The landscape of scholarly publishing has grown increasingly complex, and academic librarians managing collections face mounting pressure to navigate this complexity wisely. With library budgets stretched thin, multiple business models competing for resources, and the ever-present threat of predatory publishers exploiting the open access movement, the responsibility of vetting journals has never been more critical, or more challenging.
The stakes are high for librarians. Every subscription decision, every transformative agreement, and every open access partnership shapes not just your collection but the broader scholarly communication ecosystem. This article provides practical frameworks for identifying credible journals, avoiding predatory publishers, and making strategic choices that support both your institution's needs and the health of ethical scholarly publishing.
Understanding the Predatory Publishing Threat
Predatory publishers exploit the open access model by charging article processing charges (APCs) without providing legitimate peer review, editorial services, or sustainable archiving. They undermine trust in open access publishing, waste researchers' limited funding, and pollute the ecosystem with low-quality or non-peer reviewed research.
The challenge for librarians is that predatory publishers have become increasingly sophisticated. They mimic the websites of legitimate journals, fabricate editorial boards featuring prominent scholars without permission, and employ aggressive marketing tactics. Distinguishing predatory operations from legitimate publishers requires awareness and systematic evaluation.
The consequences of failing to identify predatory publishers extend beyond wasted resources. When libraries inadvertently provide access to or recommend predatory journals, their institutional credibility suffers. Researchers may unknowingly publish in predatory publisher journals, damaging their careers and ultimately undermining your library's reputation as a trusted advisor for scholarly communication.
Fortunately, librarians have access to reliable tools and databases that simplify the vetting process while demonstrating your value as strategic information professionals.
Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
The DOAJ serves as the gold standard for identifying legitimate open access journals. DOAJ maintains rigorous inclusion criteria including:
Journals indexed in DOAJ have been vetted against these standards, providing librarians with confidence in their quality and legitimacy. When evaluating whether to support an open access journal—whether through institutional memberships, author fund allocations, or inclusion in discovery systems—DOAJ indexing should be your first checkpoint. If a journal isn't indexed in DOAJ, that alone doesn't disqualify it (particularly for newer journals still building their operations), but it warrants deeper investigation before committing resources.
Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)
OASPA membership provides another reliable indicator of publisher legitimacy. OASPA members are committed to best practices in open access publishing, including:
The organization vets membership applications rigorously, requiring evidence of sustainable operations and commitment to quality. When negotiating institutional agreements or evaluating new open access publishers, OASPA membership signals that a publisher has been vetted by industry peers and adheres to ethical standards. This becomes particularly valuable when considering agreements or institutional memberships with publishers outside the traditional commercial publishers.
Think. Check. Submit.
Think. Check. Submit. provides a practical checklist helping researchers—and librarians—evaluate journal legitimacy quickly. The tool prompts users to examine website professionalism, editorial board transparency, contact information clarity, peer review process descriptions, and indexing in recognized databases.
As a librarian, you can help your users by incorporating Think. Check. Submit. into your researcher support services. When faculty ask for guidance on where to publish or whether a journal is legitimate, you can direct them to this resource. By positioning yourself as the expert who connects researchers with reliable vetting tools, you demonstrate ongoing value regardless of your budgetary constraints.
Red Flags: What to Watch For
Beyond using trusted databases, librarians should recognize common warning signs of predatory publishers:
Vetting individual journals is only part of your challenge. You're also navigating multiple business models: subscription, transformative agreements, read-and-publish deals, subscribe-to-open initiatives, as well as immediate open access; each with distinct implications for your budget, collection, and values.
The Transformative Agreement Dilemma
Transformative agreements with large commercial publishers promise to transition spending from subscriptions to open access while maintaining reading access. These deals offer administrative simplicity—one negotiation unlocks unlimited OA publishing for your researchers while ensuring continued access to journal collections.
However, these agreements create an unintended consequence: they can systematically disadvantage independent, mission-driven open access publishers. When institutional OA budgets flow primarily to transformative agreements with Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley, researchers face strong incentives to publish within those portfolios. Why navigate separate APC payments when "free" options exist within the transformative agreement?
This dynamic harms publishers like society publishers, university presses, and independent OA pioneers, organizations, like JMIR, that built sustainable open access models when commercial publishers defended paywalls. These publishers championed researcher rights, experimented with innovative approaches, and proved open access could work. Yet as transformative agreements proliferate, these independents risk marginalization despite often offering superior value, more ethical business models, and deeper commitment to open access principles.
As stewards of scholarly communication, librarians must balance administrative efficiency with ecosystem health. This means deliberately supporting independent, ethical open access publishers even when transformative agreements offer convenience.
Practical strategies:
Budget pressures create pressure to justify every expenditure. Supporting diverse publishers, including smaller independent OA journals, requires articulating value clearly to administrators and stakeholders. You can do this by:
Your evolving expertise in these areas isn't just professional development, it's strategic positioning. As scholarly communication grows more complex, your specialized knowledge becomes increasingly valuable to your institution.
Vetting journals and avoiding predatory publishers is more than risk management; it's an opportunity to exercise strategic leadership in scholarly communication. By systematically using tools like DOAJ and OASPA membership verification, recognizing predatory publisher warning signs, and deliberately supporting independent ethical publishers, you position yourself and your library as essential partners in advancing open, ethical, sustainable scholarly communication.
As a pioneer in open access publishing, JMIR Publications is committed to driving innovation in scholarly communications, advancing digital health research, and promoting open science principles. Partnering with an independent, mission-driven publisher like JMIR can help your institution support a sustainable OA infrastructure.
Contact our Institutional Partnership Team today to discuss a JMIR Institutional Partnership.
References:
Burton, K., Keeping Up With…Predatory Publishing. https://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/keeping_up_with/predatory_publishing.
Subscribe Now