FTC vs. “Predatory” Publishers

Are you familiar with the phenomenon of “predatory” open access (OA) journals? If not, here’s a brief description (from an article I co-authored last year) to get you started:

[Predatory open access journals] exist for the sole purpose of profit, not the dissemination of high-quality research findings and furtherance of knowledge. These predators generate profits by charging author fees, also known as article processing charges (APCs), that far exceed the cost of running their low-quality, fly-by-night operations.

Charging a fee is not itself a marker of a predatory publisher: many reputable OA journals use APCs to cover costs, especially in fields where research is often funded by grants. (Many subscription-based journals also charge authors fees, sometimes per page or illustration.) However, predatory journals are primarily fee-collecting operations—they exist for that purpose and only incidentally publish articles, generally without rigorous peer review, despite claims to the contrary.

Many researchers have become skilled at spotting and avoiding predatory publishers (if you’re unsure how to sniff them out, read the tips at Think. Check. Submit.), but such publishers are nevertheless multiplying and, to some extent, thriving. But now these predators themselves have a predator: the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

In August, the FTC made headlines when it charged OMICS (an open access publisher known for its spammy solicitation emails, questionable peer review standards, and arm-twisting fee-collecting practices) with misrepresenting the journals they publish and conferences they host, as well as deceiving researchers by failing to disclose their publishing fees. The FTC’s press release states:

The FTC’s complaint alleges that OMICS Group, Inc., along with two affiliated companies and their president and director, Srinubabu Gedela, claim that their journals follow rigorous peer-review practices and have editorial boards made up of prominent academics. In reality, many articles are published with little to no peer review and numerous individuals represented to be editors have not agreed to be affiliated with the journals.

According to the FTC’s complaint, OMICS does not tell researchers that they must pay significant publishing fees until after it has accepted an article for publication, and often will not allow researchers to withdraw their articles from submission, thereby making the research ineligible for publication in another journal. Academic ethics standards generally forbid researchers from submitting the same research to more than one journal.

The scholarly communication community will be watching this case closely. Will there finally be repercussions for predatory behavior? (If only there could also be repercussions for traditional publishers that charge exorbitant fees…also a form of predatory publishing!) Stay tuned, and talk to your librarian if you’d like to know more about publishing issues and trends in your field!

Image is © floodllama, used under a Creative Commons Attribution license

Image is © floodllama, used under a Creative Commons Attribution license

About the Author

Jill Cirasella is the Scholarly Communication Librarian and University Liaison at the CUNY Graduate Center.