Renaming the Problem: Why ‘Non-Recommended Journals’ Is Preferable To ‘Predatory’ in Academic Publishing

(on the original article) This article has a Corrigendum. Please see the Corrigendum at: https://doi.org/10.58742/bmj.v4i1.225 Abstract The term "predatory journals" is widely used to describe publishing practices that exploit authors, compromise research quality, and mislead readers. Its use, however, has frequently led to legal threats and professional conflicts for individuals and institutions who call out such deceptive practices. Most notably, Jeffrey Beall, the creator of Beall’s List, faced legal threats and personal harassment, which ultimately led him to discontinue his work. To address these challenges, scholars have proposed replacing “predatory journals” with more neutral alternatives, such as “questionable journals”. This study recommends using the term “non-recommended journals,” which similarly avoids accusatory language while signaling the need for caution by scholars and institutions. By avoiding direct allegations of unethical conduct, the term "non-recommended" reduces the likelihood of legal repercussions and professional disputes. Adopting this terminology enables researchers and institutions to continue addressing concerns about low-quality or deceptive publishing practices while fostering a more constructive dialogue. This reframing encourages constructive dialogue, broader institutional engagement, and stronger collective efforts to uphold high ethical publishing standards and protect academic integrity. Introduction Since the 1990s, scholarly publishing has undergone a significant transformation from a subscription-based print model to a digital, open-access framework [1]. However, this shift has been accompanied by the rise of unethical and deceptive publishing practices [2]. Predatory journals, typically operating on a ‘pay-to-publish’ model, exploit the open-access system primarily for financial gain, prioritizing profit for their editor–owners rather than maintaining scholarly integrity [3]. In 2019, a panel of scholars and publishers from ten countries established a consensus definition of predatory publishing aimed at protecting the integrity of scholarly communication. According to this definition, predatory journals and publishers are “Entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices” [4]. Such journals often employ unethical practices, including persistent and unsolicited requests for submissions, inadequate or entirely absent peer review despite claims to conduct it, opaque or excessive publication charges, and poor editorial or technical standards. Most importantly, their failure to ensure rigorous peer review threatens the credibility and trustworthiness of the scientific record [4]. The impact of these journals extends across a broad spectrum of researchers, affecting not only readers and early-career, inexperienced, or uninformed scholars, particularly those from developing nations and high- to upper middle-income countries, but also well-established academicians [5,6]. In response, various blacklists, whitelists, and institutional guidelines have been developed to help researchers identify these journals. The continued use of the term "predatory journals" has created conflicts and legal challenges for individuals and organizations addressing these practices. Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado, curated "Beall's List," a compilation of potential predatory open-access publishers [3]. In 2013, the OMICS Publishing Group, featured on this list, threatened Beall with a 1 billion $ defamation lawsuit, leading him to feel "personally threatened" [7]. Similarly, the Canadian Center of Science and Education accused him of defamation, labeling his list as "actionable libel" and challenging his recommendations against engaging with certain publishers [3]. Importantly, Beall faced online harassment, including websites that attacked his character, labeling him an "academic terrorist" and making unfounded personal accusations [8]. Institutions such as the University of Montreal and initiatives like Cabells Predatory Reports have also faced lawsuits and threats. To mitigate these conflicts, we support the proposal of Kakamad et al. in the 18th general assembly of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) to replace the term "predatory journals" with "non-recommended journals" [9]. In this article, we examine the historical and linguistic evolution of the term “predatory”, evaluating its institutional and ethical implications, and propose “non-recommended” journals as a pragmatic and defensible alternative. By analyzing the trajectory of terminology and policy responses, we argue that adopting more neutral language can help to protect academic integrity while reducing legal and reputational risks. The Evolution of "Predatory": From Plunder to Modern Exploitation The term "predatory" is deeply associated with exploitation and harm, evolving from its original meaning of physical plundering to its modern usage across various domains, including finance, publishing, and interpersonal interactions. The word "predatory" originates from the Latin "praedator," meaning "plunderer," which comes from "praedare" ("to plunder") and "praeda" ("prey"). Its earliest documented use in English dates to the late 1580s, describing acts of plundering or pillaging. This establishes its historical link to aggressive acquisition and territorial violation. By the 1660s, the term extended to zoology, describing animals that "habitually prey upon other animals." This shift expanded its meaning beyond human acts of looting to natural behaviors in the animal kingdom [10, 11]. The related term "predation" first appeared in the late 15th century as "predacioun," meaning "act of plundering," from the Latin "praedationem" ("a plundering") and "praedari" ("to rob"). The word "predator," specifically referring to an animal that preys on others, entered English in 1862. This relatively late adoption suggests a growing interest in the scientific study of animal behavior. Wiktionary traces "predator" back to the Latin "praedātor," meaning "loot" or "pillage." The word "prey" has an equally long history, dating to the mid-13th century as "preie," meaning "animal hunted for food." It was also used metaphorically to describe "souls captured by Satan" or "goods taken in war," stemming from the Old French "preie" and Latin "praeda," meaning "booty" or "game hunted." This linguistic evolution reinforces the concept of exploitation inherent in the term "predatory" [11, 12] In modern times, "predatory" has expanded to describe unethical or exploitative practices in multiple fields. "Predatory lending" refers to abusive loan terms imposed on vulnerable borrowers, while "predatory pricing" describes pricing strategies intended to eliminate competition. Vocabulary.com defines a predator as "an animal that eats other animals, or people or companies who act like they do," illustrating its figurative application [13, 14]. One of the most significant contemporary uses of "predatory" is in academic publishing. Initially coined by Beall in 2010 [15,16]. Tracing the Origins of Predatory Publishing The issue of what is now recognized as predatory publishing was first addressed as early as 2008. For instance, Gunther Eysenbach wrote a blog post [17], and Katharine Sanderson published an article [18], both discussing the prevalence of low-quality and potentially fraudulent publishing practices. They described such publishers using terms like "black sheep among open-access publishers" [17,18]. Beall’s early works on predatory publishing, all published in the Charleston Advisor, examined and analyzed several publishers. Of the 18 publishers discussed, only one was not categorized as predatory. In his first paper [19], Beall focused on Bentham Open, detailing its practices, such as charging membership and article processing fees, indexing methods, and search functionality on its website. He pointed out that Bentham Open published 236 journals, most of which featured articles that Beall deemed of low quality, suggesting they would likely not have been accepted by higher-tier journals. Because the journals were less than three years old, none yet had an impact factor. Beall concluded that Bentham Open, which entered scholarly publishing in 2007, primarily served as a platform for disseminating research of dubious quality. He argued that the publisher exploited the open access model for financial gain and inundated the scholarly community with substandard and questionable research [19]. In April 2010, Beall published another article, marking the first instance where he introduced the term "predatory" in a scholarly context. This article examined an additional nine publishers, with publication fees varying between $99.95 and $1,699. However, due to the differing pricing structures, direct comparison across all publishers was challenging and four of the nine publishers did not disclose their fees. Each publisher was assessed based on four criteria: Content, User Interface/Searchability, Pricing, and Contract Options. In this article, Beall highlighted that he was not the only one recognizing this emerging trend in academic publishing. He referred to prominent figures in the open access movement, including Stevan Harnad, who had also begun to criticize its implications. Beall cited Harnad’s blog, which discussed the increasing prevalence of rapidly established gold open-access journal networks. These journals often lack substantial scholarly or publishing expertise and primarily rely on aggressive online solicitation [20, 21]. In 2010, Beall published another paper analyzing three additional predatory publishers [22]. Then, in 2012, he expanded his investigation to include five more pub

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.