Predatory publishing lists: a systematic review.

Area of Science:

• Scholarly publishing
• Academic integrity
• Bibliometrics

Background:

• Predatory journals undermine academic publishing by exploiting open-access models and bypassing peer review.
• Lack of standardized criteria complicates the identification of predatory journals.
• Existing lists aim to enhance transparency and safeguard scholarly publishing.

Purpose of the Study:

• To systematically review existing predatory journal lists.
• To assess their effectiveness in enhancing transparency and safeguarding scholarly publishing.
• To identify gaps in their methodologies, transparency, and update mechanisms.

Main Methods:

• Systematic review adhering to PRISMA guidelines.
• Comprehensive search across academic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, DOAJ), grey literature, and publisher websites.
• Comparative analysis of extracted variables including governance, accessibility, identification criteria, and update mechanisms.

Main Results:

• Ten lists were analyzed; 60% were established after 2017, and 90% were publicly accessible.
• Most lists (70%) covered journals and publishers, with 90% using manual review for identification.
• Delisting criteria were unclear in 80% of lists, and 60% did not specify update frequency.

Conclusions:

• While helpful, inconsistencies in criteria, updates, and delisting reduce the reliability of predatory journal lists.
• Standardized methodologies, increased transparency, and sustained efforts are necessary to maintain their relevance.
• These lists require improvement to effectively safeguard academic integrity and guide researchers toward credible publishing venues.