text: The challenge of defining predatory publishing – The Publication Plan for everyone interested in medical writing, the development of medical publications, and publication planning
  Posted July 7, 2020 by The Publication Plan1 Comment on The challenge of defining predatory publishing	Journal selection
  The challenge of defining predatory publishing
  Predatory journals are widely recognised as a real and escalating threat to the legitimacy of modern scholarly publishing. But what defines predatory publishing? There are many behaviours that indicate that a journal or publishers' intentions may not be 100% legitimate, which can result in their inclusion in Cabell's Blacklist, but this judgement involves a degree of subjectivity. The difficulties in defining 'predatory publishing' is the subject of a recent LSE impact blog by Kyle Siler.
  Siler suggests that to demarcate predatory and non-predatory publishing is complex due to the varying types and degrees of illegitimacy that exist. These may range, for example, from relatively minor violations, such as a poorly maintained webpage, to obviously fraudulent activity, such as fake editorial boards, or an absent peer review process. Siler highlights that journals and publishers may exhibit a combination of violations that vary in severity, which can lead to significant levels of ambiguity in academic publishing; publishers may produce a series of journals of varying quality and legitimacy, and, likewise, individual journals may publish strong articles alongside less legitimate contributions. This can make it difficult to draw the line between legitimate and predatory.
  Siler explains that as academic publishing is simultaneously a professional and an economic activity, where business interests supersede a journal's academic function, the borders of legitimacy can be pushed. This careful balance is evident in controversial 'grey' journals and publishers, some of which have seen increasing success in recent years despite criticism over their business practices. Siler suggests that peer review is key to managing this ambiguity and proposes that the wider application of open peer review in particular is needed to expose poor practices.
  Journal selection, Peer review, Predatory publishing
  Blacklist, Cabells, Predatory journals
  Previous Previous post: Metadata in scholarly communications
  Next Next post: How is coronavirus affecting medical publication planning?
  One thought on "The challenge of defining predatory publishing" Leave a comment ›
  Please note that Cabells has now changed the name of its predatory journal list to Predatory Reports, which has now almost reached 13,500 titles. Full details on the change can be read here: https://blog.cabells.com/2020/06/08/announcement/
  The Publication Plan for everyone interested in medical writing, the development of medical publications, and publication planning The challenge of defining predatory publishing