Predator publishers is a broad category of online services claiming to provide peer reviewed academic publishing at a saving compared to major , reputable publishers. The problem is centered around the claims of peer review. Evidence is mounting against several major and many minor predator publishers that they fail to provide the services claimed, overcharge, do not publish and ultimately misrepresent their platform.
This would not be a problem if academics were not turning to these companies as a viable option in lieu of reputable publishers. The most vulnerable groups being junior researchers and those from countries with developing academic fields. This is due to a combination of ignorance, poor funding, unrealistic publishing targets and turn around time in existing systems.
These predators have identified how they can be of service to academics in these areas and than exploit them. They offer cheap publication. They can be accessed easily and are nearly always open access. The standards are low which makes it possible for a junior researcher to produce many articles of limited value in short order. The open access aspect means other researchers will more easily find their work and prospectively site it. This combination allows a junior or senior academics to publish regularly even if it is out of their own income.
For the academic the best part is a promise of fast publication. In a bad situation an established journal may take 6-12 months to publish an article. These predators offer as little as 72 hours of turn around time. This is an extreme case but any reduction in the time to publication is desirable. Being the first to publish is hugely different from the second to publish.
Sokal squared, the original sokal prank, get me off your ****ing mailing list and more are all examples of academics looking to highlight the poor review process in peer reviewed journals. Some of these highlight poor practices (sokal squared) whilst others highlight what can be called a high volume publication pipeline ( Journal of advanced computer technology). More of these efforts to identify predators come out every month it seems.
This is not to say that all predator publishers are such. The label is contested for this reason. Others argue that unethical, complicit or deceptive publishing is more suitable. In other cases journals have progressed from an unethical model to legitimate publisher of quality content.
On the other side of this equation is the increasing number of legitimate journals that have begun to treat their editors, advisory staff or contributors very poorly. This back sliding of journals that were once seen as exemplary is the other side of the same coin.
With academics rebelling against the system of predators there has been little impact. This does not mean that no one has noticed. Consumer regulatory, funding and advocacy bodies are raising concerns. To be accurate they are asking researchers not to publish in predator journals. The underlying point being that their funding is in doubt if it is thought that they will pay for publishing in the wrong place. The wrong place of course carries lower impact factors, clout and reputation whilst the right places are more difficult, costly and time consuming.
This strong suggestion of course brings everything full circle with predator publishers being , at times, sneaky, cheaper, more accessible and with lower barriers to entry. By comparison traditional publishers are putting their contributors and editors into a corner.
Disclaimers because somebody will use this information in a dumb way.
Do not troll supposed predator publishers with this information.
This information is for reference only.
The information given is representative of the opinion of those making the original statements or reputable sources.
This is largely for commentary, education or satirical reasons (particularly the humanities jokes).
