Predatory Publishing in 2025

Simon Linacre assesses the state of predatory publishing, 15 years since the term was first coined

As someone who worked in academic publishing throughout the 2010s, one remembers that the term ’predatory publishing’ was often accompanied by a round of sniggers and smirks, as if those responsible for these fake journals were like the naughty boys at the back of the class, eliciting snorts of laughter for their outlandish behaviour. In the early days of industry awareness of the issue, there was a feeling that while it was a problem to take seriously, it wasn’t really a serious problem.

However, as our understanding grew and some academics published studies on the phenomenon, it felt like the issue began to gain more credence as something to be concerned about. Landmark studies such as Shen and Bjork (https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2) and predatory publishing godfather Jeffrey Beall’s own work with his increasingly famous lists, raised awareness that not only were things being published that shouldn’t on a large scale, but that in some cases research funding was facilitating it.

The height of awareness probably came at the end of the decade when Grudniewicz et al (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03759-y) provided a now well cited, well adopted definition of what predatory publishing actually meant, and the US Federal Trade Commission found OMICS International had effectively defrauded authors paying APCs to its journals over a six year period to the tune of over $50m (https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/152-3113-omics-group-inc). Now many more academics were both aware of what predatory journals were, and that it was a lucrative business to dupe authors into publishing their research in them.

State of play

Fast forward to the present day, and concerns about the problems that predatory publishing represents has never been greater. In 2024 we have seen a number of articles published that lay bare the potential damage that can be done from publishing in such journals – such as how misinformation presented as research was published on Covid-19 (https://utppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3138/jsp-2023-0063) – and the uncloaking of one of the most active commentators in this space.

In September, Prof Graham Kendall identified himself as the person behind the Publishing with Integrity, a hitherto anonymous campaign website and collection of social media feeds that have been highlighting the problems caused by predatory journals. After promising to reveal his identity once the initiative had gained 10,000 followers on X, he duly did so, revealing that the former Provost and CEO of the University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus had been running the campaign for several years. 

But while one might expect the increased awareness and public discussion of predatory publishing might have seen a decline in its popularity, the issues thrown up by it only seem to multiply and diversify. This year we have seen the number of journals included in Cabell’s Predatory Reports database rise to an all-time high of 18,000 titles, while articles published on the topic of predatory journals have continued to rise, with citations to them rising even more quickly.  

Looking ahead

The year 2025 will be 15 years since Beall first coined the term predatory publishing, and while Beall himself has long since retired to the Colorado wilderness, the issues he highlighted in the 2010s still seem to persist. However, there are wider developments in scholarly communications that may impact the status quo from next year and beyond.

Firstly, we should look at current trends in publishing to discern any potential changes. A quick look at article outputs in 2023 and 2024 not only shows that the rise in the number of total OA articles gone into decline, the rise in total articles published may also have flatlined. The data won’t be complete until further into 2025, but it also looks like there have been declines in articles accessible by both green, gold and bronze routes, while OA articles in hybrid journals are still on the rise. 

  

Source: Dimensions (Digital Science)

Related to this are geopolitical aspects that should be noted. Plan S was designed to curtail the growth of articles available via hybrid journals, introducing as it did policies that forced publishers’ hands in choosing full OA. However this strategy appears not to have the impact – yet – that it desired, and with the OSTP Memo in the US likely to fall with the incoming Trump White House, the push for further open access is likely to be focused on the transition to transformative agreements (TAs).

But where does this leave predatory journals? A quote often attributed to management guru Peter Drucker is that ‘culture eats strategy for breakfast’. Publishing trends and geopolitical activity suggest that OA journals will continue to be favoured by authors, but that increased awareness of research integrity issues should mean fewer authors choose the legitimate journal route. However, there is little evidence to suggest that the systemic ‘publish or perish’ culture is subsiding, and with the green route also in decline then poor journal publishing decisions will continue. This will be especially true if predatory journals APCs may look increasingly attractive compared to the increasing APCs of legitimate journals. Until the culture and the system that created it changes significantly, the predator will still have plenty of prey to target.

Simon Linacre is a scholarly communications professional with over 20 years’ experience in the industry. 

DISCLOSURE: Simon Linacre has previously published research with Prof Kendall and is a former employee of both Cabells and Digital Science.