Caveat emptor: the corruption of open access scientific publishing

To the Editor: Since our publication in the Journal,1 it would seem that a simple case report lead-authored by an intern has rendered him a virtual expert in the fields of infectious diseases, cell biology and cardiology, just to name a few. Or at least, one could be led to believe so with the sheer number of enticing invitations received in our corresponding author's inbox (about five per week), inviting his “eminent self” to write journal articles, sit on editorial boards, and speak at international cardiology conferences in far-reaching and exotic locations such as Guangzhou and Dubai.2

Such is how the rapidly expanding and controversial entity of “predatory publishing” is luring unsuspecting authors into submitting their research — either legitimate or decidedly sub-par — to a host of open access journals with more pecuniary than academic interest.3 Once copyright is transferred, an invoice of thousands of dollars may be bestowed before publication can proceed. Jeffrey Beall, academic librarian and curator of a growing “black list” of these journals, lists 285 such publications on his website, Scholarly Open Access (http://www.scholarlyoa.com/), at last count. This contrasts a corresponding “white list” compiled by industry directories such as Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association and Directory of Open Access Journals.

The “publish or perish” culture is perhaps one important factor cultivating this contamination of scientific literature. Less scrupulous authors looking to “pad” their curriculum vitae may be drawn to the lacklustre peer review or disinterest in true scholarly value of these journals. An exposé recently published in Science documented a 70% acceptance rate of a spoof paper filled with methodological and ethical flaws, outlandish results and poor grammar, which was submitted to a sample of open access journals purporting peer review processes.4 Disappointingly, this included 45% of journals on the putative “white list”.

Despite these issues, many strongly believe that the revolution of open access publishing represents the future of academia and a necessary counterpoint to “luxury journals”, by publishing work according to quality rather than arbitrary caps, and increasing the accessibility of scientific information worldwide.5 In this context, we seek only to remind the open access consumer of the age-old adage, “caveat emptor”.