Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021;126(10):8589-8616.
doi: 10.1007/s11192-021-04118-3. Epub 2021 Aug 18.

A credit-like rating system to determine the legitimacy of scientific journals and publishers

Affiliations

A credit-like rating system to determine the legitimacy of scientific journals and publishers

Jaime A Teixeira da Silva et al. Scientometrics. 2021.

Abstract

The predatory nature of a journal is in constant debate because it depends on multiple factors, which keep evolving. The classification of a journal as being predatory, or not, is no longer exclusively associated with its open access status, by inclusion or exclusion on perceived reputable academic indexes and/or on whitelists or blacklists. Inclusion in the latter may itself be determined by a host of criteria, may be riddled with type I errors (e.g., erroneous inclusion of a truly predatory journal in a whitelist) and/or type II errors (e.g., erroneous exclusion of a truly valid scholarly journal in a whitelist). While extreme cases of predatory publishing behavior may be clear cut, with true predatory journals displaying ample predatory properties, journals in non-binary grey zones of predatory criteria are difficult to classify. They may have some legitimate properties, but also some illegitimate ones. In such cases, it might be too extreme to refer to such entities as "predatory". Simply referring to them as "potentially predatory" or "borderline predatory" also does little justice to discern a predatory entity from an unscholarly, low-quality, unprofessional, or exploitative one. Faced with the limitations caused by this gradient of predatory dimensionality, this paper introduces a novel credit-like rating system, based in part on well-known financial credit ratings companies used to assess investment risk and creditworthiness, to assess journal or publisher quality. Cognizant of the weaknesses and criticisms of these rating systems, we suggest their use as a new way to view the scholarly nature of a journal or publisher. When used as a tool to supplement, replace, or reinforce current sets of criteria used for whitelists and blacklists, this system may provide a fresh perspective to gain a better understanding of predatory publishing behavior. Our tool does not propose to offer a definitive solution to this problem.

Keywords: Predatory publishing; Academic publishing; Exploitative versus predatory behavior; Journal and publisher whitelists and blacklists; Legitimate journals and publishers; Predatory criteria; Scholarly versus unscholarly behavior; Type I and II errors.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interestDD is an Associate Editor for Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry (https://www.springerpub.com/ethical-human-psychology-and-psychiatry.html), Consulting Editor for Social Work (https://academic.oup.com/sw), and an Editorial Board Member for Research on Social Work Practice (https://journals.sagepub.com/home/rsw), Social Work in Mental Health (https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/wsmh20/current), and Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (https://www.springer.com/journal/10803). MM is a Managing Editor for International Journal of Health Policy and Management (https://www.ijhpm.com/). Other than these, the authors declare no relevant conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Hypothetical distribution of risk ratings across a hypothetical sample of journals in the publishing landscape, reflecting a potentially expected ratio of the categories proposed in Table 1. Categories were modified slightly from those indicated in Table 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Waterfall plot of the distribution of journals in a hypothetical questionable publisher’s portfolio over the categories proposed in Table 1. Absolute counts of the number of journals per category are shown above each bar. The publisher in question has 50 journals in its portfolio, of which half are within the range of medium risk to lowest risk and the other half range from high risk to extreme

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. ABDC (Australian Business Deans Council). (2018). 2018 Journal Quality List Methodology Review. https://abdc.edu.au/research/abdc-journal-quality-list/2018-journal-qual... (last accessed: June 4, 2021).
    1. Afonso A, Gomes P, Rother P. Short-and long-run determinants of sovereign debt credit ratings. International Journal of Finance and Economics. 2011;16(1):1–15. doi: 10.1002/ijfe.416. - DOI
    1. Aromataris E, Stern C. Supporting a definition of predatory publishing. BMC Medicine. 2020;18:125. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01599-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Asimakopoulos P, Asimakopoulos S. A tale of two tails: Cross credit ratings and cash holdings. SSRN Preprint (not Peer Reviewed) 2018 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3291498. - DOI
    1. Asimakopoulos P, Asimakopoulos S, Zhang A. Dividend smoothing and credit rating changes. The European Journal of Finance. 2021;27(1–2):62–85. doi: 10.1080/1351847X.2020.1739101. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources