Avoiding predatory journals: Quick peer review processes too good to be true.
PROBLEM: Nursing is experiencing the growth of predatory journals with questionable peer review processes. These journals publish submissions quickly and do not enhance the authors' reputation and scholarship of nursing. METHODS: A qualitative, descriptive study design examined the legitimacy of the peer-review process described on the websites of predatory nursing journals. Posted review processes (n = 53) were examined for quality indicators related to language use, author control, and transparency. FINDINGS: Of the 53 predatory nursing journals describing a peer-review process, the majority indicated that all submitted content was sent for peer review (n = 34, 64.15%). Most journals did not describe the criteria on which submitted articles would be evaluated ( n = 39, 73.58%). Quality indicators for language included multiple grammatical errors and odd language and phrases ( n = 39, 73.58%). Author control of tracking, revisions, and review of galley proofs were inconsistent in the described peer-review processes. The majority did not provide a way to track a manuscript through the process ( n = 29, 54.72%). Most journals did not explain the types of peer review they conducted ( n = 31, 58.49%). CONCLUSION: Authors can sidestep the trap of publishing in predatory journals by paying attention to the peer review process when selecting a journal for publication.
Volume / Issue
Start / End Page
Pubmed Central ID
Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)