In 2016, an online poll was set up in the UK to name a new, multi-million-pound research vessel. Many good suggestions were made, but once ‘Boaty McBoatface’ was suggested online, it started to garner huge support and eventually won a third of all the votes cast. Embarassed, the UK government decided to call it the Sir David Attenborough but was forced to hastily revert to the popular choice when it faced howls of protest. As such, Boaty McBoatface now proudly sails the Seven Seas with its original name.
‘McBoatfacing’ has since become an internet meme, with British people taking every opportunity to give something a similar name to Boaty if given half the chance. Indeed, McBoatfacing has now entered the lexicon as being misguided enough to use an online poll to name anything.
‘Journally McJournalface’
One of the many problems thrown up by predatory publishing is its very name. Coined by Jeffrey Beall in 2010, the term soon became synonymous with the practice of deceiving authors into thinking they were submitting articles to a legitimate, peer reviewed journal in order to harvest the article processing charges from them without any of the services they would expect. At the time, the term accurately captured the sense of authors being lured into something only to be taken advantage of, and not surprisingly, it stuck.
In the last 15 years or so, as Beall’s Lists have come and gone and a small industry of research on the phenomenon has developed, several people have come to debate the term, with some suggesting it is not fit for purpose, and others suggesting new names and definitions. Concerns about the term predatory roughly fall into three camps:
- It’s not precise: this is a very academic criticism, which suggests that, as there are few defining criteria for predatory publishing practices, the term cannot be defined, as we don’t know where we can draw the line
- It’s offensive: this is not a common criticism, but the point has been made that use of this term may falsely label some actors, while making victims of the scam feel bad about falling prey to the deception
- There are better words: alternatives that have been suggested, including deceptive, dodgy, bad faith, questionable, and, most recently, non-recommended.
Double negative
This last term was included in a recent article by a group of academics, who argued that the term predatory had led to legal problems, not least for Beall himself, and, like the second concern laid out above, was too accusatory in nature. By adopting the more consensual ‘non-recommended,’ the authors argued that accusations were toned down, but caution was required for such journals that fell into this category. Also, this new term would remove the chance of legal repercussions, while enabling a more “constructive dialogue” around the issue.
The thinking around this is understandable and evidently coming from the right place, but I can’t help feeling it is wrong-headed. Firstly, after nearly nine years of labelling predatory journals as such, Cabells has yet to face any legal repercussions. Beall did face such issues, but this was more to do with the way he had set up his list without specific criteria and review processes like Cabells has in place.
Secondly, as with Boaty McBoatface, names tend to stick, especially if they fit the bill of what they are naming, and predatory journals have been known as such for over 15 years. Any attempt to rename them at this stage is futile, and other attempts previously have similarly been ignored (such as Rick Anderson’s suggestion of ‘deceptive journals’ back in 2015).
Finally, the problem of definition is made even worse by using a term such as ‘non-recommended,’ as it logically follows that you can determine what recommended journals are. Cabells does this with its Journalytics databases – but so does Web of Science, Scopus, and a whole host of journal lists and indices. And what of journals that are not recommended, but legitimate all the same, such as student-run journals or very niche titles? Are they to be lumped in with the nefarious actors that seek to deceive and defraud?
No. So let’s just stick with the name everyone is familiar with, shall we?
