A Preliminary Study of Alternative Open Access Journal Indexes

  • Jingfeng XiaEmail author


This paper examines a group of selected open access journal indexes by non-mainstream index providers. It finds that journals seeking such indexing are mainly “predatory” journals. Most of these so-called alternative indexes have not provided any evidence of employing quality assessment in journal inclusions. They also are not supporting interoperability for online searching across the Web. Comparisons among the alternative indexes yield many overlaps of journals, indicating shared business of these indexes and journals.


Open access journals Predatory journals Non-mainstream indexing Unethical practice Alternative publishing market 



  1. 1.
    Archambault E, Larivière V. History of the journal impact factor: contingencies and consequences. Scientometrics. 2009;79(3):635–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA. 2006;295(1):90–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Falagas ME, Kouranos VD, Arencibia-Jorge R, Karageorgopoulos DE. Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. FASEB J. 2008;22(8):2623–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Google Scholar. Inclusion guidelines for webmasters. Accessed 15 Jan 2019.
  5. 5.
    McVeigh ME. Open access journals in the ISI citation databases: analysis of impact factors and citation patterns. Accessed 15 Jan 2019.
  6. 6.
    Electronic Journals Library. About the EZB. Accessed 15 Jan 2019.
  7. 7.
    Bohannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science. 2013;342(6154):60–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clark J, Smith R. Firm action needed on predatory journals. BMJ. 2015;350:h210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marchitelli A, Galimberti P, Bollini A, Mitchell D. Improvement of editorial quality of journals indexed in DOAJ: a data analysis. JLIS. 2017;8(1):1–21. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature. 2012;489(179):179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jalalian M. The story of fake impact factor companies and how we detected them. Electron Physician. 2015;7(2):1069–72.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Butler D. Sham journals scam authors. Nature. 2013;495(7442):421–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gutierrez FRS, Beall J, Forero DA. Spurious alternative impact factors: the scale of the problem from an academic perspective. BioEssays. 2015;37(5):474–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xia J, Smith MP. Alternative journal impact factors in open access publishing. Learn Publ. 2018;31(4):403–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shen C, Björk BC. ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med. 2015;13:230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Adams C. Directory of open access journals introduces new standards to help community address quality concerns. SPARC, 2015. Accessed 15 Jan 2019.
  17. 17.
    Crawford W. Journals, “journals” and wannabes: investigating the list. Cites Insights. 2014;14(7):1–24.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yeates S. After Beall’s ‘list of predatory publishers’: problems with the list and paths forward. Inf Res 2017; 22(4).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Xia J. An examination of two Indian megajournals. Learn Publ. 2014;27(3):195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Directory of Open Access Journals. Accessed 15 Jan 2019.
  21. 21.
    Testa J. Journal selection process. Clarivate Analytics. Accessed 15 Jan 2019.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.East Stroudsburg University of PennsylvaniaEast StroudsburgUSA

Personalised recommendations