Predatory journal? How the publishing elite weaponise vocabulary

The term is used by established actors to discredit newcomers and preserve their turf, writes Prof. Emmanuel Andrès

Over the past decade, a new monster has crept into the world of scholarly publishing: the predatory journal.

Lurking beneath suspicious emails, crouched behind over-polished websites and generic editorial boards, this creature feeds on the ambition of the research community, luring them with promises of fast publication and peer review so quick it barely leaves a trace. It’s dangerous, unethical, even criminal, we’re told. A true scientific parasite.

But wait: what are we talking about, exactly?

The more one looks into this debate, the clearer it becomes: “predatory” has become less a meaningful descriptor than a convenient label – used, often aggressively, by established actors to discredit newcomers and preserve their turf. Yes, predatory journals as described above do exist. However, the issue we now face is that these are increasingly – perhaps intentionally – conflated with legitimate, non-predatory journals. Those that seek to challenge the legacy, paywalled model of academic publishing

The convenient monster

The term “predatory journal” was coined in a specific context: the rise of open-access models, the proliferation of online platforms, and the disruption of legacy publishing. Jeffrey Beall, a well-meaning academic librarian, published a blacklist of questionable publishers, which soon became a tool for drawing the boundaries of “legitimate” science. In 2017, after much debate, he removed the list himself, after which no updates have been made. Yet, outdated copies of Beall’s List continue to be used as a point of reference today. 

Since then, the term has been wielded like a weapon. No due process, no right of reply – just a branding iron. Label a journal “predatory,” and you can dismiss it entirely. No need to assess its editorial quality, its peer-review process, its indexing status, or its rejection rate. Suspicion alone is sufficient.

The irony? Many “predatory” journals today are indexed in PubMed, Web of Science, or DOAJ; they declare their impact factors, enforce peer review, and follow Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. Yet some still face accusations – not for their flaws, but for daring to disrupt the ancien régime.

Case in point: Journal of Clinical Medicine

Take the Journal of Clinical Medicine (J. Clin. Med.), of which I have been Editor-in-Chief since 2018, published by MDPI. The journal is indexed in major databases, has a respectable impact factor (>3), has a robust review process, and publishes thousands of peer-reviewed articles annually. It is a member of the COPE, participates in OASPA, ICMJE, and other ethical frameworks, maintains a transparent editorial policy, and discloses rejection rates and peer-review timelines.

It also has an international editorial board, an ethics committee, and a formal post-publication correction mechanism. And yet it is often lumped into the “predatory” pile. Why? Because it publishes quickly. Because it accepts submissions from under-represented regions. Because it doesn’t pretend to be a gentlemen’s club for a select few.

Respectability as a monopoly

Let us be clear: academic scams do exist. There are truly fraudulent journals, with fake addresses, fabricated editorial boards, and no real peer review. But must we pretend that the opposite extreme – some legacy journals charging more than $10,000 for open access while relying on unpaid reviewers – is a model of virtue?

One must ask: if a lower-cost journal offers rapid peer review, transparent processes, and is widely indexed – yet is still called “predatory” – is it because of its ethics? Or because it threatens a closed ecosystem?

The word “predatory” has become a gatekeeping device. A word that performs social hygiene. It preserves the privileges of those who had the means, time, and networks to publish in journals with a two-year queue. It delegitimises the newcomers, especially those from underfunded institutions, the Global South, or non-elite universities.

Who’s afraid of open access?

The real issue, perhaps, is not fraud, but access. The sin of so-called predatory journals is not poor quality – it is accessibility. It is affordability. It is speed. And in the minds of some gatekeepers, these traits are disqualifying. Because if anyone can publish, what becomes of the prestige?

We must recognise that scientific publishing is not only a meritocracy – it is a symbolic economy. One in which hierarchy matters. One where who publishes where is a currency. In this context, the term “predatory” is not neutral. It is an economic and political tool.

This is not a naïve defence of bad science. Junk journals exist, and they should be called out. But a blanket suspicion toward all open-access, fast-review, digitally native journals – especially those run outside the Anglosphere – is an intellectual laziness we can no longer afford.

Before dismissing a journal as “predatory,” ask:

•   Is it indexed in recognised databases?
•   Is it a member of COPE?
•   Is it verifiable using the Think.Check.Submit resource?
•   Does it disclose its editorial and peer-review policies?
•   Does it have a transparent fee structure?
•   Are its articles visible, citable, and corrected when needed?

If the answer is yes, then maybe the journal is not a predator. Maybe it’s just an outsider. And in the stratified world of academic publishing, that’s sometimes worse.

In conclusion: let’s read before we judge

So, should you publish in a predatory journal? Absolutely not. But should you trust the loudest voices in this witch hunt? Also absolutely not.

In the end, a truly predatory system is one that profits from gatekeeping, monopolises prestige, and punishes visibility that comes without permission. Perhaps the real predator is the one calling others by that name.

Prof. Emmanuel Andrès is Professor of Internal Medicine at the University Hospital of Strasbourg in France. He is Editor-in-Chief at the Journal of Clinical Medicine.

Do you want to read more content like this? SUBSCRIBE to the Research Information Newsline!