Moldovan Researchers’ Views on Predatory Publishing: Awareness, Experience and Policy Implications

Background:Predatory publishing poses a fundamental threat to the development of nursing knowledge. Previous research has suggested that authors of papers published in predatory journals are mainly inexperienced researchers from low- and middle-income countries. Less attention has been paid to contributors from high-income countries.Aim:To describe the prevalence and characteristics of Swedish authors publishing in predatory nursing journals.Design:Quantitative descriptive case study.Participants and research context:Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the academic positions and academic affiliations of the authors of 39 papers published in predatory nursing journals during 2018 and 2019. Predatory nursing journals with Swedish contributors were identified by searching public listings of papers and applying a set of criteria. Journal site archives were used to identify additional papers with Swedish authors.Ethical considerations:This study was conducted in accordance with national regulations and ethical principles of research.Results:Almost two-thirds of Swedish authors publishing in predatory nursing journals hold senior academic positions. A small group of higher education institutions account for a majority of academic affiliations. Findings suggest that higher education institutions and experienced nursing researchers from Sweden make substantial contributions to predatory nursing journals, but that predatory publication habits might be concentrated in a limited number of academics and research milieus. A year-to-year comparison indicates that the prevalence of publishing in predatory journals might be diminishing.Discussion:Swedish nurse researchers help legitimize predatory journals, thus jeopardizing the trustworthiness of academic nursing knowledge. Substandard papers in predatory journals may pass as legitimate and be used to further academic careers. Experienced researchers are misleading junior colleagues, as joint publications might become embarrassments and liabilities.Conclusion:While the academic nursing community needs to address the problem of predatory publishing, there is some hope that educational efforts might have an effect on combating predatory publishing in nursing.

The exponential growth of open access publishing has sadly encouraged the emergence of numerous predatory publishers and journals harming the scientific community and threatening scholarly communication. While the issue has received some attention from the academic community in medical and applied sciences, much less work has been done within the realm of social sciences. Specifically, despite the gravity of predatory publishing as unethical practice and its negative effect on the progress and quality of tourism and hospitality research, empirical investigation on the topic remains very limited. The present study used a mixed method design combining data from 612 articles published in 13 potential tourism and hospitality predatory journals with data from two surveys drawing on authors’ experiences as well as tourism and hospitality most prolific scholars’ perceptions. The findings reveal that predatory journals are succeeding in targeting a wide range of researchers regardless of their career experience from both developed and developing countries. Lack of awareness of predatory journals, pressure for publication, and high rejection rates in legitimate journals were found to be the key motivations for publishing in predatory journals. Raising awareness of predatory journals and reconsidering tenure and promotion requirements were suggested as the best response strategies to curb predatory publishing. The study offers several theoretical and practical implications and proposes avenues for future research.

ObjectiveThe purpose of predatory open access (OA) journals is primarily to make a profit rather than to disseminate quality, peer-reviewed research. Publishing in these journals could negatively impact faculty reputation, promotion, and tenure, yet many still choose to do so. Therefore, the authors investigated faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding predatory OA journals.MethodsA twenty-item questionnaire containing both quantitative and qualitative items was developed and piloted. All university and medical school faculty were invited to participate. The survey included knowledge questions that assessed respondents’ ability to identify predatory OA journals and attitudinal questions about such journals. Chi-square tests were used to detect differences between university and medical faculty.ResultsA total of 183 faculty completed the survey: 63% were university and 37% were medical faculty. Nearly one-quarter (23%) had not previously heard of the term “predatory OA journal.” Most (87%) reported feeling very confident or confident in their ability to assess journal quality, but only 60% correctly identified a journal as predatory, when given a journal in their field to assess. Chi-square tests revealed that university faculty were more likely to correctly identify a predatory OA journal (p=0.0006) and have higher self-reported confidence in assessing journal quality, compared with medical faculty (p=0.0391).ConclusionsSurvey results show that faculty recognize predatory OA journals as a problem. These attitudes plus the knowledge gaps identified in this study will be used to develop targeted educational interventions for faculty in all disciplines at our university.

Peer-review publishing has long been the gold standard for disseminating research. The peer-review process holds researchers accountable for their work and conveys confidence that the article is of value to the reader. Predatory journals and publishing pose a global threat to the quality of scientific literature, accuracy of educational resources, and safety of patient care. Predatory publishing uses an exploitative business model, substandard quality control measures, and deceptive publishing practices. Given the proliferation of these journals and the extreme measures utilized to disguise substandard publishing practices, avoiding them can prove difficult. Understanding the nature of predatory publishing and how to recognize the warning signs provide helpful measures to authors, researchers, students, and readers. Additional resources known to help avoid predatory publishers have been discussed in addition to reviewing the Journal of Human Lactation guidelines for publishing.

Predatory journals are unethical publications that exploit researchers by charging fees without providing proper peer review or editorial oversight. They pose a serious threat to the integrity of scholarly communication, prioritizing profit over scholarship and disregarding ethical standards, which results in the dissemination of research that lacks quality and credibility. This guide offers researchers a practical framework to identify and avoid such deceptive publications, thereby protecting academic integrity and professional reputation. Key indicators of predatory journals include poor visual design, questionable content, and unethical business practices. Common red flags include unprofessional websites, grammatical errors, generic stock photos, and fabricated editorial credentials. Operational warnings include aggressive email solicitations promising rapid or guaranteed acceptance, vague or hidden article processing charges (APCs), and journal names that closely mimic reputable titles. Predatory journals also make false claims about indexing in databases like Scopus or PubMed and display fabricated impact factors. Researchers in biomedical engineering are particularly vulnerable to these risks because of the interdisciplinary nature of the field, intense publication pressure, and the increasing use of AI tools in manuscript preparation. The consequences of predatory publishing extend beyond individual careers; unvetted research compromises the evidence base for clinical translation and healthcare innovation. To mitigate these risks, researchers must verify journal claims through official sources and consult trusted colleagues or mentors. Although publishing in legitimate journals requires more time, it ensures the quality, integrity, and credibility of research. Institutions play a crucial role by providing training and encouraging stakeholders to prioritize publication quality over quantity.

The emergence of predatory journals is a global threat for scientific integrity, particularly in under-resourced settings such as low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A bilingual course on predatory publishing using a distance education approach was developed for Moroccan researchers as a response to the imperative need for training on research ethics to implement good scientific practices. A cross-sectional survey-based study was conducted to evaluate outcomes after delivering two education sessions in both French and English. Before this course, 40% of participants indicated that they don’t verify journal quality before manuscript submission and most of them consider Scopus indexing and the impact factor as the best criteria for journal publication. Approximately 50% of surveyees did not have previous information on predatory journals before the webinar. Pressure to publish by supervisors, institutions of affiliation, or funding agencies, was noticed in 43.4% of participants. After the webinar course was delivered, remarkably, the proportion of participants with knowledge on predatory publishing was meaningfully increased from 48.9% to 81%. Importantly, 83.7% of participants indicated that they are motivated to share their new knowledge on predatory publishing with their colleagues. Moreover, the majority of respondents (73.8%) reported that publishing their research in predatory journals may damage their career and professional future. Promisingly, nearly a half or more of participants recommended the use of training based on distance education, surveillance of researchers by their mentors and affiliations, and social networks to increase awareness on predatory publishing. Almost all participants were satisfied with the content of the webinar. Trainers and research institutions in LMICs should benefit from the advent of distance education using webinar platforms to increase awareness on the issue of predatory publishing in their settings.

Background In many emerging research systems, publication in international indexed journals has become a formal requirement for PhD completion. In Kazakhstan, PhD candidates are increasingly expected to publish in Scopus and Web of Science journals, yet little is known about how these demands are experienced by doctoral researchers and what support structures are available to them. Objective This study explores PhD candidates' and recent PhD graduates' awareness of publication requirements, perceived barriers to publishing, experiences of institutional and supervisory support, emotional burden, and openness to questionable or predatory journals. Methods A cross-sectional online survey was conducted with PhD candidates and recent graduates in Kazakhstan ( N = 53), recruited primarily via social media. The instrument included sections on awareness, publication experience, perceived barriers, perceived support, emotional and ethical dimensions, and open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics, composite scales, exploratory group comparisons, and regression analyses were used. A separate Instagram story poll ( N = 421 self-identified PhD candidates) provided an indicative contextual snapshot. Results Respondents reported high perceived barriers to publishing (linguistic, methodological, organizational, financial, and psychological) and relatively low, uneven institutional and supervisory support. Publication requirements were a salient source of stress. Perceived barriers were strongly and positively associated with stress, whereas perceived support did not show a significant buffering effect in the regression model. A subset of participants indicated openness to considering questionable journals under pressure, although exploratory models had limited power. Conclusion The findings highlight a misalignment between ambitious publication requirements and available support in an emerging research context. To avoid reinforcing stress, inequity, and ethical vulnerability, universities and policy-makers must complement indexed publication criteria with robust, context-sensitive capacity-building and integrity-focused support for doctoral researchers.

Literature review in biomedical research: useful search engines beyond PubMed

Predatory publishing: what authors need to know.

Quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals

The quality and legitimacy of scholarly research are seriously threatened by the emergence of predatory publications, especially in poor nations like Sierra Leone. This study looks at how Eastern Technical University of Sierra Leone (ETUSL) research quality is affected by predatory publishing. The study evaluates faculty awareness, the frequency of predatory publishing, and its effects on academic integrity, institutional reputation, and research funding using a mixed-methods methodology. The results show that although researchers are generally aware of predatory journals, there are still information gaps that cause them to unintentionally engage in these publishing activities. Financial limitations, publishing pressure, and unclear institutional journal selection procedures are some of the main motivators. The study emphasizes how important it is to raise awareness, strengthen institutional policies, and provide funding for ethical publishing procedures. Implementing training initiatives, changing policies, and creating institutional incentives to encourage research in respectable journals are some of the recommendations. To preserve the legitimacy of ETUSL's scholarly output and advance Sierra Leone's contributions to international research, these problems must be resolved.

WASP (Write a Scientific Paper): Open access unsolicited emails for scholarly work – Young and senior researchers perspectives

Sanjay A Pai discussed an important problem in the academic world and warns researchers about predatory publishers [1]. Devnani and his colleagues believe that low-income countries must devote more resources and more researcher support to aid in dealing with predatory journals [2]. According to these Authors, predatory journals are not indexed journals or, at least, they lack reputable indexes (such as “PubMed” [3])................ .....................................................................................................................To solve the problem of this predatory practice, researchers should be wary of open-access journals that organize many special issues or that frequently employ guest editors for themed issues.
\nIn a less specific way, there are many potential unethical practices related to predatory journals, researchers need education and planning to confront them.

This paper critically analyses the effects of predatory publishing as a major contributor to misinformation and disinformation amongst academicians and learners in developing countries. The paper notes that predatory publishing poses a major hindrance in the struggles to enhance academic excellence. This paper established that predatory publishing has great consequences in the spread of misinformation and disinformation amongst academicians and Learners in Developing Countries. Some of the reasons that necessitate the increase in predatory publishing in developing countries are; the lack of proper policies or guidance on where research articles should or should not be published, the failure to embrace open access initiatives for visibility and dissemination of research outputs so as to discourage academic malpractice and unethical behaviors, lack of funds, poor or limited information literacy among other factors. The paper is unique in that it comprehensively analyses the concept of predatory journals with misinformation and disinformation in academic circles in the developing world, putting into consideration that most academic staff or researchers assume that whatever is on the web is genuine and absolute true information.

Introducing a new series on effective writing and publishing of scientific papers