Download PDFPDF

Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    In the grey zone, there is no peer review

    This article makes headlines by arguing that the majority of researchers publishing in predatory journals, as surveyed by them, actually received peer review and found it helpful. But hidden away in the text of the article itself is the acknowledgment that of the 20 participants who said they would be willing to share a review, only one did (by pasting the review into the survey) and one other author shared an article proof rather than an actual review. The remaining 18 participants did not follow through with sharing their reviews. In other words, of the 65 authors who said their paper underwent peer review, only one provided any evidence that it actually did. This raises the question of whether the participants are merely saying that their publication experience was positive in order to legitimise their publication choices after the fact or whether they actually underwent peer review. I think we should all be very careful with this data until it is replicated by testing these journal's procedures directly.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Presumed predatory journals
    • Rodney P Jones, Statistical Advisor Healthcare Analysis & Forecasting

    As an independent researcher I simply cannot afford to publish in open access 'quality' journals. The so-called predatory journals in which I have published have provided an excellent service and the quality of the peer review has been good and led to significant revision of the manuscript. On the occasions I have attempted to submit to 'quality' journals I have been disappointed by reviewers comments which showed a poor grasp of the issues in the manuscript. I know the editor of one of these presumed predatory journals who is a respected researcher and who gets very frustrated over the predatory label which may, on occasions. be perceived to be 'quality' journals protecting their patch.
    Clearly you need to do your homework before publishing, but in my opinion there is room for new entrants in the field.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.