Publishing Research Quarterly

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 92–100 | Cite as

The Macro and Micro Scale of Open Access Predation

  • Jaime A. Teixeira da SilvaEmail author
  • Aceil Al-Khatib


Having found a business opportunity in exploiting the open access publishing model, predatory journals and publishers have been spamming authors with emails, inviting them to submit articles for publication. Authors may be misled by the names of prestigious authors and editors that predatory journals and publishers use to advertise their publishing services, either by claims that those scientists serve on the editorial boards or by sending invitations in their names. Given the fact that detailed knowledge of a journal is required to make an informed decision of whether the inviting journal is predatory or not, junior scientists are not likely to possess the knowledge or skill to make such decisions. In addition, analysis of the details of new suspicious journals and publishers can be a lengthy process or even a waste of time. Therefore, in this paper, we provide an analysis of a likely scenario that many authors are facing nowadays when they take on the difficult task of studying the details of suspicious journals as possible venues for the publication of their research findings. The analysis takes the form of an analysis of the Kenkyu Publishing Group, which is listed on Jeffrey Beall’s list of “predatory” open access publishers.


Costs not indicated Misleading Predatory Open access Spam 


  1. 1.
    Shen C, Björk B-C. ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med. 2015;13:230. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Khatib A. Protecting authors from predatory journals and publishers. Publ Res Q. Forthcom. 2016. doi: 10.1007/s12109-016-9474-3.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clarke J, Smith R. Firm action needed on predatory journals. BMJ. 2015;350:h210. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h210.
  4. 4.
    Beall J. Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. 2nd edition. Denver, CO: Scholarly Open Access [Internet]; 2012. [Cited 2016 September 21]. Available from:
  5. 5.
    Federal Trade Commission [Internet]. FTC charges academic journal publisher OMICS Group deceived researchers. [2016 Aug 26; cited 2016 September 21]. Available from:
  6. 6.
    Khare R, Leaman R, Lu ZY. Accessing biomedical literature in the current information landscape. Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1159:11–31. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0709-0_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Azer S, Holen A, Wilson I, Skokauskas N. Impact factor of medical education journals and recently developed indices: can any of them support academic promotion criteria? J Postgrad Med. 2016;62(1):32–9. doi: 10.4103/0022-3859.173202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Teixeira da Silva JA. Silent or stealth retractions, the dangerous voices of the unknown, deleted literature. Publ Res Q. 2016;32(1):44–53. doi: 10.1007/s12109-015-9439-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Teixeira da Silva JA. Predatory publishing: a quantitative assessment, the Predatory Score. Asian Australas J Plant Sci Biotechnol. 2013;7(1):21–34.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kagawa-KenJapan
  2. 2.Faculty of DentistryJordan University of Science and TechnologyIrbidJordan

Personalised recommendations