Avoiding problems

There will always be problems involved in publishing and sharing research outputs but there are some ways in which researchers can help make it less stressful for themselves. The following section highlights two potentially avoidable problems: 'predatory' publishers and manuscript rejection.

The problem of 'predatory' publishers?

Problem 'predatory' publishers are a phenomenon which have developed with the growth of Open Access publishing. They are publishing firms which exploit a lack of understanding of the Open Access model, offering researchers the opportunity to publish their work in online journals for a fee. Although it is claimed that this is an Open Access fee in line with other firms, so-called predatory publishers do not offer any of the editorial services which this fee would cover such as peer review or proofreading.

Although these publishers have traditionally been called 'predatory' there are acknowledged problems with this term with some arguing that they do in fact offer a much needed service. The term was made popular by a librarian named Jeffrey Beall who maintained a list of publishers he considered exploitative until he was asked to remove it by his supervisors. This illustrates one of the general pitfalls of offering advice on publishing to researchers - it is impossible to completely rule out bias when recommending one firm over another.

Many of these publishing firms are starting to branch out into conferences and there have been examples of researchers turning up to present only to find that everyone at the conference is a presenter rather than an attendee and that several events are being help at the same time. The researcher often has to pay for their own expenses to attend these events which are less than prestigious.

Why are they are a problem?

These publishers are a problem for both the individual researcher and the research landscape as a whole. Predatory publishers read out to potential authors with complimentary emails detailing how much they admire their work and that they would love the chance to publish it in their journal. These invitations usually target newer, more inexperienced researchers who have recently had their name on the their first publication or conference presentation. These invitations can be extremely flattering for those early in their career and looking to make a good impression. Unfortunately, the majority of these firms are not interested in the research but in the money they can make from encouraging people to publish with them. Publishing work with these firms will do nothing to enhance a researcher's reputation and could even be damaging. In addition the author will likely have to sign a publication agreement transferring copyright of the work to the publisher which makes it at best a wasted opportunity to publish elsewhere.

A bigger problem with these publishers is that they undertake little or no peer review and proofreading of the works they share, meaning that poor quality and even incorrect research can slip through. There have been several (rather humorous) examples of these publishers being duped into sharing articles on everything from Star Wars to The Simpsons. However there is also a serious side to the problem. These publications market themselves as serious, rigorously peer reviewed titles with outputs which can be trusted. Continuing with these models risks perpetuating bad research which makes it out into the wider world as fact. 

When are they not a problem?

However, some have argued that these publishers are operating a viable business model. These publishers are often based in countries outside Western Europe and the US, where the publication landscape operates in a different way. Researchers in these countries may not enjoy the same range of options when it comes to publishing their work and these firms at least offer them a chance to get their work disseminated. Some countries have different academic reward systems where a publication is required in order to get a job or a qualification. In these academic cultures it is more acceptable to pay for publication as it fulfils a need. Others have compared so-called predatory publishers to vanity publishers - if people are willing to pay for their work to be published and these firms are willing to do that then are they providing a service? 

Whatever a researcher’s thoughts on these publishers it pays to be cautious when assessing any invitation to publish in order to find the best fit. The checklist below has been compiled to help both library staff and researchers to spot a potential problem publisher. It is worth noting that none of the factors should be used in isolation and professional judgment should always be used when assessing a particular title.

You can also download a printable version of this checklist.

Avoiding rejection

There is nothing worse for a researcher than spending months preparing a manuscript only to have it rejected by a publisher but unfortunately this is a fact of academic life. The average journal title has a rejection rate of 50% and with popular, high impact journals this can be as high as 80%. Researchers looking to publish monographs often have similar problems with publishers rejecting two thirds of the content they receive. Although this might seem like a trivial problem it is something that can take a toll on the mental health and overall wellbeing of researchers and is therefore something library staff need to be aware of.

There are no fool proof methods for ensuring acceptance there are some tips which can help researchers to avoid the most common pitfalls:

One way to get a feel for what an individual publisher wants is to read a few articles of books they have produced in order to better understand what they are looking for.