Avoiding predatory journals: Quick peer review processes too good to be true.

Journal Article (Journal Article)

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.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Edie, AH; Conklin, JL

Published Date

  • July 2019

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 54 / 3

Start / End Page

  • 336 - 339

PubMed ID

  • 30802310

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1744-6198

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1111/nuf.12333


  • eng

Conference Location

  • United States