ѻý

Predatory Journals: Should They Publish or Perish?

<ѻý class="mpt-content-deck">— Milton Packer, MD, examines the recent surge in fee-based publications
MedpageToday
image

In case you have been asleep, there are thousands of new medical journals these days.

Many of us are bombarded daily with emails from journals we have never heard of before. Typically, they have odd sounding names. "Journal of Cardiovascular Research, Tropical Infections and Leprechaun Surgery." Or "Medical Research and Untimely Contemplations." (I invented both titles.)

The email follows a predictable formula. The first line is typically: "Greetings! I hope you are doing well."

The next line reads: "We have read your recent article with great interest. This would be perfect for our new journal. Please send us a paper as soon as possible. In fact, we have an open slot in an issue scheduled for release in a few weeks. If you send us a paper, we will be able to complete the issue."

What are they not saying in the emails? To have your paper published, you will need to pay. Typically, about $1,500-$4,000 per paper.

In some cases, the emails offer more than just the opportunity to publish. Sometimes, if you want, you can become the editor of the new journal. Some people have even been offered the position of editor-in-chief on the spot.

I have been offered editor positions for many journals on subjects I know nothing about.

What are these journals? Surprise! Some people are trying to make money. These journals do not print hard copies. And in most cases, no one subscribes to them or reads their content.

But their survival doesn't depend on subscriptions or readers. Their survival doesn't even depend on their work being cited. Their survival depends on authors paying a hefty fee to put their work online in a "journal."

According to some, in recent years, 8,000 new journals have been created out of thin air, based on the hope that authors will pay to have their work published.

Some people incorrectly refer to these new journals as "open-access" journals. That is a misnomer. Many traditional, top-tier journals offer "open-access" to authors whose papers have been accepted under a rigorous peer-review process. Open access simply means that non-subscribers can read your work for free. But if the authors don't want to pay the fee for open access, their work is still published. (I am not talking about "page charges," which is an entirely different matter.)

Some people refer to these new journals as "predatory."

According to Wikipedia, a "predatory" journal includes one that (1) accepts articles quickly with little or no peer review or quality control; (2) notifies authors of fees only after papers are accepted; (3) lists academics as members of editorial boards without their permission or lists fake people as editors; and (4) cites fake impact factors.

Some people want to abolish "predatory journals."

Really? How would one go about doing that? Exactly what criteria would you use? And who would have the authority to do that?

And why call them "predatory"? Are there victims? The authors who agree to pay for an online presence following a cursory review process presumably know what they are paying for. They seem comfortable being victimized.

By the way, people have been paying to have their work published for 500 years. In 1539, Henry VIII defied the Catholic Church by funding the printing of the Bible in English. The Vatican's efforts to stop him just made things a lot worse.

My take: If you don't like "predatory journals," just ignore them.

Their existence is the price we pay for living in a free society.

Medical publishing has lots of real problems these days, but in my opinion, this isn't one of them. My advice: If you love medicine and want to fix it, let this one go. Thinking of fixing it raises many more issues that it solves.

Disclosures

Packer recently consulted for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiorentis, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Novo Nordisk, Relypsa, Sanofi, Takeda, and ZS Pharma. He chairs the EMPEROR Executive Committee for trials of empagliflozin for the treatment of heart failure. He was previously the co-PI of the PARADIGM-HF trial and serves on the Steering Committee of the PARAGON-HF trial, but has no financial relationship with Novartis