‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics

BMC Medicine

Bo-Christer Björk¹  Cenyu Shen¹ 

[1]Information Systems Science, Hanken School of Economics, Arkadiankatu 22, Helsinki 00101, Finland

关键词: Scientific publishing;    Open access;   

Others  :  1228314
DOI  :  10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2

 received in 2015-04-30, accepted in 2015-09-01,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

A negative consequence of the rapid growth of scholarly open access publishing funded by article processing charges is the emergence of publishers and journals with highly questionable marketing and peer review practices. These so-called predatory publishers are causing unfounded negative publicity for open access publishing in general. Reports about this branch of e-business have so far mainly concentrated on exposing lacking peer review and scandals involving publishers and journals. There is a lack of comprehensive studies about several aspects of this phenomenon, including extent and regional distribution.

Methods

After an initial scan of all predatory publishers and journals included in the so-called Beall’s list, a sample of 613 journals was constructed using a stratified sampling method from the total of over 11,000 journals identified. Information about the subject field, country of publisher, article processing charge and article volumes published between 2010 and 2014 were manually collected from the journal websites. For a subset of journals, individual articles were sampled in order to study the country affiliation of authors and the publication delays.

Results

Over the studied period, predatory journals have rapidly increased their publication volumes from 53,000 in 2010 to an estimated 420,000 articles in 2014, published by around 8,000 active journals. Early on, publishers with more than 100 journals dominated the market, but since 2012 publishers in the 10–99 journal size category have captured the largest market share. The regional distribution of both the publisher’s country and authorship is highly skewed, in particular Asia and Africa contributed three quarters of authors. Authors paid an average article processing charge of 178 USD per article for articles typically published within 2 to 3 months of submission.

Conclusions

Despite a total number of journals and publishing volumes comparable to respectable (indexed by the Directory of Open Access Journals) open access journals, the problem of predatory open access seems highly contained to just a few countries, where the academic evaluation practices strongly favor international publication, but without further quality checks.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Shen and Björk.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 9.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Tenopir C, King D. Towards electronic journals: realities for scientists, librarians and publishers. SLA Publishing, Washington, DC; 2000.
• [2]Suber P. Open access. MIT Press, Boston, MA; 2012.
• [3]Björk B-C. The hybrid model for open access publication of scholarly articles – a failed experiment? JASIST. 2012; 63:1496-1504.
• [4]Harnad S, Brody T, Vallieres F, Carr L, Hitchcock S, Gingras Y et al.. The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to open access. Ser Rev. 2004; 30:310-314.
• [5]Binfield P. Open access megajournals – have they changed everything? Wellington: Creative Commons; 2013. http://creativecommons. org.nz/2013/10/open-access-megajournals-have-they-changed-everything webcite
• [6]Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature. 2012; 489:179-9.
• [7]McGlynn T. The evolution of pseudojournals. Dominguez Hills, CA: Small Pond Science; 2013. http://smallpondscience. com/2013/02/14/the-evolution-of-pseudojournals webcite
• [8]Beall J. Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. 2nd edition. Denver, CO: Scholarly Open Access; 2012. http://scholarlyoa. files.wordpress.com/2012/11/criteria-2012-2.pdf webcite
• [9]Clarke J, Smith R. Firm action needed on predatory journals. BMJ. 2015;350. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h210.
• [10]Järvi U. Open access attracts swindlers and idealists. Finnish Med J. 2012. http://www. laakarilehti.fi/uutinen.html?opcode=show/news_id=11711/type=1 webcite
• [11]Davis P. Open access publisher accepts nonsense manuscript for dollars. The Scholarly Kitchen; 2009. http://scholarlykitchen. sspnet.org/2009/06/10/nonsense-for-dollars webcite
• [12]Bohannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review. Science. 2013; 342:60-65.
• [13]Djuric D. Penetrating the omerta of predatory publishing: the romanian connection. Sci Eng Ethics. 2015; 21:183-202.
• [14]Lukić T, Blešić I, Basarin B, Ivanović B, Milošević D, Sakulski D. Predatory and fake scientific journals/publishers – a global outbreak with rising trend: a review. Geographica Pannonica. 2014; 18:69-81.
• [15]Spears T. Respectable medical journal turns to dark side. Ottawa, ON: Ottawa Citizen; 2014. http://ottawacitizen. com/technology/science/respected-medical-journal-turns-to-dark-side webcite
• [16]Omobowale A, Akanle A, Adeniran I, Olayinka K. Peripheral scholarship and the context of foreign paid publishing in Nigeria. Current Sociol. 2014; 62:666-684.
• [17]Xia J. Predatory journals and their article publishing charges. Learned Publishing. 2015; 28:69.
• [18]Xia J, Harmon J, Connolly K, Donnelly R, Anderson M, Howard H. Who publishes in predatory journals. JASIST. 2014.
• [19]Ezinwa Nwagwu W, Ojemeni O. Penetration of Nigerian predatory biomedical open access journals 2007-2012: a bibiliometric study. Learned Publishing. 2015; 28:23-34.
• [20]Beall J. Beall’s list: potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers. Denver, CO: Scholarly Open Access; 2013. http://scholarlyoa. com/publishers webcite
• [21]Lohr S. Sampling: design and analysis. 2nd ed. Cengage Learning, Farmington Hills, MI; 2010.
• [22]Laakso M, Björk B-C. Anatomy of open access publishing - a study of longitudinal development and internal structure. BMC Med. 2012; 10:124. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]Laakso M, Welling P, Bukvova H, Nyman L, Björk B-C, Hedlund T. The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS One. 2011; 6:e20961.
• [24]Currency Converter. http://www. currencyconverterrate.com webcite
• [25]Björk B-C, Roos A, Lauri M. Scientific journal publishing: yearly volume and open access availability. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal. 2009;14. http://www. informationr.net/ir/14-1/paper391.html webcite
• [26]Solomon D, Björk B-C. A study of open access journals using article processing charges. JASIST. 2012; 63:1485-1495.
• [27]Morrison H, Salhab J, Calvé-Genest A, Horava T. Open access article processing charges: DOAJ survey May 2014. Publications. 2015; 3:1-16.
• [28]Schimmer R, Geschuhn K, Vogler A. Disrutping the subscription journals’ business model for the necessary large-scale transformation to open access. Max Planck Digital Library. 2015. doi:10.17617/1.3.
• [29]Outsell: open access. Market size, share, forecast, and trends. 2013. http://goto. copyright.com/LP=123?source=rightscentral webcite
• [30]Esposito P. The size of the open access market. The Scholarly Kitchen; 2014. http://scholarlykitchen. sspnet.org/2014/10/29/the-size-of-the-open-access-market webcite
• [31]Solomon D, Björk B-C. Publication fees in open access publishing: sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal. JASIST. 2012; 63:98-107.
• [32]Björk B-C, Solomon D. The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. J Informetrics. 2013; 7:914-923.
• [33]Raghavan R, Dahanukar N, Knight JDM, Bijukumar A, Katwate U, Krishnakumar K et al.. Predatory journals and Indian ichthyology. Current Sci. 2014; 107:740-742.
• [34]Butler D. Investigating journals: the dark side of publishing. Nature. 2013; 495:433-435.
• [35]Van Noorden R. Open-access website gets tough. Nat News. 2014; 512:17.