A new interview-based article around the awareness of predatory publishing practices highlights the importance of including journalists as one of the key players involved in discussions.
Authored by journalism professors Alice Fleerackers and Laura L. Moorhead, and Juan Pablo Alperin, Scientific Director of the Public Knowledge Project, the paper, published in the journal Journalism Practice, investigates how health, science, and environmental journalists in North America and Europe perceive predatory journals, how they ensure the journals they report on are credible and trustworthy, and the implications of these perceptions and practices for the diversity of the research that makes the news.
Their results show that journalists, though aware of the phenomena of predatory journals, believe predatory journals are a problem for their peers, but ‘not one they would ever fall for themselves’, and their methods of vetting come close to reinforcing biases that prioritise elitism, rankings and prestige, while excluding Open Access, and developing world publications – biases the industry, and particularly organisations like EASE and our associates, are working hard to mitigate.
However, while there is less concern shown towards publication at the journal level, it is perhaps reassuring that the journalists interviewed revealed strategies for heavily vetting journal articles on an individual basis, notably in scrutinizing the methodologies and seeking advice from independent experts.
The full article is published Open Access, available from the Latest Articles section of Journalism Practice.
Reference:
Fleerackers, A., Moorhead, L. L., & Alperin, J. P. (2025). “I’d Like to Think I’d Be Able to Spot One”: How Journalists Navigate Predatory Journals. Journalism Practice, 1–19. doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2025.2551984