FOR the scientific archive to retain its integrity, we have a right to expect that research papers are reviewed by experts in the field, and that those reviewers take a view whether the reported results/conclusions are valid, that the research is reproducible and whether that research advances our knowledge in the area that the paper addresses.
In 2009, Jeffrey Beall, an academic librarian at the University of Colorado, raised the issue of what has now become known as predatory publishing. This is the practice of (so-called) scientific publishers charging authors to publish the results of their research in a journal, but without the robust processes that you would expect from a scientific publisher, such as robust peer review.
While many authors will be unaware that they are publishing in a predatory journal, there is evidence that some authors are fully aware and are only interested in publishing as many papers are possible as this helps with getting a new job, promotion or just generally improving their CV. These authors are as much a part of the problem as the predatory journals themselves.
The open access model
To many, the idea of paying to publish your own paper will seem very strange. In most business relationships, you would expect to provide a product or service (in this case, the paper resulting from your research) and get paid.
Scientific publishing has never worked like this. The traditional model is that scholars publish their paper in a journal after a peer review process, but they do not get paid. Moreover, they hand over the copyright of their paper to the journal/publisher. The journal/publisher then sells subscriptions to the journal as a way to return a profit.
The open access model came about as governments, and the general public demanded that the research that their tax dollar was funding was made available to anybody who wished to access it. This means that research papers could no longer be hidden behind a pay wall. Instead, you had a right to view the result of any research, at no cost to the reader.
Under the open access model, the author (or their institution, or some other agency) pays to publish their paper, the authors retain the copyright and the paper can be freely distributed to anybody who wants to read it.
At present, the scientific publishing community operates both the traditional model and the open access model, but there has been a significant movement towards open access in recent years and we are likely to see this increase as the demand for unrestricted access to research gains ever greater momentum.
The open access movement has led to a rise in predatory publishers. Unscrupulous publishers have seen an opportunity to charge authors to publish their papers, with that payment being made up front and without the need to set up a subscription-based model, which not only delays the payment but also requires a lot more marketing.
Criticism of open access
The open access model, despite its obvious benefits, has some negative points.
Having to pay to publish your own research does seem strange in the context of other business models that operate in other sectors.
The taxpayer (usually) is funding the research, yet, they get no financial return on their investment. Instead, the publishing houses reap the rewards.
Much of the work is done by scholars writing the papers, reviewing the papers and acting in editorial roles, yet these are (largely) unpaid positions and the cost of providing these services falls to individuals and their institutions.
There are those, for example in under-developed countries, who cannot afford to pay open access fees, which can be seen as a barrier to publishing.
Some journals offer both a traditional route and an open access route. Some would argue that these journals benefit from both subscription payments, as we well as open access payments.
The open access movement has led to a rise in predatory publishers. Unscrupulous publishers have seen an opportunity to charge authors to publish their papers, with that payment being made up front and without the need to set up a subscription-based model, which not only delays the payment but also requires a lot more marketing.
To provide a balanced view, there are reputable open access journals, with PLOS ONE being a good example, where the publisher provides all the services that you would expect from a high-quality scientific publisher, including robust peer review.
The legacy of Jeffrey Beall
Between 2009 and 2012, Beall published four papers in the Charleston Advisor. His first paper, published in 2009, focused on Bentham Open, which published 236 journals. He was not complimentary about the quality of their articles, stating they would be unlikely to be accepted in other journals. Beall concludes the article by saying: “Bentham Open’s emergence into scholarly publishing in 2007 has served mainly as a venue to publish research of questionable quality. The site has exploited the open access model for its own financial motives and flooded scholarly communication with a flurry of low-quality and questionable research.”
It was in one of his 2010 articles that Beall first used the term “predatory” in the context of scientific publishing. In the two papers he published in 2010, he analysed another 12 publishers which, between them, published 594 journals. Like Bentham Open, he classified all of these publishers as predatory.
In his final Charleston Advisor paper in 2012, Beall looked at another five publishers, which published 498 journals. All but one of these were classified as predatory. The one publisher that he believed was not predatory in nature published 16 journals.
Of the 18 publishers Beall analysed, he considered 17 as predatory. They were publishing 1,312 journals.
Beall’s List
Beall’s lasting legacy will be Beall’s List. Started as a blog in 2010, it was renamed in 2012 to “Scholarly Open Access”, but it become known as “Beall’s List”, which is how it is still referred to today. The list contained entries for predatory journals and publishers.
On January 15, 2017, with no warning, Beall took down the list. He later explained the reasons for the list’s removal, which included being in fear of losing his job due to the intense pressure he was facing from his employer.
At the time of its closure, the list contained 1,163 publishers and 1,310 stand-alone journals. In the five years that the blog was active, many universities used the list to advise their scholars which journals to avoid. This led to many publishers trying to get themselves removed from the list using a variety of methods, including writing the Beall, his employer and questioning Beall’s judgement and ethics.
Criticisms of the list
Beall’s List was not without its detractors, which included:
Beall was the only person making the decision on whether a journal/publisher should be included on the list.
There was too much emphasis on open access journals, against a background of examples of traditionally published journals not carrying out robust peer review.
Too much attention was paid to developing countries and the perception that journals from certain countries were more likely to be predatory.
Having an article published in a journal on Beall’s List could lead to reputational damage for the author as they may not be aware the journal was on Beall’s List or, indeed, they may have published in the journal before it was included in the list.
Beall’s legacy
Beall’s legacy is three-fold.
He introduced the term “predatory publishing” and was a leading voice in raising the issues around this practice.
Beall’s List became an invaluable resource for researchers and librarians.
He expressed concerns in other areas, such as impact factors, an editor-in-chief not being present for some journals and asking why some journals make it difficult to reject a paper.
Final remarks
In addition to his first four publications mentioned above, Beall wrote many other papers on predatory publishing. In the paper, on which this article draws from, there are 40 papers listed, all authored by Beall, all of which addresses predatory publishing.
More than 10 years on, we still face the issues that predatory publishing poses. If anything, it is now a lot worse than when Beall first raised the issue. Unless this changes, the scientific archive is in danger of irreparable damage. – The Vibes, April 8, 2021
More information
This article is based on the author’s recent paper, Beall’s legacy in the battle against predatory publishers, which was published in February 2021 in Learned Publishing.
The Predatory Publishing website (and its Twitter account) also has more information for the interested reader.
Professor Graham Kendall is chief executive of the Good Capitalism Forum. Prior to this, he was the Provost/CEO of University of Nottingham Malaysia and also a pro-vice chancellor of the University of Nottingham. He has published over 120 papers in highly reputable journals and more than 250 papers overall. More information can be found at http://www.graham-kendall.com/