The Hidden Threat: Predatory Publishing in Systematic Reviews

In the vast landscape of academic publishing, not all journals are created equal. Predatory publishers pose a serious threat to systematic reviews by infiltrating evidence bases with low-quality, fraudulent, or unreviewed studies. These publications can contaminate your synthesis, leading to biased conclusions and overstated findings that undermine evidence-based decision-making.

Understanding how to identify and handle predatory publishing is no longer optional—it's essential for maintaining the credibility and reliability of systematic reviews. This guide provides practical strategies for screening, assessment, and management of potentially problematic publications.

The Impact of Predatory Publishing on Reviews

Predatory journals operate on a "pay-to-publish" model, prioritizing profit over quality. They often:

• Accept manuscripts without peer review or with minimal scrutiny
• Publish fraudulent or plagiarized research without detection
• Use aggressive marketing tactics to attract submissions
• Charge exorbitant fees for publication and other services

When these publications enter systematic reviews, they can:

• Skew meta-analyses with unreliable effect sizes
• Introduce bias through poor methodology or fabricated data
• Waste reviewer time on substandard content
• Undermine confidence in review findings

Recent studies estimate that predatory journals publish hundreds of thousands of articles annually, many of which could contaminate systematic reviews in fields like medicine, social sciences, and environmental research.

Developing a Robust Screening Protocol

Prevention is the best defense. A multi-step screening protocol helps identify predatory publications before they enter your review.

Title and Abstract Screening

Begin with basic checks during initial screening:

Database Indexing Verification

• Confirm presence in reputable databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, or DOAJ
• Absence from these indexes is a major red flag
• Check for legitimate ISSN numbers and consistent journal titles

Publisher Credibility Assessment

• Verify publisher membership in recognized associations:
  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
  • Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)
  • International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers
• Predatory publishers often falsely claim affiliations or create fake memberships

Editorial Board Evaluation

• Examine editorial board credentials and affiliations
• Look for real experts with verifiable institutional connections
• Be suspicious of boards with many members from developing countries or unfamiliar institutions

Full-Text Screening

When articles pass initial screening, conduct deeper investigation:

Peer Review Transparency

• Check for clear peer review policies and processes
• Look for evidence of review timelines and reviewer identities
• Question journals with no review process or "rapid review" claims

Publication Quality Indicators

• Evaluate manuscript formatting and presentation quality
• Check for proper citations and reference formatting
• Assess scientific writing quality and methodological rigor

Red Flag Detection

• Unsolicited submission invitations (spam emails)
• Promises of rapid publication (within days/weeks)
• Fake or inflated impact factors
• Cloned or poorly designed websites
• Excessive publication fees or hidden charges

Essential Resources for Identification

Several tools and databases help distinguish legitimate from predatory publications:

| Resource | Purpose | Access | |----------|---------|--------| | Think. Check. Submit | Comprehensive checklist for journal credibility (45+ languages) | Free online tool at thinkchecksubmit.org | | Cabell's Predatory Reports | Database of 17,000+ predatory journals with violation scores | Subscription-based (cabells.com) | | Beall's List (Archived) | Original predatory publisher blacklist | Free web archive (beallslist.net) | | Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) | Whitelist of vetted open-access journals | Free at doaj.org | | COPE Members Directory | List of publishers committed to ethical practices | Free at publicationethics.org/members | | Scopus Coverage List | Indexed journals with quality metrics | Free search at scopus.com |

Practical Screening Workflow

1. Initial Check: Use Think. Check. Submit for a quick assessment
2. Database Verification: Confirm indexing in reputable sources
3. Publisher Review: Check memberships and credibility
4. Editorial Board: Verify expert affiliations
5. Website Analysis: Examine design, transparency, and contact information
6. Publication History: Review sample articles for quality

Handling Suspect Publications

Not all potentially predatory publications should be automatically excluded. Cochrane and PRISMA guidance emphasizes maintaining comprehensiveness while ensuring quality.

When to Include Despite Concerns

If a publication from a suspect journal meets your PICO criteria:

• Apply rigorous quality appraisal using tools like:

  • AMSTAR-2 for systematic reviews
  • ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies
  • Cochrane RoB 2.0 for randomized trials
  • Joanna Briggs Institute checklists for various study types

• Document assessments transparently in:

  • PRISMA flow diagrams
  • Risk-of-bias tables
  • Study characteristics tables

• Note predatory status as a limitation in your discussion section

Quality Assessment Best Practices

For Primary Studies:

• Evaluate study design appropriateness
• Assess sample size and statistical power
• Check data collection and analysis methods
• Verify ethical considerations and approvals

For Systematic Reviews:

• Examine search comprehensiveness
• Assess study selection methods
• Evaluate quality assessment procedures
• Check synthesis appropriateness

Documentation Strategy:

• Create detailed quality assessment forms
• Use standardized scoring systems
• Maintain audit trails of decisions
• Report both included and excluded studies

Tools for Managing Quality Assessment

Specialized software can streamline the identification and assessment process. Platforms like EvidenceTableBuilder.com offer built-in quality assessment templates and risk-of-bias tools that integrate seamlessly with screening workflows, making it easier to document and track predatory publication concerns systematically.

Advanced Strategies for High-Risk Fields

Certain research areas face greater predatory publishing risks:

Medical and Health Sciences

• Cross-reference with PubMed indexing
• Verify clinical trial registrations (ClinicalTrials.gov)
• Check for institutional review board approvals

Social Sciences

• Examine methodological rigor carefully
• Verify data collection and analysis procedures
• Check for replication potential

Environmental and Agricultural Research

• Confirm funding sources and institutional affiliations
• Evaluate data transparency and availability
• Assess peer review adequacy for technical content

Institutional and Policy Responses

The systematic review community is fighting back against predatory publishing:

Journal Policies

• Many reputable journals now require submission histories
• Some reject manuscripts previously published in predatory venues
• Increasing emphasis on publication ethics in author guidelines

Funding Requirements

• Research funders increasingly require publication in vetted journals
• Some grants mandate open access publication in DOAJ-indexed journals
• Emphasis on research integrity and transparency

Community Initiatives

• Think. Check. Submit campaign for author education
• Institutional librarian support for journal evaluation
• Collaborative watchlists and reporting systems

Practical Recommendations for Review Teams

Training and Education

• Provide team training on predatory publishing recognition
• Develop standardized screening protocols
• Create decision trees for borderline cases

Documentation Standards

• Maintain detailed records of screening decisions
• Document rationales for inclusion/exclusion
• Report predatory publication encounters in methods

Quality Control Measures

• Use dual screening for potentially suspect publications
• Implement consensus processes for difficult decisions
• Conduct sensitivity analyses excluding predatory sources

Future Directions and Emerging Threats

The predatory publishing landscape continues to evolve:

New Tactics

• Hijacked journals that mimic legitimate publications
• Paper mills producing fraudulent manuscripts for sale
• Clone journals that copy established journal websites

Technological Solutions

• AI-powered plagiarism detection
• Automated journal credibility scoring
• Blockchain-based publication verification

Community Responses

• Enhanced reporting and blacklisting efforts
• Improved author education and awareness
• Strengthened peer review processes

Conclusion: Maintaining Review Integrity

Predatory publishing represents a significant challenge to systematic review quality, but it doesn't have to undermine your work. By implementing robust screening protocols, using reliable identification resources, and applying rigorous quality assessment, you can minimize contamination while maintaining comprehensive coverage.

Remember: the goal isn't to exclude potentially valuable research, but to ensure your synthesis rests on solid methodological foundations. Transparent reporting of your screening and assessment processes strengthens your review's credibility and contributes to the broader effort to combat predatory publishing.

The systematic review community must remain vigilant as predatory tactics evolve. By staying informed and implementing best practices, reviewers can continue to produce reliable syntheses that inform evidence-based decision-making.

---

Additional Resources:

• COPE Guidelines on Predatory Publishing: publicationethics.org
• PRISMA Guidelines: prisma-statement.org
• Cabell's Scholarly Analytics: cabells.com
• Think. Check. Submit: thinkchecksubmit.org