Avoiding predatory journals: Quick peer review processes too good to be true

Abstract

Nursing is experiencing the growth of predatory journals with questionable peer review processes. These journals publish submissions quickly and do not enhance the authors' reputation and scholarship of nursing. A qualitative, descriptive study design examined the legitimacy of the peer-review process described on the websites of predatory nursing journals. Posted review processes (n = 53) were examined for quality indicators related to language use, author control, and transparency. Of the 53 predatory nursing journals describing a peer-review process, the majority indicated that all submitted content was sent for peer review (n = 34, 64.15%). Most journals did not describe the criteria on which submitted articles would be evaluated ( n = 39, 73.58%). Quality indicators for language included multiple grammatical errors and odd language and phrases ( n = 39, 73.58%). Author control of tracking, revisions, and review of galley proofs were inconsistent in the described peer-review processes. The majority did not provide a way to track a manuscript through the process ( n = 29, 54.72%). Most journals did not explain the types of peer review they conducted ( n = 31, 58.49%). Authors can sidestep the trap of publishing in predatory journals by paying attention to the peer review process when selecting a journal for publication.