Centre for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
BMJ Open. 2019 Mar 23;9(3):e026516. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026516.
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.
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.
Using Beall's lists, we identified two groups of individuals who had published empirical articles in biomedical journals that were presumed to be predatory.
Eighty-two authors partially responded (~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.
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.
为了开发有效的干预措施来防止在假定的掠夺性期刊上发表论文（即显示出欺骗性特征、标记或无法核实的数据的期刊），了解那些在这些期刊上发表过论文的人的动机和经历是很有帮助的。
一项在线调查，向两组通讯作者发送了包含人口统计学信息的问题，以及关于研究人员对在假定的掠夺性期刊上发表论文的看法、支付的论文处理费类型以及同行评审质量的问题。该调查还询问了六个关于研究人员动机和经验的开放性问题。
使用 Beall 名单，我们确定了两组曾在被认为是掠夺性的生物医学期刊上发表过实证文章的个人。
有 82 名作者对我们的调查作出了部分回应（约 14%的回复率（初始样本中的 11.4%[44/386]，第二样本中的 19.3%[38/197]）。代表人数最多的三个国家是印度（n=21，25.9%）、美国（n=17，21.0%）和埃塞俄比亚（n=5，6.2%）。有 3 名参与者（3.9%）认为他们投稿时发表论文的期刊是掠夺性的。大多数参与者首次通过提交文章的电子邮件邀请（n=32，41.0%）或通过在线搜索寻找具有相关范围的期刊（n=22，28.2%）了解该期刊。大多数参与者表示他们的研究接受了同行评审（n=65，83.3%），并且认为这是有帮助和实质性的（n=51，79.7%）。超过三分之一（n=32，45.1%）的人表示他们没有支付发表费用。
这项工作为防止未来的研究发表在掠夺性期刊上提供了一些政策依据。我们的研究表明，关于掠夺性期刊的一些普遍观点（例如，没有同行评审）可能并不总是正确的，而且合法和假定的掠夺性期刊之间存在一个灰色地带。这些结果基于自我报告，可能存在偏差，因此限制了它们的解释。
