When the Predator Becomes Prey: Fighting Back against Predatory Journals with John H. McCool

John H. McCool is Chief Scientific Editor at Precision Scientific Editing, LLC. He has edited over 1,500 scientific manuscripts for top journals, including Nature and Lancet. He has been outspoken about the risk posed to scientific inquiry by predatory journals, and in 2017 he briefly became an internet celebrity when he trolled a predatory journal to draw attention to this vital issue. In this guest post, he reflects on the experience and what has (and hasn’t) changed in the intervening years. If this is a topic that interests you or your organization, please check out our new course, Evaluating Scholarly Literature for the Health Sciences, which includes a module on predatory publishing.

Back in 2017, I gained a bit of Internet fame when I trolled a fake urology journal and got them to publish a Seinfeld-themed case report that I wrote about a man who suffers from “uromycitisis,” which is a made-up comedy series condition that often requires the sufferer to urinate in public. This was my contribution to the legitimate scientific community’s campaign against so-called predatory journals—publications by unscrupulous actors that exploit real researchers, charge exorbitant fees while providing no peer review, and prey upon people’s earnest desire to communicate their findings and advance their careers.

Asked once what advice he had for young people, Jerry Seinfeld said: “Keep your head up in failure and your head down in success”. Well, if I’m to follow those words, my head is most definitely up, because, in my stated goal to “put an end to fake, predatory journals,” I failed miserably.

Although I did succeed, some 8 years ago, in subjecting the Urology & Nephrology Open Access Journal to “merciless ridicule”, it is still apparently going strong today, publishing scores of articles over the years and now charging up to $1,900 per piece. They tried to bilk me for a measly $799. Inflation, I guess.

In 2015, the number of predatory journals was estimated to be around 12,000; by 2021, that number had ballooned to some 15,000. Clearly, it’s not enough to attempt to shame a single predatory journal, especially when shamelessness is what this industry is based on.

Working against efforts to right the ship, so to speak, is the current “reproducibility crisis” that is plaguing so many mainstream scientific journals—when published findings cannot be reliably reproduced by other researchers. Seemingly daily, too, one hears about yet another published study that is being retracted because the authors falsified data. (Here’s just one of the most egregious, from Nature: “Researchers plan to retract landmark Alzheimer’s paper containing doctored images”). So, when “respected” journals start taking on the qualities of predatory ones (not the other way around), the questions become “What’s the difference?” and, even more sadly, “Who cares?”

In the classic 1994 Seinfeld episode “The Opposite”, George is convinced that every decision he has ever made in life has been wrong, and so Jerry suggests that, going forward, he simply do the exact opposite of whatever his instincts tell him to do: “If every instinct you have is wrong”, he says, “then the opposite would have to be right".

To restore trust and scientific integrity, maybe established journals should take a hard look at everything predatory journals are doing and, at all turns, just do the opposite.

In the meantime, what can researchers and medical writers do to protect themselves from predatory journals? In an editorial produced by members of the International Committee of Medical Editors, the authors list the following “red flags” to look out for:

·         Aggressive solicitation of submissions

·         Promise of rapid turnaround times

·         Lack of transparency about cost

·         Fees for withdrawing a manuscript

·         A name and/or logo that resembles a well-known legitimate journal

They also suggest some additional steps that authors, institutions, and legitimate scientific journals can take to protect themselves from these unscrupulous actors. While there is no comprehensive list of predatory journals, authors can protect themselves by fully vetting any solicitation that arrives in their inbox. The website Think, Check, Submit has a helpful checklist designed by subject librarians for researchers to use before responding to a solicitation from a journal.

Manuscript authors should also be aware that predatory journals often spoof legitimate publications, so always double-check email addresses and URLs to make sure they match up. When in doubt, forward the solicitation email to the legitimate journal to make sure that it came from them.

Institutions can offer resources and training to their researchers to help them avoid falling prey to a predatory journal. Academic organizations should enlist the help of academic librarians, who are experts in recognizing predatory publications. Promotions within research institutions should also be based on both quality and quantity of publications, never quantity alone. By reforming the “publish or perish” model of research, we can eliminate a large segment of the market for these journals.

Finally, legitimate journals should respond to their predatory counterpoints by sending cease and desist letters to journals that may be spoofing them. They should also be vigilant about ensuring that none of the manuscripts they publish contain citations for predatory journals.

Eight years after my brief brush with fame, one thing is clear: the rigor of scientific inquiry is under greater threat than ever before.