The Perfect Storm
As the COVID-19 virus swept across the globe, another contagion was quietly spreading through academic publishing. Predatory journals – those deceptive publications prioritizing profit over peer review – seized the pandemic as an unprecedented opportunity. Researchers were desperate to share findings quickly, policymakers needed immediate evidence, and the public hungered for scientific answers. Into this void of uncertainty, predatory publishers injected questionable science, exploiting fear and urgency while eroding the very foundations of trustworthy research 1 4 .
COVID-19 Impact
The pandemic created perfect conditions for predatory journals to thrive, with researchers under pressure to publish quickly.
Exploiting Urgency
Predatory publishers targeted desperate scientists with promises of rapid publication during the crisis.
What Exactly Are Predatory Journals?
The Wolf in Academic Clothing
Predatory journals mimic legitimate scientific publications but operate without proper peer review or editorial oversight. Their business model is simple: charge authors hefty Article Processing Charges (APCs) while promising rapid publication.
Key Characteristics Include:
- Aggressive Solicitation: Bombarding researchers with spam emails offering "urgent publication" 2
- Fake Peer Review: Claiming rigorous review while accepting nearly any submission
- Hidden Fees: Often obscuring publication costs until after acceptance
- Misleading Metrics: Inventing impact factors or indexing claims
- Fake Editorial Boards: Listing respected scientists without their consent
Distinguishing Legitimate vs. Predatory Journals
| Feature | Legitimate Journal | Predatory Journal |
|---|---|---|
| Peer Review Process | Transparent, 2-4+ weeks | "Rapid" (days) or non-existent |
| APCs | Clear upfront fees | Hidden or negotiated fees |
| Editorial Board | Verified experts | Fake or unauthorized listings |
| Indexing | PubMed, DOAJ, Web of Science | False claims of indexing |
| Retraction Policy | Clear correction/retraction process | No policy or unresponsive |
COVID-19: The Predatory Gold Rush
Capitalizing on Crisis
When the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic in March 2020, predatory publishers pivoted aggressively:
Targeted Solicitations
Researchers received emails specifically requesting COVID-19 papers with promises of "24-hour peer review" 2
Themed Special Issues
Fake journals created "Pandemic Response" issues to attract submissions
Exploiting Open Access
Positioned themselves as heroes facilitating rapid knowledge sharing
COVID-19 Publications in Predatory Journals (Jan-May 2020) 2
| Article Type | Number Published | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Original Research | 125 | 34% |
| Reviews | 172 | 47% |
| Commentaries/Editorials | 70 | 19% |
Empirical Analysis Revealed Alarming Numbers:
Inside a Groundbreaking Investigation
Methodology: Tracking the Predators
Dr. Ryan Allen's 2021 study provides the most comprehensive analysis of predatory publishing during the pandemic. His team employed a multi-phase approach 1 :
Journal Identification
- Used Cabells' Predatory Reports database to identify 162 journals in virology, immunology, and epidemiology
- Created a control group of 100 legitimate journals from Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
Content Analysis
- Analyzed journal websites for COVID-19 engagement
- Tracked publication frequency from January-August 2020
- Coded communication about peer review delays
Comparative Analysis
- Compared predatory and legitimate journals' transparency about pandemic-related review delays
- Assessed article volume and submission requirements
Key Findings:
- Only 39 of 162 predatory virology/immunology journals actually published COVID-19 content
- Predatory journals were significantly less likely to mention peer review slowdowns (12% vs 68% of legitimate journals)
- An additional 284 predatory journals across other disciplines published COVID-19 papers
- 42 titles came from social sciences and humanities – unexpected fields for pandemic research 1
Disciplinary Distribution of Predatory COVID-19 Journals 1
| Field | Number of Journals |
|---|---|
| Medical/Biological Sciences | 242 |
| Social Sciences | 28 |
| Other STEM | 14 |
| Humanities | 0 |
A Case Study in Academic Fraud
The Fake Paper That Should Have Alarmed the World
One egregious example illustrates the dangerous potential of predatory publishing during the pandemic:
Fraudulent Publication Details
- The Paper: "Recent new results and achievements of California South University (CSU) BioSpectroscopy Core Research Laboratory for COVID-19 treatment"
- The Journal: Journal of Current Viruses and Treatment Methodologies (a confirmed predatory outlet)
- Timeline: Submitted March 16, 2020 → "Peer reviewed" and accepted March 19 → Published March 21 4
Red Flags Galore:
- 38 pages of pseudo-scientific jargon unrelated to COVID-19
- Seven authors from two fake institutions (California South University; American International Standards Institute)
- 348 references – all self-citations to boost the lead author's metrics
- An invalid DOI and plagiarized images
- Claims of breakthrough treatments without evidence or data 4
This paper remained published and uncorrected for months, potentially influencing desperate clinicians or policymakers before being exposed.
The Ripple Effects of Junk Science
When Bad Research Has Real-World Consequences
Predatory COVID-19 publications created three major threats:
Resource Diversion
- Researchers wasted time submitting to fraudulent journals
- Clinicians sifted through low-quality studies to find reliable evidence
Erosion of Trust
- Public confidence in science diminished when retractions increased
- Legitimate rapid-review initiatives were tarred with the same brush as predatory operations
"The pandemic amplified weaknesses in academic publishing to levels never seen before. When speed eclipses rigor, everyone loses."
The Scientist's Predatory Journal Toolkit
Spotting and Stopping Academic Fraud
Researchers can protect themselves with these evidence-based tools:
| Tool | Function | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Think. Check. Submit. | Step-by-step checklist to evaluate journal legitimacy | 3 |
| Cabells' Predatory Reports | Searchable database of 15,000+ verified predatory journals | 1 3 |
| Journal Evaluation Tool | Framework assessing editorial policies, fees, and transparency | 3 |
| Email Assessment Tool | Analyzes solicitation emails for predatory characteristics | 3 |
| Retraction Watch Hijacked List | Identifies journals impersonating legitimate publications | 3 |
| Principles of Transparency | OASPA's standards for ethical open-access publishing | 3 |
Fighting Back: The Path to Reform
Systemic solutions are emerging from the COVID-19 publishing crisis:
Policy Interventions
- Funders mandating pre-registration and open data sharing (e.g., Wellcome Trust's COVID-19 mandate) 5
- Institutions requiring publication in journals following COPE guidelines
Technological Innovations
- Blockchain-based manuscript tracking to prevent fake peer review claims
- AI tools flagging questionable journals or paper mills
Cultural Shifts
- De-emphasizing publication quantity in researcher evaluation
- Recognizing diverse contributions beyond traditional papers
"Improvement requires policy initiatives from research institutions and funding agencies. Universities should require trials conducted at their institutions to use CONSORT when reporting results."
Conclusion: Vigilance in the Post-Pandemic Landscape
The predatory journal pandemic hasn't ended with COVID-19. These outlets continue evolving – hijacking journal titles, creating fake impact factors, and exploiting new academic pressures. Yet the crisis catalyzed essential reforms: greater scrutiny of rapid-publication models, sophisticated detection tools, and growing recognition that trustworthy science requires both speed and rigor.
"This study exemplifies the potential risks within a complex academic publishing space. Libraries and the broader educational community need to stay vigilant as information intermediaries."
The cure for predatory publishing lies not in restricting access to knowledge, but in strengthening the immune system of academic integrity through technology, policy, and cultural change.