One problem associated with the "author pays" model of Open Access publishing is "predatory" or "deceptive" journals. It can be complicated to describe what makes a journal predatory, but here is one definition (from Grudniewicz et al. (2019). Predatory journals: No definition, no defence. Nature, 576(7786), 210–212. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y):
Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices.
Deceptive practices take many forms, such as
In addition to being unethical, these practices result in the publication of unreliable, flawed, and even fraudulent scholarship.
It's important to remember that some of the characteristics associated with predatory journals, such as the lack of an address for a physical office location, or the lack of a policy on digital preservation, can also be associated with journals that conduct legitimate peer review but are under-resourced. They may be run by scholarly societies instead of established publishers, or they may be based in lower-income countries. In some cases it can be hard to say whether a journal is clearly deceptive. So how can you avoid these journals?
If a journal seems questionable, you can perform your own due diligence. A great resource to help with this is Think. Check. Submit. They provide a checklist of questions to ask about journals which can help you to make your evaluation. This can be time-consuming, but it provides a process you can use to evaluate any journal at the time you are considering it.
There is no definitive list of journals neatly separated into "legitimate" and "deceptive." But there are resources that can provide quick indications to help your evaluation.
