DOI: 10.3897/ese.2026.e174423

Authors: Andrés Fernández-Ramos, Rubén Comas-Forgas, Blanca Rodríguez-Bravo

Abstract: Objectives: To review the literature on spam emails that scholars receive; to identify the characteristics of such emails; to categorize their recurring features; to review the main recommendations for dealing with academic spam; to help consolidate the findings into a practical framework for researchers, mentors, and research offices; and to serve as a basis for developing a checklist for detecting academic spam.Methods: Two databases, namely Scopus and Web of Science, were searched in December 2024 for empirical studies, each analysing at least 50 unsolicited emails received by researchers and presumably sent by potentially predatory journals, pub-lishers, or conferences. The search yielded a total of 29 such studies, which were then analysed to identify and categorize two types of information: the items used for identifying or characterizing academic spam and the recommendations for dealing with it.Results: A total of 33 items were related to the email itself, and 20 more referred to information about the journal, publisher, or conference – information that could be obtained only after consulting external sources to identify the sender. The first group of 33 items was divided into eight categories, such as ‘solicitation tactics and persua-sion’, ‘editorial and peer-review claims’, or ‘misleading metrics and indexing claims’. The recommendations were diverse, but most addressed measures for (1) training in detecting predatory journals and academic spam, (2) raising awareness of the prob-lem among researchers, and (3) developing and using tools to identify both academic spam and predatory journals and publishers.Conclusion: Academic spam remains a threat to efficient and trustworthy scholarly communication. This review systematizes the most frequently reported indicators and countermeasures proposed across studies and provides an operational basis for awareness-raising, filtering practices, and institutional guidance.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e150991

Authors: Gheorghe Cuciureanu

Abstract: Background: Predatory conferences vary greatly in their format, scale, and organization and adversely affect researchers from less developed countries the most. Although ways to identify such conferences continue to be refined, their organizers are often a step ahead and strive to be increasingly sophisticated. One effective way of detecting whether a given conference is predatory is to submit a nonsensical manuscript and monitor its fate.Objective: To examine the extent to which scientific conferences organized by institutions in Moldova match the established markers of predatory conferences.Methods: A manuscript authored by a fictitious individual was submitted to 16 scientific conferences. The manuscript included passages copied verbatim from other sources and introduced a fabricated and absurd indicator for evaluating science, namely the Timmy Index (named after the author’s dog). The conferences were subsequently matched against established markers for predatory conferences.Results: Of the 16 conferences, 14 accepted the manuscript; 9 issued a certificate of attendance; and 12 published the article in their proceedings, although none of the 16 charged any participation or publication fees.Conclusions: Pseudoscientific conferences are deeply embedded in the academic community of Moldova. The operational model employed by these conferences fosters a publication culture among local researchers that makes it acceptable to submit manuscripts to predatory journals and conferences, prioritizing rapid publishing for a fee and without proper peer review or an actual presentation at a conference.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e137960

Authors: Adam Larson, Matan Shelomi

Abstract: Predatory journals exploit the open access model for profit, often publishing papers with minimal or nonexistent peer review. Predatory publishing stings can identify predatory publishers and increase awareness of the problem, but there are no guidelines for effective stings. We propose that stings should include peer review red flags that would stop the sting from being accepted by reputable journals, be followed by a public sting statement to alert others to the predatory journal identified and predatory publishing in general, and avoid both payment to predatory publishers and risk to the stinger.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e118119

Authors: Fahmi H. Kakamad, Berun A. Abdalla, Hiwa O. Abdullah, Sami S. Omar, Shvan H. Mohammed, Sasan M. Ahmed, Karukh K. Mohammed, Hemn A. Hassan, Hiwa O. Baba, Jaafar O. Ahmed, Mohammed Q. Mustafa, Diyar A. Omar, Rawezh Q. Salih, Hawbash M. Rahim, Dahat A. Hussein, Marwan N. Hassan, Tomas M. Mikael, Hunar A. Hassan, Kayhan A. Najar

Abstract: Although predatory publishers are increasingly recognized, universally accepted criteria for defining predatory journals are lacking. These journals challenge the scholarly community by blurring the line between legitimate and questionable publishing practices. Several lists and reports of predatory journals have been published, which offer valuable insights; however, they are not devoid of criticism. Beall’s list, although criticized for its inclusion criteria, is currently managed anonymously and updated infrequently. Cabells’ list uses an extensive array of inclusion criteria, some of which are similar to those used in Beall’s list. Several of these criteria are redundant and fail to detect predatory practices, and using all of them in evaluating a journal is seldom practicable. Kscien’s list has emerged as a promising alternative for identifying predatory publishers or journals. However, it requires refinement, potentially through creating a distinct list supported by unequivocal evidence, such as accepting a fake manuscript (ascertained through a sting operation). The present review seeks to catalyze research on identifying predatory journals and publishers by comparing existing lists and suggesting new techniques for detecting predatory practices.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e113535

Authors: A.J. (Tom) van Loon

Abstract: Background: Scientists are confronted nowadays with a tsunami of requests by preda-tory journals to contribute.Objectives: To inform potential authors, readers, reviewers, and editors of scien-tific articles about the ever-growing flow of low-quality publications and their neg-ative consequences, based on the author’s personal experience and on scrutiny of more than 360 invitations, received over 4 months, from journals to contribute a manuscript.Methods: The requests to contribute a manuscript received by the author during 4 months were analysed for the characteristics of the journals and publishers issuing the invitations.Results: A total of 368 requests were received during 4 months (123 days), on average 3 per day, from a total of 216 journals. Of these, 164 (~76%) were no more than 10 years old, and 129 of the 162 journals (~80%) that sent an invitation to contribute have no editor-in-chief; for 12 journals (~7%), the starting year could not be ascertained. Many journals are not located where they claim to be (typically the UK or the United States) but rather in countries such as India and Singapore. Slightly more than half of 216 journals (~54%) deal with medical matters.Conclusions: Predatory journals pose a severe threat to the quality of scientific infor-mation, which is why attempts should be made to stop them. A proposal to prepare an indisputable alternative for Beall’s List of potentially predatory journals is presented.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e101121

Authors: Panagiotis Tsigaris, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

Abstract:

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e95926

Authors: Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

Abstract: In the academic world, despite their corrective nature, there is still a negative stigma attached to retractions, even more so if they are based on ethical infractions. Editors-in-chief and editors are role models in academic and scholarly communities. Thus, if they have multiple retractions or a record of academic misconduct, this viewpoint argues that they should not serve on journals’ editorial boards. The exception is where such individuals have displayed a clear path of scholarly reform. Policy and guidance is needed by organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e90113

Authors: Olivier Pourret

Abstract: Commentary on open access

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e67829

Authors: Jaime Teixeira da Silva

Abstract: ‘Global South’, a term frequently used on websites and in papers related to academic and ‘predatory’ publishing, may represent a form of unscholarly discrimination. Arguments are put forward as to why the current use of this term is geographically meaningless, since it implies countries in the southern hemisphere, whereas many of the entities in publishing that are referred to as being part of the Global South are in fact either on the equator or in the northern hemisphere. Therefore, academics, in writing about academic publishing, should cease using this broad, culturally insensitive, and geographically inaccurate term.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e63663

Authors: Olivier Pourret, David William Hedding, Daniel Enrique Ibarra, Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Haiyan Liu, Jonathan Peter Tennant

Abstract: Background: Open access (OA) implies free and unrestricted access to and re-use of research articles. Recently, OA publishing has seen a new wave of interest, debate, and practices surrounding that mode of publishing.Objectives: To provide an overview of publication practices and to compare them among six countries across the world to stimulate further debate and to raise awareness about OA to facilitate decision-making on further development of OA practices in earth sciences.Methods: The number of OA articles, their distribution among the six countries, and top ten journals publishing OA articles were identified using two databases, namely Scopus and the Web of Science, based mainly on the data for 2018.Results: In 2018, only 24%–31% of the total number of articles indexed by either of the databases were OA articles. Six of the top ten earth sciences journals that publish OA articles were fully OA journals and four were hybrid journals. Fully OA journals were mostly published by emerging publishers and their article processing charges ranged from $1000 to $2200.Conclusions: The rise in OA publishing has potential implications for researchers and tends to shift article-processing charges from organizations to individuals. Until the earth sciences community decides to move away from journal-based criteria to evaluate researchers, it is likely that such high costs will continue to maintain financial inequities within this research community, especially to the disadvantage of researchers from the least developed countries. However, earth scientists, by opting for legal self- archiving of their publications, could help to promote equitable and sustainable access to, and wider dissemination of, their work.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e52348

Authors: Alehegn Adane Kinde

Abstract: Background: Predatory journals (PJs) are journals that receive and publish articles through unethical publishing practices. Due to the boom of PJs, researchers face a wide range of journals from which to choose. Non-peer reviewed and low-quality articles can ruin the trustworthiness of science and have a damaging impact on decision-makers.Objective: To assess the level of awareness among Ethiopian researchers of PJs and to improve the awareness level through training.Method: The participants were professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and lecturers from different disciplines. The study included 18 statements for participants to indicate their level of awareness on the Likert scale, questions on knowledge resources on PJs, and open-ended questions about ways of avoiding PJs. A one-day programme trained the participants in detecting and avoiding PJs.Results: 43 participants completed the pre-assessment online survey and 37 participants completed the post-assessment survey. Many researchers were unaware of PJs and found it somewhat difficult to differentiate PJs from legitimate journals. However, during the post-assessment, the awareness level improved and the participants’ rating of the task of differentiating PJs from legitimate journals changed from ‘Somewhat difficult’ to ‘Easy’.Conclusion: Many researchers were unaware of the potential distinctions between PJs and legitimate journals that are crucial to an appropriate journal for publishing. Especially low awareness was found on the journal impact factor, journal indexing services, and reputable publishers. Hence, before manuscript submission, authors ought to know and practise evaluating journals on the basis of the recommended criteria.

HTML

XML

PDF