Predatory Journals That Publish Shoddy Research Put People’s Lives at Risk

There has been a lot of talk about the lack of trust in science and the need to distinguish legitimate research from false information. How? Peer review is the process through which scientific claims are scrutinized for validity by other researchers with expertise in relevant fields. Observers insist that a study's appearance in a journal is a sign of legitimacy. It does not mean that a study is correct, but it does mean that the methods and conclusions have been checked. That's the theory.

The criterion for distinguishing scientific sense from nonsense is at risk. The rise of predatory journals is the reason. The journals do not honor scientific standards. They usually offer authors rapid publication because they don't take the time to do high quality peer reviews. They don't vet papers for plagiarism, faulty methods or conflicts of interest. These journals collect millions of dollars in fees from authors and make a lot of money.

This is a bigger problem than just science. A study concluded that 8,000 predatory journals collectively publish 420,000 papers every year, a fifth of the scientific community's output. According to a medical news story on Medscape, questionable research funded by commercial interests can be published without proper vetting. It's hard for researchers and policy makers to discern the difference between these papers and legitimate journals.

This is not a good use of resources. It may put people's lives at risk because doctors may wrongly accept spurious claims about medical treatments, supplements and inadequately tested drugs. The danger is getting bigger due to more of these predator showing up each year.

Scientists publish in these journals. Money is one of the answers. The authors of prestigious scientific journals are charged for publishing. The fees can be a lot. Wealthy institutions may pay for a researcher's costs if they charge these fees. The authors of papers in predatory journals are more likely to be located in less wealthy countries and institutions because of the low fee.

More opportunities for scholars to get their work published and cited is one of the reasons for visibility. The perverse incentives of science are reflected in this. Researchers are judged more by the quantity of their output than the quality. When making hiring, tenure and promotion decisions, universities look at metrics such as the number of published papers.

Jeffrey Beall created a list of journals that scholars should avoid. His approach was criticized for being subjective. There was no agreement on how to define predator.

Some researchers have come to a consensus definition that includes presenting false and misleading information. Scientists can now make more useful lists. It's good, but it doesn't address the symptoms as much as the disease.

The incentives that lead scholars to prioritize publication quantity in the first place need to be fixed to put an end to predatory practices. Setting a maximum limit on the number of articles that hiring or funding committees can consider might help. The purpose of science is much more than just producing papers. It is to tell the truth about the world.