Skip to main content

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, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2


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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

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

    Google Scholar 

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

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

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 18, 435–449 (2020).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


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