Page 36 - IDEA Study 2 2017 Predatory journals in Scopus

Conclusions

Predatory publishing is on the rise. If we assume that the fee for open-access
publication in a predatory journal is on average 500 USD, then the worldwide market
for these “services” is already worth about 30 million USD per year, and that is if we
only take into account documents recorded in Scopus. Its total value, including
publications outside Scopus is no doubt several times larger. It is in line with
the estimate made by Shen and Björk (2015) that the market in predatory journal
publishing is worth 74 million USD, which however, was the case a couple of years
ago. Unfortunately, this market has a great growth potential, because there does not
seem to be a systematic effort to tackle the problem. In fact, quite the contrary
appears to be the case. Beall’s blog, the only comprehensive reference point, is down.
At this point, nobody really knows how many fraudulent research journals lurk out
there.

Predatory publishing undermines the credibility of academic research particularly
in middle income countries in Asia and North Africa. What is most worrying is not
necessarily the current level in most countries but the increasing trend, which if not
reversed has a potential to turn predatory publishing into a truly potent disruptive
force worldwide. Looking ahead, we must also be concerned in the Czech Republic.
Even so, fears that this problem is serious appear for the time being to be
exaggerated. Czech authors only publish a few hundred articles in the predatory
journals indexed in Scopus each year, which is a tiny fraction of the country’s total.
Furthermore, these articles are strongly concentrated in a few journals, and so most
likely come from a rather narrow circle of authors. To solve the problem to a great
extent it might suffice to put an end to this publication practice in the few most badly
affected workplaces.

Overall, it is also clear that Beall's lists must be taken with a pinch of salt. No doubt
that predatory journals ready to print anything in return for a fee, of the type that
Jeffrey Beall and others give as the anecdotal examples to make their point, do exist.
It is a real problem, which must be stopped in tracks. Beall's lists provided
an invaluable service in raising public awareness of this problem. Nevertheless, even
a cursory look at the data for the Czech Republic demonstrates that on the basis
of the list of publishers, in particular, journals may be implicated even though they
are not in fact truly “predatory”. At least indirectly, this is vindicated by the fact that

34