge, it is painfully evident that a significant number are untrustworthy. The advent of digital technology has created a similar deluge of self-published books that have circumvented the traditional vetting process. In 1597, English philosopher Francis Bacon wrote that ‘knowledge itself is power’. Five centuries later, with the explosion of information both online and in print, these words are no less poignant. In the 21st century, the ability to detect deception and fraud masquerading as science will be essential. The deficiencies of peer review are well documented, yet despite its flaws, it remains the benchmark of scientific assessment. While some researchers have tried to turn the discussion into a