Skip to main content
Journal cover image

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

Publication ,  Journal Article
Edie, AH; Conklin, JL
Published in: Nurs Forum
July 2019

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.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats

Published In

Nurs Forum

DOI

EISSN

1744-6198

Publication Date

July 2019

Volume

54

Issue

3

Start / End Page

336 / 339

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Qualitative Research
  • Publishing
  • Periodicals as Topic
  • Peer Review
  • Humans
  • 4205 Nursing
  • 4204 Midwifery
  • 1110 Nursing
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Edie, A. H., & Conklin, J. L. (2019). Avoiding predatory journals: Quick peer review processes too good to be true. Nurs Forum, 54(3), 336–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12333
Edie, Alison H., and Jamie L. Conklin. “Avoiding predatory journals: Quick peer review processes too good to be true.Nurs Forum 54, no. 3 (July 2019): 336–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12333.
Edie AH, Conklin JL. Avoiding predatory journals: Quick peer review processes too good to be true. Nurs Forum. 2019 Jul;54(3):336–9.
Edie, Alison H., and Jamie L. Conklin. “Avoiding predatory journals: Quick peer review processes too good to be true.Nurs Forum, vol. 54, no. 3, July 2019, pp. 336–39. Pubmed, doi:10.1111/nuf.12333.
Edie AH, Conklin JL. Avoiding predatory journals: Quick peer review processes too good to be true. Nurs Forum. 2019 Jul;54(3):336–339.
Journal cover image

Published In

Nurs Forum

DOI

EISSN

1744-6198

Publication Date

July 2019

Volume

54

Issue

3

Start / End Page

336 / 339

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Qualitative Research
  • Publishing
  • Periodicals as Topic
  • Peer Review
  • Humans
  • 4205 Nursing
  • 4204 Midwifery
  • 1110 Nursing