Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 1617–1639 | Cite as

Predatory Journals Spamming for Publications: What Should Researchers Do?

  • Aamir Raoof Memon


In the internet era spam has become a big problem. Researchers are troubled with unsolicited or bulk spam emails inviting them to publish. However, this strategy has helped predatory journals hunt their prey and earn money. These journals have grown tremendously during the past few years despite serious efforts by researchers and scholarly organizations to hinder their growth. Predatory journals and publishers are often based in developing countries, and they potentially target researchers from these counties by using different tactics identified in previous research. In response to the spread of predatory publishing, scientists are trying to develop criteria and guidelines to help avoid them—for example, the recently reported “predatory rate”. This article attempts to (a) highlight the strategies used by predatory journals to convince researchers to publish with them, (b) report their article processing charges, (c) note their presence in Jeffrey Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers, (d) rank them based on the predatory rate, and (e) put forward suggestions for junior researchers (especially in developing counties), who are the most likely targets of predatory journals.


Editorial policy Impact factor Peer review Predatory journals Research fraud 



I thank K. Shashok (Author AID in the Eastern Mediterranean) for improving the use of English in the manuscript and for helpful suggestions.

Author Contributions

Aamir Raoof Memon contributed to all the aspects of this manuscript and takes the responsibility of it.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author does not have any potential conflicts of interest to disclose.


  1. Beall, J. (2013). Medical publishing triage: Chronicling predatory open access publishers. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 2(2), 47–49. doi: 10.1016/s2049-0801(13)70035-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beall, J. (2015). Be careful using NCBI databases as journal whitelists. Accessed 7 Jan 2017.
  3. Beall, J. (2016a). Don’t use PubMed as a journal whitelist. Accessed 7 Jan 2017.
  4. Beall, J. (2016b). Questionable spam email from a Springer Nature Journal. Accessed 8 Jan 2017.
  5. Beall, J. (2017a). Beall’s list of predatory publishers 2017. Accessed 7 Jan 2017.
  6. Beall, J. (2017b). What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochemia Medica, 27(2), 273–279. doi: 10.11613/BM.2017.029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bloudoff-Indelicato, M. (2015). Backlash after Frontiers journals added to list of questionable publishers. Nature, 526(7575), 613. doi: 10.1038/526613f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Casadevall, A., Bertuzzi, S., Buchmeier, M. J., Davis, R. J., Drake, H., Fang, F. C., et al. (2016). ASM journals eliminate impact factor information from journal websites. Infection and Immunity, 84(9), 2407–2408. doi: 10.1128/iai.00564-16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, J., & Smith, R. (2015). Firm action needed on predatory journals. BMJ, 350, h210. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, A. M., & Thompson, D. R. (2016). Five (bad) reasons to publish your research in predatory journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing. doi: 10.1111/jan.13090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Committee on Publication Ethics, Directory of Open Access Journals, Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, and World Association of Medical Editors. (2015). Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing. Accessed 8 January 2017.
  13. Dadkhah, M., & Bianciardi, G. (2016a). Ranking predatory journals: Solve the problem instead of removing it! Advanced Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 6(1), 1–4. doi: 10.15171/apb.2016.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dadkhah, M., & Bianciardi, G. (2016b). Unworthy peer review process and publishing method. Italian Journal of Medicine, 11, 1–4. doi: 10.4081/itjm.2016.754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dadkhah, M., & Jazi, M. D. (2015). Special issues as criterion for journal quality evaluation: Letter to Editor. Geographica Pannonica, 19(2), 42–43. doi: 10.18421/GP19.02-01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dadkhah, M., Maliszewski, T., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016). Hijacked journals, hijacked web-sites, journal phishing, misleading metrics, and predatory publishing: actual and potential threats to academic integrity and publishing ethics. Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, 12(3), 353–362. doi: 10.1007/s12024-016-9785-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dhulkhed, V. K., Kurdi, M. S., Dhulkhed, P. V., & Ramaswamy, A. H. (2016). Faculty promotions in medical institutions in India: Can we improve the criteria? Indian Journal of Anaesthesia, 60(11), 796–800. doi: 10.4103/0019-5049.193657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elmes, J. (2017). Journals blacklist creator blames university for website closure. Accessed 3 July 2017.
  19. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2016). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Accessed 8 January 2017.
  20. Jalalian, M. (2015). The story of fake impact factor companies and how we detected them. Electronic Physician, 7(2), 1069–1072. doi: 10.14661/2015.1069-1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jalalian, M., & Dadkhah, M. (2015). The full story of 90 hijacked journals from August 2011 to June 2015. Geographica Pannonica, 19(2), 73–87. doi: 10.18421/GP19.02-06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jawad, F. (2017). The race for publishing original biomedical research articles in Pakistan. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 67(1), 1–2.Google Scholar
  23. Laine, C., & Winker, M. A. (2017). Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. Accessed 5 March 2017.
  24. Maaic, I., Begic, E., Donev, D. M., Gajovic, S., Gasparyan, A. Y., Jakovljevic, M., et al. (2016). Sarajevo declaration on integrity and visibility of scholarly publications. Croatian Medical Journal, 57(6), 527–529. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2016.57.527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Masten, Y. B., & Ashcraft, A. S. (2016). The dark side of dissemination: Traditional and open access versus predatory journals. Nursing Education Perspectives, 37(5), 275–277. doi: 10.1097/01.nep.0000000000000064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Memon, A. R. (2016). ResearchGate is no longer reliable: leniency towards ghost journals may decrease its impact on the scientific community. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 66(12), 1643–1647.Google Scholar
  27. Memon, A. R. (2017a). Beall’s list has vanished: What next? Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical, 47(3), 222–223. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2017.0202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Memon, A. R. (2017b). Research publications and education in Pakistani medical universities: Avoiding predatory journals and improving the quality of research. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical, 67(6), 830–833.Google Scholar
  29. Memon, A. R. (2017c). End of 2016: Can we save research from predators in 2017? Science and Engineering Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9915-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Memon, A. R., & Waqas, A. (2017). Indexing by bibliographic databases of journals published in the developing world. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9898-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moher, D., & Srivastava, A. (2015). You are invited to submit. BMC Medicine, 13, 180. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0423-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Petrişor, A.-I. (2016). Evolving strategies of the predatory journals. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 21(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pulla, P. (2016). Predatory publishers gain foothold in Indian academia’s upper echelon. Accessed 5 March 2017. doi:  10.1126/science.aal0526.
  34. Roberts, J. (2016a). Predatory journals: Illegitimate publishing and its threat to all readers and authors. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 13(12), 1830–1833. doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.10.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roberts, J. (2016b). Predatory journals: Think before you submit. Headache, 56(4), 618–621. doi: 10.1111/head.12818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shyam, A. (2015). Predatory journals: What are they? Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports, 5(4), 1–2. doi: 10.13107/jocr.2250-0685.330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wahyudi, R. (2017). The generic structure of the call for papers of predatory journals: A social semiotic perspective. In Text-based research and teaching (pp. 117–136). Palgrave Macmillan UK. doi:  10.1057/978-1-137-59849-3_7.Google Scholar
  38. Winker, M. A. (2016). Stop predatory publishers Now. Annals of Internal Medicine, 165(11), 826. doi: 10.7326/l16-0416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation SciencesPeoples University of Medical and Health Sciences for WomenNawabshahPakistan

Personalised recommendations