Exploring Arguments Presented in Predatory Journals Using Toulmin’s Model of Argumentation


In the academic community, predatory publishers are exploiting academic integrity and the open access publishing model. Academicians receive numerous spam e-mail messages inviting article submissions each day which deceive authors by promising fast review and publication. The content of these emails present arguments in a way to appear as legitimate and valid to grab the attention of authors. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to advance insights into the arguments deployed by fake journals in their attempt to convey specific indexicalities of identity and truthfulness. As a result of thematic analysis of 50 email messages from such journals, this research drew on two main themes-explicit and implicit arguments and their most frequent subcategories which were formal lexicon/grammar and fast peer- reviewed process. These arguments were, further, mapped on to Toulmin’s Model of Argumentation to find out more about the strength of the information used to support their claim. Utilizing Toulmin’s model, the findings highlighted the fact that there were instances of discursive deviations or “hidden rebuttals” that revealed the predatory journals’ ingenuity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2


  1. Arthur, C. (2015). Predatory publishing: How not to fall prey. Virginia Libraries, 61, 33–36.

  2. Basken, P. (2009). Open-access publisher appears to have accepted fake paper from predatory center. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: (2015-October 15).

  3. Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489, 179.

  4. Beall, J. (2015). Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. Scholarly open access. Retrievd from :, (2015-October 15).

  5. Berland, L., & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26–55

  6. Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (1999). Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. Language and Computers, 26, 181–190.

  7. Blommaert, J. (2005). Making millions: English, indexicality and fraud. Working papers on Urban Languages and Literacies, 29.

  8. Bohannon, J. (2013). Who's afraid of peer review. Science, 342(6154). Retrieved from Accessed 10 Sept 2017

  9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101 ISSN 1478-0887.

  10. Butler, D. (2013a). The dark side of publishing. Nature, 495(7442), 433–435.

  11. Butler, D. (2013b). Sham journals scam authors. Nature, 4, 421–422.

  12. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students' questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883– 908

  13. Clark, J., & Smith, R. (2015). Firm action needed on predatory journals. BMJ, 350, 1–2.

  14. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.

  15. Erfanmanesh, M.A., & Pourhossain, R. (2017). Publishing in predatory open Access Journals: A case of Iran. Article in Publishing Research Quarterly.

  16. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2008). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.

  17. Gilbert, N. (2009). Editor will quit over hoax paper. Nature News.

  18. Hitchcock, D., & Verheij, B. (Eds.). (2006). Arguing on the Toulmin model: New essays in argument analysis and education. Dordrecht: Springer.

  19. Jalilian, M., & Mahboobi, H. (2014). Hijacked journals and predatory publishers: Is there a need to re-think how to assess the quality of academic research? Walailak Journal of Science and Technology.

  20. Jeffrey Beall, (2013) Five Predatory Mega-Journals: A Review. The Charleston Advisor 14 (4):20-25

  21. Kolata, G. (2013). For scientists, an exploding world of Pseudo-academia. The New York Times. Retrieved from

  22. Kozak, M., Iefremova, O., & Hartley, J. (2015). Spamming in scholarly publishing: A case study. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.

  23. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  24. Lakhotia, S. C. (2015). Predatory journals and academic pollution. Current Science, 108(8), 1407–1408.

  25. Lin, S., & Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation sills through instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 993–1017.

  26. McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203– 229

  27. Rahman, A. I. M. J., Dexters, N., & Engels, T. C. (2014). Predatory open access journals in a performance-based funding model: Common Journals in Bealls list and in the VABB-SHW.

  28. Renandya, W. A. (2014). Choosing the right international journal in TESOL and applied linguistics. English Language Teaching World Online: Voices from the Classroom. ELTWO, 6, 1–17.

  29. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourses in place: Language in the material world. London: Routledge.

  30. Seethapathy, G. S., Kumar, J. U., & Hareesha, A. S. (2016). India's scientific publication in predatory journals: need for regulating quality of Indian science and education. Current Science, 111(11), 1759–1764.

  31. Shen, C., & Bjork, B. C. (2015). Predatory open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 230.

  32. Sorokowski, P., Kulczycki, E., Sorokowska, A., & Pisanski, K. (2017). Predatory journals recruit fake editors. Retrieved from Accessed 10 Sept 2017.

  33. Tin, L., Ivana, B., Biljana, B., Ljubica, I. B., Dragan, M., & Dusan, S. (2014). Predatory and fake Scientific Journals/publishers-a global outbreak with rising trend: A review. Geographica Pannonica, 18(3), 69–81.

  34. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.

  35. Van Eemeren, F. H. (2013). In what sense do modern argumentation theories relate to Aristotle? The case of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 27(1), 49–70.

  36. Wehrmeijer, M. (2014). Exposing the predators. Methods to stop predatory journals. Master Thesis Book and Digital Media Studies. Leiden Universtity.

  37. Xia, J., Harmon, J. L., Connolly, K. G., Donnelly, R. M., Anderson, M. R., & Howard, H. A. (2015). Who publishes in predatory journal? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1406–1417.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Saman Ebadi.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ebadi, S., Ashtarian, S. & Zamani, G. Exploring Arguments Presented in Predatory Journals Using Toulmin’s Model of Argumentation. J Acad Ethics (2020).

Download citation


  • Predatory journals
  • Arguments
  • Indexicality
  • Toulmin’s model of argumentation