Keep calm and carry on: moral panic, predatory publishers, peer review, and the emperor’s new clothes




Predatory Publishing, Peer Review, Academic Quality, Scientific Misconduct, Elsevier, Academic Journals


The moral panic over the impact of so-called predatory publishers continues unabated. It is important, however, to resist the urge to simply join in this crusade without pausing to examine the assumptions upon which such concerns are based. It is often assumed that established journals are almost sacrosanct, and that their quality, secured by peer review, is established. It is also routinely presumed that such journals are immune to the lure of easy money in return for publication. Rather than looking at the deficits that may be apparent in the practices and products of predatory publishers, this commentary invites you to explore the weaknesses that have been exposed in traditional academic journals but are seldom discussed in the context of predatory publishing. The inherent message for health and medical services staff, researchers, academics, and students is, as always, to critically evaluate all sources of information, whatever their provenance.


Harvey E, Ball CG. Predatory journal publishing: is this an alternate universe? Can J Surg. 2021;64(3):E358. DOI:

Yeo-Teh NSL, Tang BL. Wilfully submitting to and publishing in predatory journals - a covert form of research misconduct? Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2021 Oct 15;31(3):030201. DOI:

Begum S, Abdulla R. Predatory science: unravelling a secret journey of fake journals and conferences. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2021 Jan-Apr;25(1):193–94. DOI:

Nieminen P, Uribe SE. The quality of statistical reporting and data presentation in predatory dental journals was lower than in non-predatory journals. Entropy (Basel). 2021 Apr 16;23(4):468. DOI:

Macháček V, Srholec M. Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross-country differences. Scientometrics. 2021 Feb 7:1–25. DOI:

Azam Rathore F, Farooq F. Letter to the editor: Citations from predatory journals must be discouraged and how to identify predatory journals and publishers. Ir J Med Sci. 2021;190: 1645–46. DOI:

Richtig G, Berger M, Lange-Asschenfeldt B, Aberer W, Richtig E. Problems and challenges of predatory journals. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018;32(9):1441–49. DOI:

Bell K. Predatory open access journals as parody: exposing the limitations of ‘legitimate’ academic publishing. TripleC. 2017;15(2):651–62. DOI:

Larivière V, Haustein S, Mongeon P. The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLOS One. 2015. DOI:

Hall R. You say you want a publishing revolution. Progressive Librarian. 43:37–48. Available from:

Oxford Reference. [cited 22 Mar 2022]. Moral panic.

Oermann MH, Nicoll LH, Carter-Templeton H, Woodward A, Kidayi PL, Browning Neal L, Eddie AH, Ashton KS, Chinn PL, Amarasekara S. Citations of articles in predatory nursing journals. Nurs Outlook. 2019;67(6):664–70. DOI:

Schira HR, Hurst C. Hype or real threat: the extent of predatory journals in student bibliographies. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research. 2019;14(1). DOI:

Frandsen TF. Are predatory journals undermining the credibility of science? A bibliometric analysis of citers. Scientometrics. 2017;113:1513–28. DOI:

Emery J, Levine-Clark M. Our lives as predatory publishers. Collaborative Librarianship. 2017;9(4):1. Available from:

Houghton F. Ethics in academic publishing: a timely reminder. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017;105(3):282–84. DOI:

Houghton F, Houghton S. Predatory publishing: how to safely navigate the waters of open access. Can J Nurs Res. 2018;50(4):167–8. DOI:

Houghton F, Houghton S. “Blacklists” and “whitelists”: a salutary warning concerning the prevalence of racist language in discussions of predatory publishing. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(4):527–30. DOI:

Aldhous P. CRAP journal accepted by journal [Internet]. New Sci. 11 Jun 2009. <>.

Eldredge N. Mathgen paper accepted! [Internet]. 14 Sept 2012. <>.

Bohannon J. Who's afraid of peer review? Sci. 2013;342(6154):60–65. DOI:

Stromberg J. A reporter published a fake study to expose how terrible some scientific journals are [Internet]. Vox. 24 Apr 2014. <>.

Flaherty C. Journal accepts profanity-laden joke paper [Internet]. Inside Higher Ed. 21 Nov 2014. <>.

Neuroskeptic. Predatory journals hit by 'Star Wars' sting [Internet]. Discover Magazine. 22 Jul 2017. <>.

Sokal AD. Transgressing the boundaries: toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social Text. 1996;46–47:217–52. DOI:

The Sokal hoax: a forum [Internet]. Lingua Franca. July/August 1996. <>.

Goldacre B. The danger of drugs … and data [Internet]. The Guardian. 9 May 2009. <>.

Elsevier. Statement From Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division, regarding Australia based sponsored journal practices between 2000 and 2005 [Internet]. 7 May 2009. <,-ceo-of-elseviers-health-sciences-division,-regarding-australia-based-sponsored-journal-practices-between-2000-and-2005>.

Smith R. Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12(Suppl 4):S13. DOI:

Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):237–40. DOI: PMID: 9676667.

Stossel TP. Reviewer status and review quality. Experience of the Journal of Clinical Investigation. NEJM 1985;312:658–59.

Kravitz RL, Franks P, Feldman MD, Gerrity M, Byrne C, Tierney WM. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care? PLoS One. 2010;5(4):e10072. DOI:

Mahoney MJ. Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cogn Ther Res. 1977;1(2):161–75.

Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:422–8.

Herron DM. Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(8):2275–80. DOI:

Peters DP, Ceci SJ: Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles submitted again. Behav Brain Sci. 1982;5(02):187–95. DOI:

Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Res. 2017;6:588. DOI:

Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Godlee F, Osorio L, Smith R. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med. 2008;101:507–14. DOI:

Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006;99:178–82. DOI:

Lock S. A difficult balance: editorial peer review in medicine. London: Nuffield Provincials Hospital Trust; 1985.

Rothwell PM, Martyn C. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience – is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain. 2000;123:1964–69. DOI:

Easterbrook PJ, Gopalan R, Berlin JA, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337(8746):867–72. DOI:

Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2004;328(7441):673–70. DOI:

Sutton AJ, Duval SJ, Tweedie RL, Abrams KR, Jones DR. Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. BMJ. 2000;320(7249):1574–77. DOI:

Ayorinde AA, Williams I, Mannion R, Song F, Skrybant M, Lilford RJ, Chen YF. Assessment of publication bias and outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews of health services and delivery research: a meta-epidemiological study. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(1):1–17. DOI:

Ayorinde AA, Williams I, Mannion R, Song F, Skrybant M, Lilford RJ, Chen YF. Publication and related biases in health services research: a systematic review of empirical evidence. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2020;20(1):1–12. DOI:

Marks-Anglin A, Chen Y. A historical review of publication bias. Research Synthesis Methods. 2020;11(6):725–42. DOI:

Ghose T. Top Science Scandals of 2011 [Internet]. The Sci; 2011. <>.

Zielinska E. (2012) Plagiarism is almost always a symptom of other educational problems [Internet]. 2012.

Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine. 2005;2(8):e124. DOI:

Harris A, Reeder R, Hyun J. Survey of editors and reviewers of high-impact psychology journals: statistical and research design problems in submitted manuscripts. J Psychol. 2011;145(3):195–209. DOI:

Reinhart A. Statistics done wrong: the woefully complete guide. San Francisco, California: No Starch Press; 2015.

Al-Hoorie AH, Vitta JP. The seven sins of L2 research: a review of 30 journals’ statistical quality and their CiteScore, SJR, SNIP, JCR Impact Factors. Language Teaching Research. 2019;23(6):727–44. DOI:

Farrah K, Rabb D. Errata for trial publications are not uncommon, are frequently not trivial, and can be challenging to access: a retrospective review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019;107(2):187–93. DOI:

Erfanmanesh M, Morovati M. Published errors and errata in library and information science journals. Collection & Curation. 2019;38(3):61–67. DOI:

Hauptman P, Armbrecht ES, Chibnall JT, Guild C, Timm JP, Rich MW. Errata in medical publications. Am J Med. 2014;127(8):779–85. DOI:

Bhatt VR, Aryal MR, Panta S, Mosalpuria K, Armitage JO. A retrospective analysis of reported errata in five leading medical journals in 2012. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2014;4(5):25738. DOI:

Molckovsky A, Vickers MM, Tang PA. Characterization of published errors in high-impact oncology journals. Curr Oncol. 2011;18(1):26–32. DOI:

DeMaria AN. Scientific misconduct, retractions, and errata. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(16):1488–89. DOI:

Hesselmann F, Graf V, Schmidt M, Reinhart M. The visibility of scientific misconduct: a review of the literature on retracted journal articles. Current Sociology Review. 2017;65(6):814–45. DOI:

Zhang Y. Chinese journal finds 31% of submissions plagiarized. Nature. 2010;467:153. DOI:

Tavare A. Scientific misconduct is worryingly prevalent in the UK, shows BMJ survey. BMJ. 2012;344:e377. DOI:

Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One. 2009;29:e5738. DOI:

Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR. Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA. 1998;280(3):296–97. DOI:

Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012;109(42): 17028–33. DOI:

He T. Retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 2010. Scientometrics. 2013;96(2):555–61. DOI:

Evans K, Houghton F. Retractions: an annual update on ethical misconduct in research & publishing. MLA News. March/April 2017.

Marcus A, Oransky Y. The top 10 retractions of 2014 [Internet]. The Scientist. 23 Dec 2014. <>.

Retraction Watch. Top 10 retractions of 2016 [Internet]. The Scientist. 21 Dec 2016. <>.

Retraction Watch. Top 10 retractions of 2015 [Internet]. The Scientist. 23 Dec 2015. <>.

Davis PM. The persistence of error: a study of retracted articles on the internet and in personal libraries. J Med Libr Assoc. 2012;100(3):184–89. DOI:

Decullier E, Huot L, Samson G. Visibility of retractions: a cross-sectional one-year study. BMC Research Notes. 2013;6:238. DOI:

Decullier E, Huot L, Maisonneuve H. What time-lag for a retraction search on PubMed? BMC Research Notes. 2014;7:395. DOI:

Elia N, Wager E, Tramèr MR. Fate of articles that warranted retraction due to ethical concerns: a descriptive cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e85846. DOI:

Korpela K. How long does it take for the scientific literature to purge itself of fraudulent material? The Breuning case revisited. Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2010;26(4):843–47. DOI:

Bolboacă SD, Buhai DV, Aluaș M, Bulboacă AE. Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method. PLoS One. 2019;14(6):e0217918. DOI:

Peterson GM. The effectiveness of the practice of correction and republication in the biomedical literature. J Med Libr Assoc. 2010;98(2):135–39. DOI:

Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR, Scoville C. Effects of article retraction on citation and practice in medicine. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1999;87(4):437–43.

Teixeira da Silva JA. It may be easier to publish than correct or retract faulty biomedical literature. Croat Med J. 2017;58(1):75–79. DOI:

Retraction Watch. Top 10 most highly cited retracted papers [Internet]. <>.

Estruch R, Ros E, Salas-Salvado J, Covas MI, Corella D, Arós F, Gómez-Gracia E, Ruiz-Gutiérrez V, Fiol M, Lapetra J, Lamuela-Raventos RM, Serra-Majem L. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a mediterranean diet. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1279–90. DOI:

Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, Berelowitz M, Dhillon AP, Thomson MA, Harvey P, Valentine A, Davies SE, Walker-Smith JA. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 1998;351:637–41. DOI:

Hansoti B, Langdorf MI, Murphy LS. Discriminating between legitimate and predatory open access journals: report from the International Federation for Emergency Medicine Research Committee. West J Emerg Med. 2016;17(5):497–507. DOI:

Shamseer L, Moher D, Maduekwe O, Turner L, Barbour V, Burch R, Clark J, Galipeau J, Roberts J, Shea BJ. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):28. DOI:

Feyerabend P. Against method. New York: Verso Books; 2010.