This presentation was provided by Kent R. Anderson of Caldera Publishing, during the NISO event "From Submission to Publication: Creating and Conveying Quality," held on August 21, 2019.

2. Predatory Publishing
From Natural Extreme to Unregulated Offender
Kent R. Anderson
Founder, Caldera Publishing Solutions
Editor, “The Geyser”

3. Happy 10th Birthday, Predator!
• First predatory publisher stings in 2008-2009
• One conducted by Phil Davis and Kent Anderson
• Nonsense paper about phrenology created by
SCIgen, submitted under the auspices of
the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology
• Bogus paper accepted by Bentham Publishing, invoice
for $800 issued
• Davis (academic) upbraided for submitting false
paper

4. Other Stings and Investigations
• Bohannon’s 2013 sting in which 50%+ of 304 submissions of a
bogus paper were accepted by sketchy publishers
• In 2014, computer scientist Cyril Labbé uncovered over 100 papers
in more than 30 conference proceedings published between 2008
and 2013 that were not written by scientists or scholars, but were
instead generated by SCIgen
• In 2017, the “Star Wars” sting, involving a paper about
midichlorians, saw three journals publish the nonsense paper
• Multiple other stings proved how porous these scam journals were

5. Beall’s Attempt to Intercede
• Librarian at the University of Colorado, Jeffrey Beall, created a list of
predatory publishers and predatory journals in 2008
• His criteria were his own, and he attempted to manage this single-
handedly
• At first, it seemed to work, and became very prominent in the mid-2010s
• Threats of lawsuits and alleged harassment from his academic sponsors
led Beall to discontinue his list and retire
• An inciting event seems to have been the addition of Frontiers to the list,
which led their Executive Editor to fly from Switzerland to Colorado to
personally complain to Beall’s boss

6. The Cops Get Involved
• Unable to regulate ourselves, journalists and outside regulators begin to
exert their influence to control exploitative publishers
• In 2018, the International Consortium for Investigative Journalists
coordinated coverage of predatory publishers, producing blockbuster
investigations in multiple countries
• Journalists in Germany found that more than 5,000 German scientists published
with predatory publishers
• In 2018, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued its summary
judgment against OMICS, one of the largest predatory publishers, and one
with offices in the US
• China has created its own “black list” of predatory journals
• In 2019, the FTC levied a $50 million fine against OMICS

7. The Predators Adapt
• OMICS now focuses on bogus conferences and meetings to make their
money
• Preferred pre-paid model
• Conferences are a new way for predators to bilk money from academics,
academic institutions, and research grants
• This area is even less regulated than publishing, and harder to prosecute
problems
• Predators also moving to video – more lucrative ($1-4K per video)
• Bogus video by Yosemite Sam accepted by three journals – the American Journal of
Biomedical Science & Research, the Journal of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, and
the International Journal of Cell Science & Molecular Biology

9. How Did This All Happen?
• Scams require gaining trust from marks through a con
• Fast-money business model – Gold OA
• Online journals created low barriers to entry, worldwide
• Lax oversight by funding bodies – institutions, libraries, and granting
authorities
• Gullible authors and editors
• Spam marketing, name mimicry, and outright lies from predatory
publishers
• Scammers met a soft target, and got away with it for a long time

10. Recurring vs. Non-Recurring Revenue
• Recurring revenues work because the purchaser trusts the brand’s
outputs will justify the expense – Netflix, Amazon Prime, Wired
• Companies usually have to invest in brand, infrastructure, staff, and content
for years before realizing a return
• Tend to lead to emphasis on quality, long-term relationships
• Non-recurring revenues are transactional – I pay this, I get that
• Companies can offer minimal services, and get paid at the start, removing
incentives for consistent follow-through
• Tend to lead to emphasis on volume, short-term relationships

11. What Makes It Difficult to Thwart
• The business model of Gold OA
• Intense publish-or-perish pressures
• Intense pressures in the “prestige market” overall
• Shopping mall careers, supply/demand imbalances
• Lax monitoring of OA funding
• Academic independence
• Simple, neutral technologies and service providers
• Trust in publishers
• DOIs issued without standards

12. The Role of CrossRef
• Tens of thousands of DOIs issued to predatory publishers
• DOIs used to legitimize predatory journals
• Lax brand management
• Has now responded to enforcement actions
• Revoked OMICS’ membership after FTC ruling

13. The Damage It Does
• Tarnishes the business model of Gold OA
• Increases publish-or-perish frustrations
• Escalates pressures in the “prestige market” overall
• Wastes time, exploits moments of weakness, creates embarrassment
• Deprives legitimate outlets of OA funding
• Ties risk to publication venue choice
• Pressures service providers to act as de facto judges of quality
• Damages and erodes trust in publishers

14. Where Do We Go From Here?
• Subscription model doesn’t work for predatory publishers
• “Subscribe to open” model potentially exploitable
• CrossRef could act as a barrier to entry
• Require publishers to prove themselves over a short time period
• Cabell’s Predatory Journals Blacklist
• Prosecution, fines, and continued stings
• New funding models that aren’t prepaid per-article
• Fund libraries, researchers, and scholars adequately

15. Questions?
Thank You for Your Attention
Kent R. Anderson
Founder, Caldera Publishing Solutions
Editor, “The Geyser”
thegeyser.substack.comcaldera-publishing.com