Predatory publishing

Predatory publishing charges authors to publish scholarly work while neglecting or misrepresenting peer review and other editorial standards. It exploits the incentives and costs of academic publishing.

Article processing charge: A fee charged to publish an article, commonly used to fund open-access journals. Predatory publishers often use author fees while failing to provide the editorial services those fees imply.
Retraction: The formal withdrawal of a published scholarly work from the literature. Articles from deficient journals may require correction or withdrawal when serious problems emerge.
Open-access publishing: Scholarly publishing that makes research available online without subscription barriers. Open access is a legitimate dissemination model; charging authors alone does not make a journal predatory.
Think. Check. Submit.: A campaign that helps researchers assess journals and publishers before submitting work. Its checklist addresses common warning signs associated with deceptive publication offers.
Jeffrey Beall: An academic librarian known for documenting publishers he considered predatory. His list brought the problem to prominence while prompting debate about criteria and authority.
Peer review: Evaluation of scholarly work by experts before publication. Predatory journals may claim peer review while omitting it or conducting it inadequately.
Research integrity: The principles and practices that support honest, rigorous, and accountable research. Predatory publishing undermines the systems that make research trustworthy and verifiable.
Diamond open access: Open-access publishing with no fees for readers or authors. It shows that open access can operate without the author charges predatory journals exploit.
Directory of Open Access Journals: A curated index of open-access scholarly journals meeting stated inclusion criteria. Its inclusion process can help identify established open-access journals, though indexing is not a guarantee.
Predatory publishing criteria: Indicators used to assess whether a scholarly publisher misrepresents its editorial practices. No single warning sign settles the question; assessments depend on evidence and context.

Linked from 10 pages