Trust, but Verify: An Exploratory Audit of Predatory Journal and Publisher Solicitations

Predatory journals threaten academic integrity by exploiting open-access models for profit over scholarly quality. They employ aggressive solicitation tactics targeting vulnerable researchers. This study analyses 1 year of solicitation data to identify characteristic patterns and red flags, focusing on impact factor (IF) claims, indexing status and International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) presence, commonly used to create a facade of credibility.

A retrospective descriptive audit examined 422 email solicitations received by a single academic urologist between January 2023 and January 2024. Journals were identified as predatory based on Beall's list, the KSCIEN list, or multiple red flags. Data were extracted from journal websites and verified using PubMed, Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and SCImago. Descriptive analyses identified indicators associated with predatory practices.

Over a12-month period, 422 emails were received from 196 unique journals representing 89 publishers. Ninety-four journals claimed IF, only two were verified by JCR and 14 by SCImago. Of these, 48 claimed IF < 2, 47 claimed IF ≥ 2, with the highest reported 6.705. Seven journals falsely claimed PubMed indexing, and 47 lacked an ISSN. Sixty-two journals listed addresses linked to unrelated businesses, 12 provided none and many used vague geographic identifiers. Concerningly, only 111 journals appeared on both Beall's and KSCIEN lists, while 51 were on neither despite clear predatory behaviour.

These findings reveal predatory journals' pervasive unethical practices, fake IFs, false indexing, misleading information, thus undermining scholarly publishing. These exploratory findings, highlight the importance of greater researcher vigilance and systemic action to safeguard research communication.