Below are the citation and extracts of a paper by the International Council of Medical Journal Editors in the current issue of the WHO Bulletin, followed by a comment from me.
CITATION: Laine C, Babski D, Bachelet VC, Bärnighausen TW, Baethge C, Bibbins-Domingo K, Frizelle F, Gollogly L, Kleinert S, Loder E, Monteiro J, Rubin EJ, Sahni P, Wee CC, Yoo JH, Zakhama L. Predatory journals: what can we do to protect their prey? Bull World Health Organ. 2025 Jan 1;103(1):73-75. doi: 10.2471/BLT.24.293036. PMID: 39781001; PMCID: PMC11704632.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11704632/
EXTRACTS
'Predatory or pseudo journals can endanger the public by facilitating the dissemination of unvetted and fraudulent health information. Their deceptive practices also harm authors, academic institutions, and legitimate journals and publishers, and undermine the scholarly publishing process and science. In this article, members of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors outline strategies stakeholders can take to counter the deceptive efforts of predatory journals...
'What can authors do?... The World Association of Medical Editors offers practical recommendations that include a set of questions authors should ask when choosing a venue for publication. The ThinkCheckSubmit.org website provides a checklist of features that can help authors identify trusted journals and publishers. The site also includes a brief video about predatory publishing. In 2017, the United States National Institutes of Health issued guidance to help their funded researchers distinguish reputable journals from predatory journals. Authors should become familiar with these resources. When they have concerns about a particular journal’s legitimacy, they should share those concerns with colleagues and their institutions...
'What can institutions and funders do? Academic institutions and funders should be invested in helping their constituents avoid predatory journals...
'Legal action against the predators is challenging because the predatory publishers are often ghost entities, contact persons can be difficult to identify and unresponsiveness to communication is common. However, publishers should still issue cease-and-desist letters because these actions can deter continued predatory behaviours even if no response is received.'
COMMENT (NPW): Our impotence to take legal action against predatory publishers is an indictment of the global evidence ecosystem. Predatory publishers represent a cancer in the system. There needs to be greater political and financial commitment to find ways to sanction and neutralise predatory publishers. The above 'soft' measures are important, but woefully insufficient.
There are many HIFA members who know a lot more about predatory publishers than I do. What do you think?
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org
