Journal Pre-proof

Predatory Publishing in Ophthalmology: A Call for Awareness and Action

Sophie J. Bakri, MD, Saumya M. Shah, MD

PII: S0002-9394(20)30433-5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2020.08.009
Reference: AJOPHT 11510

To appear in: American Journal of Ophthalmology

Received Date: 10 July 2020

Revised Date: 3 August 2020
Accepted Date: 4 August 2020

Please cite this article as: Bakri SJ, Shah SM, Predatory Publishing in Ophthalmology: A Call for
Awareness and Action, American Journal of Ophthalmology (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ajo.2020.08.009.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Abstract

Purpose: To describe the phenomenon of predatory publishing, its impact on the field of ophthalmology,
and specific characteristics associated with predatory journals for authors to review prior to selecting a
journal for submission of scientific work.

Design: Descriptive editorial article

Methods: Literature review of currently published literature regarding the topic.

Results: Predatory publishing has had a significant impact on the quality of literature in the scientific
world, funding opportunities across countries and institutions, and on individual physician and scientist
careers. There are a significant number of predatory journals in ophthalmology, but fewer than in other
specialties.

of
Conclusion: We must raise awareness about the existence of predatory publishing within

ro
ophthalmology, and must individually act to limit contributing to its growth by critically appraising each
publisher and journal prior to submitting our scientific work.
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
American Journal of Ophthalmology Author Biosketches

=> Sophie J. Bakri, MD is Professor and Chair of Ophthalmology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester,
MN. She serves on the Editorial Board of the American Journal of Ophthalmology. She has
authored over 160 peer-reviewed papers and 26 book chapters on retinal diseases. She has been
honored with a Senior Achievement Award from the American Academy of Ophthalmology, and
a Senior Honor Award and Young Investigator Award from the American Society of Retina
Specialists.

=> Saumya M. Shah, MD is a PGY-2 ophthalmology resident at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
She hopes to pursue a fellowship in vitreoretinal surgery and a career in academic
ophthalmology that incorporates clinical and translational research, as well as emphasizes
ophthalmologic medical education.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 1

Predatory Publishing in Ophthalmology: A Call for Awareness and Action

1
Sophie J. Bakri, MD; 1Saumya M. Shah, MD
1
Mayo Clinic, Department of Ophthalmology, Rochester, MN

Conflict of Interest Declaration: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. All authors

have seen and agree with the revision changes in this manuscript.

Institutional Declaration: The work for this manuscript was completed at the Mayo Clinic

of
Department of Ophthalmology in Rochester, MN.

ro
Word Count: 1510

Short Title: Predatory Publishing in Ophthalmology

-p
re
lP

Corresponding Author:
Sophie J. Bakri, MD
Mayo Clinic
na

Department of Ophthalmology
200 First Street, SW
ur

Rochester, MN 55905
Phone: 507-284-3614
FAX: 507-284-4612
Jo

Email: bakri.sophie@mayo.edu
 2

Table of Contents Statement

This perspective describes the factors that contributed to the rise of predatory publishing, its
impact on the field of ophthalmology, as well as common characteristics associated with
predatory journals and resources to help assess a possibly predatory publisher.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 3

Abstract

Purpose: To describe the phenomenon of predatory publishing, its impact on the field of
ophthalmology, and specific characteristics associated with predatory journals for authors to
review prior to selecting a journal for submission of scientific work.

Design: Descriptive editorial article

Methods: Literature review of currently published literature regarding the topic.

Results: Predatory publishing has had a significant impact on the quality of literature in the
scientific world, funding opportunities across countries and institutions, and on individual
physician and scientist careers. There are a significant number of predatory journals in

of
ophthalmology, but fewer than in other specialties.

ro
Conclusion: We must raise awareness about the existence of predatory publishing within
ophthalmology, and must individually act to limit contributing to its growth by critically
-p
appraising each publisher and journal prior to submitting our scientific work.
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 4

The term ‘predatory publishing’, initially coined in 2012 by Jeffrey Beall,1 has taken on a
significant meaning in the world of academia over the years. The number of predatory journals
grew from approximately 1,800 journals in 2010 to around 8,000 journals in 2014, with
predatory articles increasing from 53,000 to 420,000 during this time period.2 This rise in the
existence of predatory journals is partially attributed to the lack of consensus within the
academic community over the definition of predatory publishing. At the Predatory Summit held
in Ottawa, Canada in 2019 between leading scholars and publishers, predatory journals were
defined as “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”.3

The increasing prevalence and infiltration of predatory publishing is thought to be largely

associated with the rise of open access publishing and the career promotion model utilized in the

of
academic world. In the early 2000s, the open access publishing movement expanded with the
intention of making scholarly literature available for free access in order to encourage wider

ro
dissemination and collaborative progress in science. Depending on the journal, the author or the
submitting institution may be expected to pay an ‘article processing charge (APC)’ to publish the
-p
article after thorough and genuine peer-review.4 This model allows low-funded countries and
institutions an opportunity to participate in disseminating high-quality literature in a well-reputed
re
journal by waiving the APC.
lP

On the other hand, the predatory publishing model exploits the mission statement of the open
access publishing movement and capitalizes on academic vulnerability. By excessively
spamming academic email lists with invitations to serve on editorial boards, call for papers, and
na

write reviews/editorial articles, these journals victimize researchers across the world. In fact, to
increase their supposed credibility, they even send personalized emails to authors asking them to
write commentary submissions in their journals based on previously published work by that
ur

author (Figure 1). With promises such as no or expedited peer-review and shortened publication
time (as little as 7 days from submission), the publishers capitalize on the exorbitant APC that is
Jo

often required at the time of submission. They stay afloat by accepting the majority of literature
or applications for leadership submitted to them.5–7 Additionally, the pressures of the “publish or
perish” paradigm that are often part of advancement in academic medicine largely contributed to
the prosperity of predatory publishing. While some professionals fall prey to these predatory
journals unknowingly, others, often early-career physicians, may knowingly use these outlets
under pressure to publish as quickly as possible and amplify their resume and careers.8–10

Like other specialties, ophthalmology has not been spared from the infiltration of predatory
publishing.11–16 As many as fifteen to twenty different predatory ophthalmology journals with
‘invitation to contribute’ emails and the characteristics mentioned below were received by one of
the authors, an academic ophthalmic surgeon over a span of a year. While the list of known
predatory journals is smaller in ophthalmology compared to a larger specialty like neurology,
which has 101 known predatory journals,17 the ophthalmic community must understand and be
wary of the consequences of publishing in such journals.

While 60% of articles published in predatory journals receive zero citations,18 they remain
accessible to the public and thus may appear to represent the scientific community's opinion on a
 5

certain topic. This supposed opinion could then influence policymakers, impacting community
and societal decisions. Additionally, the media may misunderstand the publication's predatory
nature and publish un-refereed science as a hot topic which may then influence their larger
audience. 19 Furthermore, predatory publishing can significantly impact the amount of grant-
based institutional funding available for publishing in high impact journals. In South Africa,
Mouton and colleagues found that as many as 4,246 South African papers published in 48
journals were possibly predatory, costing their government between R100-300 million ($6-18
million USD) in institutional subsidies usually paid for publishing quality articles.20 On an
individual level, predatory journal publications listed on an author’s curriculum vitae can
negatively prejudice their application for academic promotion or tenure review. Lastly, predatory
publishers have been known to refuse to withdraw articles after submission, reveal hidden fees,
and most shockingly, falsely establish authors as editors-in-chief or board members without
consent and utilize their names to recruit other authors.7,21,22

of
While much of the scholarly community is vigilant against predatory publishers, we must

ro
redouble our efforts on minimizing their growth and presence. In order to protect our scholarly
work and reputations, it is essential that we critically evaluate potential journal outlets by
-p
exploring their indexing, publishing priorities, and editorial boards, ensuring that we are not
contributing to predatory journals' growth. As an internationally recognized biomedical literature
re
database, PubMed indexing is often considered to be the gold-standard in journal legitimacy and
credibility. Yet, Manca et al. describe how gaps in the PubMed and PubMed Central journal
lP

selection policy have led to indexing of more than 15% of neurology and neurosciences
predatory journals versus the much stricter criteria followed by the MEDLINE database.23,24
More recently, predatory literature has also begun to appear in the Scopus database.25,26 In part
na

due to its newness, there is a paucity of literature objectively analyzing the extent of legitimate
resources used to facilitate the infiltration of ophthalmic predatory publishing. Therefore, it is
vitally important to be aware of predatory journal characteristics.
ur

Within the realm of ophthalmology, below are some of the features that may delineate a
predatory journal:4,11,27
Jo

- Use of overly fawning language in personalized invitation emails from an

unknown, often unestablished individual not related to the recipient’s specialty or
area of interest
- Blatant advertising or promising of rapid processing and publishing of submitted
journal articles
- Presence of spelling or grammatical errors, and unprofessional/ gaudy formatting
on the website or in email communication
- Vague description or lack of the journal’s scope, mission statement, or
background information
- Lack of, or poorly written information on the journal website about: submission
guidelines for future articles, “Guide for Authors” or an equivalent section,
manuscript processing guidelines such as the peer-review process, how journal
content will be digitally preserved, and the copyright policy
- Inconsistencies regarding journal location, publisher location, target audience, and
the contact addresses and phone numbers
- Lack of transparency about associated fees, including article processing charges,
submission fees, and publication fees
 6

- Request for manuscript submission via email, rather than a secure, standardized
submission portal
- Use of non-journal or institution affiliated emails (domains such as @gmail.com
or @yahoo.com)—although less commonly present in newer predatory journals
- Display of fake bibliometrics (i.e. impact factors) and promotion of indexing in
unestablished databases or false claims of inclusion in legitimate clinical
databases
- Lack of article identifiers such as International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) or
Digital Object Identifier (DOI) listed with published articles on the journal’s
website
- Journal names and logos that strongly mimic well-established and highly
recognized journals in the field (e.g. American Open Ophthalmology Journal, a
predatory journal that closely sounds like the American Journal of

of
Ophthalmology)

ro
There are also resources available to check whether a particular journal or publisher has been
established as a predatory or a trusted open-access journal:
-p
- The Think. Check. Submit. Initiative- offers authors a guide to assess the quality
of a journal
re
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) - provides an extensive list of high
quality publishers and journals that follow the open-access model.
lP

- Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) - a forum of editors and publishers of

peer-reviewed journals. A non-predatory open access journal’s publisher will
likely be included in this list.
na

- Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) - community of open

access publishers maintaining ethical and guideline-based scientific publishing. A
non-predatory open access journal’s publisher will likely be included in this list.
ur

- Cabell’s List- Paid resource that provides access to a whitelist and blacklist of
non-predatory and predatory journals
Jo

As physicians, researchers, and scientists, it is our responsibility to not only gain and spread
awareness regarding predatory publishing, but also to actively take on an initiative to refrain
from contributing to these predatory journals. While it may require additional effort to critically
appraise an ophthalmology journal prior to submitting a manuscript, our scholarly work deserves
full recognition and the opportunity to be presented in a trusted source. We all must do our part
to preserve the high quality of scientific ophthalmologic literature within our field.
 7

Acknowledgments:

a. Funding/Support: None

b. Financial Disclosures:

Bakri:

- Consultant: Adverum, Apellis, Alimera, Allergan, Kala, Genentech, Novartis, Oxurion,

Roche
- Research Funding: NIH, Lowy Medical Foundation

Shah: no disclosures

of
c. Other Acknowledgments: None

ro
CRediT Statement:
-p
re
Bakri, SJ: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - Review & Editing
lP

Shah, SM: Writing - Original Draft

na
ur
Jo
 8

References:

1. Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature. 2012;489(7415):179.

2. Shen C, Björk BC. “Predatory” open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and
market characteristics. BMC Med. 2015;13(1).
3. Grudniewicz A, Moher D, Cobey KD, et al. Predatory journals: no definition, no defence.
Nature. 2019;576(7786):210-212.
4. Berger M. Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Predatory Publishing but Were
Afraid to Ask. ACRL. 2017:206-207.
5. Sorokowski P, Kulczycki E, Sorokowska A, Pisanski K. Predatory journals recruit fake
editor. Nature. 2017;543(7646):481-483.
6. McCool JH. Opinion: Why I Published in a Predatory Journal | The Scientist Magazine®.
TheScientist. June 2017. https://www.the-scientist.com/critic-at-large/opinion-why-i-

of
published-in-a-predatory-journal-31697.
7. Masic I. Predatory Publishing - Experience with OMICS International. Med Arch

ro
(Sarajevo, Bosnia Herzegovina). 2017;71(5):304-307.
8. Kolata G. Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals - The New York

9.
Times. New York Times. October 2017:5. -p
Eriksson S, Helgesson G. The false academy: predatory publishing in science and
re
bioethics. Med Heal Care Philos. 2017;20(2):163-170.
10. Vakil C. Predatory journals Authors and readers beware. Can Fam Physician.
lP

2019;65(2):92-94.
11. Stuart A. Predatory Publishing: Shedding Light on a Deceptive Industry - American
Academy of Ophthalmology. EyeNet Mag. July 2018.
na

https://www.aao.org/eyenet/article/predatory-publishing-2.
12. Le JT, Qureshi R, Li T. Open Access Journals in Ophthalmology and Vision Science: All
That Glitters Is Not Gold. Ophthalmology. 2018;125(9):1314-1316.
ur

13. Natarajan S, Nair AG. “FakeBooks” - Predatory journals: The dark side of publishing.
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2016;64(2):107-108.
Jo

14. Cartwright VA. Authors beware! The rise of the predatory publisher. Clin Experiment
Ophthalmol. 2016;44(8):666-668.
15. Oren GA, Library JWH. Predatory Publishing: Top 10 Things You Need to Know.
16. Denial A. Beware of Predatory Publishing. J Optom Educ. 2016;42(1).
17. Manca A, Martinez G, Cugusi L, Dragone D, Dvir Z, Deriu F. The surge of predatory
open-access in neurosciences and neurology. Neuroscience. 2017;353:166-173.
18. Björk B-C, Kanto-Karvonen S, Harviainen JT. How Frequently are Articles in Predatory
Open Access Journals Cited. Publications. 2020;8(17).
19. Sarr MG, Behrns KE. Potential benefit and harm of social media and predatory
publishing: a commentary on “Antibiotic-treated acute appendicitis—reception in social
media.” Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2019;404(3):351-352.
20. Mouton J, Valentine A. The extent of South African authored articles in predatory
journals. S Afr J Sci. 2017;113(7-8):1-9.
21. Chambers AH. How I became easy prey to a predatory publisher. Science.
22. Leung JG, Wieruszewski PM, Stee LA, Takala CR, Palmer BA. Predatory Journals: A
Cautionary Tale and a Lesson in Copyright Transfer. Mayo Clin Proc. 2020;95(3):441-
444.
 9

23. Manca A, Moher D, Cugusi L, Dvir Z, Deriu F. How predatory journals leak into
PubMed. CMAJ. 2018;190(35):E1042-E1045.
24. Manca A, Cugusi L, Dvir Z, Deriu F. PubMed should raise the bar for journal inclusion.
Lancet. 2017;390(10096):734-735.
25. Cortegiani A, Manca A, Lalu M, Moher D. Inclusion of predatory journals in Scopus is
inflating scholars’ metrics and advancing careers. Int J Public Health. 2020;65(1):3-4.
26. Severin A, Low N. Readers beware! Predatory journals are infiltrating citation databases.
Int J Public Heal 2019 648. 2019;64(8):1123-1124.
27. Shamseer L, Moher D, Maduekwe O, et al. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical
journals: Can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Med.
2017;15(1).

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
ro
of
Table of Contents Statement

This perspective describes the factors that contributed to the rise of predatory publishing, its
impact on the field of ophthalmology, as well as common characteristics associated with
predatory journals and resources to help assess a possibly predatory publisher.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo