Scholarly publishers must challenge predatory publishing — even if it harms their profit margins

Over the previous 3 years, prominent academic database Scopus has hosted more than 160,000 papers from over 300 potential predatory journals (Chawla, 2021). The rise of predatory journals in scholarly publishing is a cause for concern, as they represent a risk to the long-term integrity and quality of scholarly publishing through the publication of potentially poor-quality and unreviewed papers. Ultimately, scholarly publishers must face their responsibility to uphold the expected quality of research papers, by implementing and supporting greater review processes in their own journals in in the Open Access system.

The rise of predatory journals has largely been attributed to the author-pays model of scholarly publishing, particularly through Open Access journals which rely on author payments instead of reader payments. Predatory journals have taken advantage of this system, by publishing large volumes of research papers with little editorial work or peer review, in order to maximise profit (Beall, 2017). This system appears to have been successful, as the number of predatory journals has grown significantly in recent years: between 2011 and 2016 the number listed in Beall’s journal blacklist rose from 18 to 923, and this number has continued to grow (Masten and Ashcraft, 2017). As predatory journals are left to exploit the Open Access system, the risk they pose to scholarly publishing continues to increase.

With these risks present in Open Access publishing the benefits of traditional scholarly publishing are clear, as strong editorial involvement and peer review processes maintain the high research value of articles produced. However, major traditional publishers also appear to be exploiting the scholarly publishing industry in order to increase their profit margins. Elsevier brought in £982 million in 2019, and over the past 30 years the subscription price for the central three journals has increased by 521% (Gangadhar, 2021). As unofficial open access sources, such as Sci-Hub, are increasingly used to gain free access to increasingly expensive articles, some librarians have warned of the risks of Sci-Hub in reinforcing the idea that paid-for articles are universally higher quality than Open Access, which risks the reputation of reputable Open Access journals while also reducing demand for journal subscriptions (Harrison et al, 2018). Both Open Access and traditional journals therefore have their risks, so how can scholarly publishing be improved?

One solution to this problem is for Open Access and traditional models of scholarly publishing to cooperate and combine. A study of the financial difficulty faced by Open Access publishers identified that a key cause of this struggle was the perception that OA had to “recreate all of the services that traditional publishers now provide” (Esposito, 2008) — if traditional publishers share these services, and contribute to maintaining high quality publishing in Open Access journals, then the reputation of both sources of publishing can be improved. Indeed, a 2017 study further found that publisher open-access packages, which provided libraries with access to an increased number of journals for a lower subscription fee, contained a very small number of predatory journals (Huffman, 2017). This suggests that existing cooperation has allowed for both high quality papers and greater accessibility. Future developments will further combine the reliability provided by respected scholarly publishers and the accessibility of Open Access journals.

The growth of predatory journals and unregulated open-access sources represents a significant threat to the long-term quality of scholarly publishing. Traditional scholarly publishers should therefore take the initiative to support Open Access journals in order to rebuild the reputation of scholarly publishing and challenge the threat of alternative sources. If cooperation can maintain high quality publishing and provide readers with access to reliable research, surely it is worth the cost.

Beall, J. 2017. What I Learned from predatory publishers. Biochemia Medica 27(2).

Chawla, D.S. 2021. Hundreds of ‘predatory’ journals indexed on leading scholarly database. Nature [Online] Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00239-0 [Accessed: 11/2/2021].

Esposito, J.J. 2008. Open Access 2.0: Scholarly publications move to a new phase — where OA and traditional publishing coexist. Logos 19(2).

Gangadhar, K.C. 2021. Why the academic community should support Sci-Hub. Deccan Herald [Online] Available at: https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/panorama/why-the-academic-community-should-support-sci-hub-947651.html [Accessed: 11/2/2021].

Harrison, R., Nobis, Y. and Oppenheim, C. 2018. A librarian perspective on Sci-Hub: the true solution to the scholarly communication crisis is in the hands of the academic community, not librarians. LSE Impact Blog [Online] Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/11/09/a-librarian-perspective-on-sci-hub-the-true-solution-to-the-scholarly-communication-crisis-is-in-the-hands-of-the-academic-community-not-librarians/#:~:text=Sci%2DHub%20is%20a%20pirate,papers%20otherwise%20locked%20behind%20paywalls.&text=Librarians%20often%20appear%20as%20the,research%20papers%20via%20Sci%2DHub. [Accessed 11/2/2021].

Huffman, J. 2017. Publisher Package and Open Access Journals: Are Any of Them Predatory?’, The Serial’s Librarian 73(3–4).

Masten, Y. and Ashcraft, A. 2017. Due diligence in the open-access explosion era: choosing a reputable journal for publication. FEMS Microbiology Letters 34(21).