Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey

Objectives To develop effective interventions to prevent publishing in presumed predatory journals (ie, journals that display deceptive characteristics, markers or data that cannot be verified), it is helpful to understand the motivations and experiences of those who have published in these journals. Design An online survey delivered to two sets of corresponding authors containing demographic information, and questions about researchers' perceptions of publishing in the presumed predatory journal, type of article processing fees paid and the quality of peer review received. The survey also asked six open-ended items about researchers' motivations and experiences. Participants Using Beall's lists, we identified two groups of individuals who had published empirical articles in biomedical journals that were presumed to be predatory. Results Eighty-two authors partially responded (similar to 14% response rate (11.4%[44/386] from the initial sample, 19.3%[38/197] from second sample) to our survey. The top three countries represented were India (n= 21, 25.9%), USA (n= 17, 21.0%) and Ethiopia (n= 5, 6.2%). Three participants (3.9%) thought the journal they published in was predatory at the time of article submission. The majority of participants first encountered the journal via an email invitation to submit an article (n= 32, 41.0%), or through an online search to find a journal with relevant scope (n= 22, 28.2%). Most participants indicated their study received peer review (n= 65, 83.3%) and that this was helpful and substantive (n= 51, 79.7%). More than a third (n= 32, 45.1%) indicated they did not pay fees to publish. Conclusions This work provides some evidence to inform policy to prevent future research from being published in predatory journals. Our research suggests that common views about predatory journals (eg, no peer review) may not always be true, and that a grey zone between legitimate and presumed predatory journals exists. These results are based on self- reports and may be biased thus limiting their interpretation.