Research discourse on predatory publishing practices : Mapping trends and concerns
*Chanchal YadavCorresponding authorchanchal.y@pu.ac.inDepartment of Library & Information SciencePanjab UniversityChandigarh, 160014, India0000-0002-6181-7415View full profile → , Rupak Chakravartyrupak@pu.ac.inDepartment of Library & Information SciencePanjab UniversityChandigarh, 160014, India0000-0001-5046-1663View full profile →
* Corresponding author · click or hover a name for details
- Published Online:
- 30 Jun 2026
- Article type:
- Research Article
- Language:
- EN
- Article no.:
- CJSIM-2024-010
- Pages:
- 15–32
Abstract
The problem of the predatory publishing has risen significantly over a decade, impacting the current state of scholarly communication, and attracting the attention of scholars globally. The purpose of this study is to outline the core elements of published documents and obtain the range of areas researched within the field of the predatory publishing. The study also examines and identifies the terminology commonly used in the context of predatory journals. This study performed a coword analysis of 910 documents published on ‘predatory journals’ retrieved from Web of Science which were analysed using VOSviewer and Orange data mining tool. The all keyword analysis shows concepts such as, peer review, open access publishing/standards, research ethics, research integrity, scientific misconduct, research standards, publishing standards, editorial policies. It reflects the topics researchers are discussing in context of predatory journals. The cluster analysis reveals themes related to research evaluation and bibliometrics, highlighting quality and impact of research publications (impact factor, h-index, citations) and indexing systems, research integrity, misconduct, ethics. The term “predatory journal” being the highest occurring ‘authors keyword’ shows the recognition and acceptance of the “predatory” term over other terms used for such journals. The results shows that integration of the thesaurus tool in VOSviewer for co-occurrence network visualization enhances the accuracy and reliability of research analyses. In this study, the network obtained with and without thesaurus tool varies significantly in terms of links, TLS, and number of clusters. The findings of this study offer valuable insights into emerging and latent research themes within this field.
Keywords
References
[1] R. P. Mathew, V. Patel, and G. Low, “Predatory journals: The power of the predator versus the integrity of the honest,” Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 0–746, 2022, doi: 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2021.07.005.
[2] S. Cukier, M. Lalu, G. L. Bryson, K. D. Cobey, A. Grudniewicz, and D. Moher, “Defining predatory journals and responding to the threat they pose: A modified Delphi consensus process,” BMJ Open, vol. 10, no. 2, Art. no. e035561, 2020, doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035561.
[3] H. Sharma and S. Verma, “Predatory journals: The rise of worthless biomedical science,” Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 226–231, 2018, doi: 10.4103/jpgm.JPGM_347_18.
[4] M. Bagues, M. Sylos-Labini, and N. Zinovyeva, “A walk on the wild side: ‘Predatory’ journals and information asymmetries in scientific evaluations,” Research Policy, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 462–477, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.013.
[5] N. Webber and S. Wiegand, “A multidisciplinary study of faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding predatory publishing,” Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, vol. 10, no. 1, 2022, doi: 10.31274/jlsc.13011.
[6] J. Beall, “Predatory publishers are corrupting open access,” Nature, vol. 489, no. 7415, p. 179, 2012, doi: 10.1038/489179a.
[7] R. Anderson, “Should We Retire the Term ‘Predatory Publishing’?,” The Scholarly Kitchen, May 11, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/05/11/should-we-retire-the-term-predatory-publishing/
[8] M. Berger, “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Predatory Publishing but Were Afraid to Ask”, 2017.
[9] S. Eriksson and G. Helgesson, “The false academy: Predatory publishing in science and bioethics,” Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 163–170, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3.
[10] T. F. Frandsen, “Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature,” Learned Publishing, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 57–62, 2019, doi: 10.1002/leap.1214.
[11] J. B. Ciro and L. Bowker, “Does a predator need prey? Examining the evolving terminology of predatory publishing,” Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 195–216, 2021.
[12] K. Bell, “Predatory open access journals as parody: Exposing the limitations of ‘legitimate’ academic publishing,” tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 651–662, 2017, doi: 10.31269/triplec.v15i2.870.
[13] K. Ide, “Importance of considering historical contexts when selecting terminology for questionable journal list names,” Accountability in Research, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 439–440, 2023, doi: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2267969.
[14] R. Anderson, “Deceptive publishing: Why we need a blacklist, and some suggestions on how to do it right,” The Scholarly Kitchen, Aug. 17, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/08/17/deceptive-publishing-why-we-need-a-blacklistand-some-suggestions-on-how-to-do-it-right/
[15] D. Butler, “Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing,” Nature, vol. 495, no. 7442, pp. 433–435, 2013, doi: 10.1038/495433a.
[16] F. Houghton and S. Houghton, “Commentary on: Predatory publishing; pressures, promotions and perils,” Proceedings of Singapore Healthcare, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 218–219, 2018, doi: 10.1177/2010105818775434.
[17] S. Eriksson and G. Helgesson, “Time to stop talking about ‘predatory journals’,” Learned Publishing, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 181–183, 2018, doi: 10.1002/leap.1135.
[18] U. Y. Parray, F. A. Loan, and A. M. Khan, “The dark side of publishing: Unveiling the deceptive tactics of cloned journals in India,” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 2024, doi: 10.1177/09610006241256392.
[19] K. D. Cobey, M. M. Lalu, B. Skidmore, N. Ahmadzai, A. Grudniewicz, and D. Moher, “What is a predatory journal? A scoping review,” F1000Research, vol. 7, Art. no. 1001, 2018, doi: 10.12688/f1000research.15256.2.
[20] A. Grudniewicz, D. Moher, K. D. Cobey, G. L. Bryson, S. Cukier, K. Allen, C. Ardern, L. Balcom, T. Barros, M. Berger, J. B. Ciro, L. Cugusi, M. R. Donaldson, M. Egger, I. D. Graham, M. Hodgkinson, K. M. Khan, M. Mabizela, A. Manca, K. Milzow, J. Mouton, M. Muchenje, T. Olijhoek, A. Ommaya, B. Patwardhan, D. Poff, L. Proulx, M. Rodger, A. Severin, M. Strinzel, M. Sylos-Labini, R. Tamblyn, M. van Niekerk, J. M. Wicherts, and M. M. Lalu, “Predatory journals: No definition, no defence,” Nature, vol. 576, no. 7786, pp. 210–212, 2019, doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y.
[21] J. A. Teixeira da Silva, “Academic librarians and their role in disseminating accurate knowledge and information about the gray zone in predatory publishing,” New Review of Academic Librarianship, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 383–405, 2022, doi: 10.1080/13614533.2022.2039242.
[22] A. R. Memon, “Revisiting the term predatory open access publishing,” Journal of Korean Medical Science, vol. 34, no. 13, Art. no. e99, 2019, doi: 10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e99.
[23] S. Nagarkar and S. Khole, “Predatory journals: Quantitative and qualitative analysis of literature published between 2012 and 2021,” Journal of Scholarly Publishing, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 80–102, 2023, doi: 10.3138/jsp-2022-0005.
[24] T. F. Frandsen, “Are predatory journals undermining the credibility of science? A bibliometric analysis of citers,” Scientometrics, vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 1513–1528, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2520-x.
[25] S. Moussa, “Citation contagion: A citation analysis of selected predatory marketing journals,” Scientometrics, vol. 126, no. 1, pp. 485–506, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03729-6.
[26] M. S. Perlin, T. Imasato, and D. Borenstein, “Is predatory publishing a real threat? Evidence from a large database study,” Scientometrics, vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 255–273, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2750-6.
[27] M. A. Fauzi, W. Wider, A. S. Al-Adwan, A. S. Sadun, and M. Shafi, “Wolf in sheep’s clothing: An analysis of predatory journals through science mapping,” Social Sciences Information, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 197–217, 2025, doi: 10.1177/05390184251336583.
[28] T. T. Nguyen, V. A. Nguyen-Le Pham, C. H. Nguyen, and T. Tran, “Review of research on predatory scientific publications from Scopus database between 2012 and 2022,” Journal of Scholarly Publishing, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 175–219, 2023, doi: 10.3138/jsp-2022-0045.
[29] B. Savegnago de Mira and R. Gutierres Castanha, “Predatory journals: A thematic analysis based on keywords indexed in the Web of Science,” A to Z: New Practices in Information and Knowledge, vol. 14, pp. 1–10, 2025, doi: 10.5380/atoz.v14.93202.
[30] J. Chung and W. J. Kim, “Global research trends in predatory publishing: A bibliometric and topic analysis,” Journal of Scholarly Publishing, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 559–586, 2024, doi: 10.3138/jsp-2024-0002.
[31] J. Li, F. Goerlandt, and G. Reniers, “An overview of scientometric mapping for the safety science community: Methods, tools, and framework,” Safety Science, vol. 134, Art. no. 105093, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105093.
[32] N. J. van Eck and L. Waltman, “Visualizing bibliometric networks,” in Measuring Scholarly Impact: Methods and Practice, Y. Ding, R. Rousseau, and D. Wolfram, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2014, pp. 285–320, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13.
[33] N. J. van Eck and L. Waltman, “VOSviewer Manual”, Leiden, The Netherlands: Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, 2022.
[34] N. M. Duc, D. V. Hiep, P. M. Thong, L. Zunic, M. Zildzic, D. Donev, S. M. Jankovic, I. Hozo, and I. Masic, “Predatory open access journals are indexed in reputable databases: A revisiting issue or an unsolved problem,” Medical Archives, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 318–322, 2020, doi: 10.5455/medarh.2020.74.318-322.
[35] R. J. Dinis-Oliveira, “Predatory journals and meetings in forensic sciences: What every expert needs to know about this ‘parasitic’ publishing model,” Forensic Sciences Research, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 303–309, 2021, doi: 10.1080/20961790.2021.1989548.
