Predatory publishing lists: a systematic review

The rise of predatory journals threatens the integrity of academic publishing by exploiting open-access models and bypassing rigorous peer review. The lack of standardized criteria complicates their identification. This study systematically reviews existing predatory journal lists, assessing their effectiveness in enhancing transparency and safeguarding scholarly publishing. This systematic review adhered to PRISMA guidelines, including lists identifying predatory journals from peer-reviewed sources or reputable organizations. Using relevant keywords, a comprehensive search was conducted across academic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, DOAJ), grey literature, and publisher websites. Key variables extracted included governance, accessibility, update mechanisms, and identification criteria. A comparative analysis assessed transparency, evaluation processes, and gaps such as historical tracking and evolving criteria. Descriptive statistics, including frequency, percentage, median, and range, were calculated using SPSS Version 26.0. Ten lists identifying predatory journals were analyzed; six (60.0%) were established after 2017, and nine (90.0%) were publicly accessible. The majority (seven, 70.0%) covered journals and publishers, with nine (90.0%) relying on a manual review process for identification. Delisting criteria were unclear in eight (80.0%) of the lists. Most lists (six, 60.0%) were available in database format . In terms of updating frequency, one list (10.0%) was updated daily, and six lists (60.0%) did not specify their update frequency. While these lists help identify fraudulent publishing practices, criteria, updates, and delisting inconsistencies reduce their reliability. Standardized methodologies, transparency, and sustained efforts are needed to keep them relevant, ensuring they safeguard academic integrity and guide researchers toward credible publishing.