Trail Pack: Predatory Publishing in Nursing Journals

Predatory Publishing: Beyond Lists and Labels

Leslie H. Nicoll, PhD, MBA, RN, FAAN

Marilyn H. Oermann, PhD, RN, ANEF, FAAN  

Elizabeth R. Eisenhauer, PhD, MLS, RN

Melissa L. Mastorovich, DNP, RN, PMH-BC, FAADN

Writer’s Camp Senior Staff and Guest Counselors

Welcome to our monthly Trail Pack! This month we focus on predatory publications, with a fairly new research study published in the Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, an older study from the Journal of Nursing Scholarship and the Companion Essay published here. If you are new to Trail Packs, they are multi-faceted learning experiences bringing together original research, a podcast/video, and a concise article written exclusively for Writer’s Camp that summarizes the work and highlights its key insights. Begin with the short article, and when your curiosity is sparked, follow the trail to the archives to explore more. The accompanying podcast/video offers a personal touch and Dr. Oermann shares her thoughts about predatory publications and her ongoing research in this area. If you would like to receive 2 contact hours for reading and watching, you can! Scroll all the way to the bottom of the page for details. I hope you find this format both engaging and valuable. I would love to hear your feedback; please share in the comments below. — Leslie H. Nicoll, Camp Director

---

---

---

Not every questionable journal is predatory.

---

You receive an email inviting you to submit an article to a journal you’ve never heard of. The website looks amateurish. The editor’s credentials are unclear. The peer review process is vaguely described. Is the journal predatory?

For many of us, the answer begins with a search for the journal on a list. Is it included in Cabell’s Predatory Reports? Has it appeared on an exclusionary list? Is it absent from major indexes? These resources can be helpful, but they do not always tell the whole story.

During our recent study, we examined nursing journals on exclusionary lists and found a more complicated reality than we anticipated.¹ Some journals displayed extensive evidence of deceptive practices, including unverifiable editorial boards, misleading claims about indexing, and aggressive manuscript solicitation. Others showed signs of weak infrastructure, inconsistent governance, or limited resources but little evidence of intentional deception. We learned that this distinction is important.

Why Lists Became So Popular

The modern conversation about predatory publishing has been shaped by lists. For more than a decade, authors, editors, and institutions have searched for reliable ways to identify journals that fail to meet accepted standards of scholarly publishing. Beall’s controversial list of predatory publishers was one of the earliest and most influential attempts to address the problem.² Since then, other resources have emerged, including Cabell’s Predatory Reports and a variety of institutional guidance documents.

Publishing has grown more complex, with new ways of sharing knowledge, new journals launching and others ceasing publication, and the continued expansion of open-access publishing. Even with spam filters in place, we all receive frequent email invitations to submit manuscripts, join editorial boards, or serve as peer reviewers to journals that may not be familiar. Faced with this complexity, it is natural to seek shortcuts to help make good decisions about what to do.

A list is a useful starting point. But even when faced with a questionable journal that is on an exclusion list, as authors, we still dig deeper to learn more and to identify if the publisher has a history of questionable practices. A list can also be an educational tool, providing information about common warning signs of disreputable journals. However, the simplicity of lists can lead to simplistic thinking about the problem of predatory publications, which is a problem itself.

The Trouble with Binary Thinking

Discussions of predatory publishing often divide journals into two categories: legitimate (good) or predatory (bad). The appeal of this approach is obvious—it is simple and easy to communicate and remember. Unfortunately, scholarly publishing is not simple and as we learned in our study, relying on a yes or no approach is not always reliable.

Consider a newly launched journal operated by a small professional society. The website, editorial policies, and other key information may be incomplete. The peer review process may not be described clearly. These shortcomings raise legitimate concerns, but they do not necessarily indicate an intent to deceive authors.

Now consider a different journal that advertises rapid peer review, claims indexing in databases where it is not actually indexed, lists editorial board members who cannot be verified, and sends aggressive email solicitations promising publication within days. Most authors would recognize these behaviors as fundamentally different, but both journals might be described as “problematic” according to some criteria for identifying predatory publications.

The challenge is that labels often obscure important differences. A journal may exhibit weaknesses in infrastructure, governance, or transparency without operating as a deliberately exploitative enterprise. Conversely, a journal may present a polished appearance while engaging in practices that undermine the integrity of scholarly communication.

Looking Beyond the Label

For authors, the goal should not simply be to determine whether a journal belongs on a list, rather it should be to understand how the journal operates. When evaluating a journal, you can learn a great deal by asking a few straightforward questions.

• Can the editor and editorial board be easily identified?
• Is the peer review process described in enough detail to understand how manuscripts are evaluated?
• Are publication fees clearly stated?
• Can claims about indexing be independently verified?
• Does the journal provide information about their policies for ethical publication?
• Would you feel comfortable recommending the journal to a colleague, student, or collaborator? Would you publish in it yourself?

These questions shift attention away from labels and toward observable publishing practices. They encourage us to examine evidence rather than relying solely on reputation or list membership.

This approach does not eliminate uncertainty. Scholarly publishing is a complex environment, and not every journal fits neatly into a predefined category. However, careful evaluation of a journal’s governance, transparency, and editorial practices often reveals far more than a simple yes-or-no designation.³ In our study, this perspective led us to consider a different question. Rather than asking whether journals identified on exclusionary lists were predatory, we asked whether they were all the same.

What We Learned from Studying Nursing Journals

To explore that question, we examined 265 nursing journals identified through exclusionary lists and assessed them using a structured tool, the Predation Index,⁴ that evaluates observable publishing practices associated with predatory risk. We found considerable variation in the journals that we evaluated.

Some journals demonstrated relatively few predatory indicators, while others had multiple warning signs but did not consistently display the deceptive practices typically associated with predatory publishing. Another group exhibited extensive evidence of misleading claims, weak governance, aggressive solicitation practices, and other characteristics commonly associated with predatory journals. These findings suggested that journals identified through exclusionary lists do not all occupy the same position within the scholarly publishing landscape. Looking more closely revealed three broad patterns: system stress, elevated predatory risk, and system exploitation.

System Stress

Journals demonstrating system stress often had incomplete websites, limited editorial infrastructure, or inconsistent documentation. Information about editorial policies was not always obvious and descriptions of publication procedures were limited. Important roles were filled by volunteers or small editorial teams. Authors interacting with these journals might experience slow or inconsistent communication and editorial processes. Even with these issues, these characteristics are not necessarily evidence of predatory intent.

A small journal with limited resources is not the same thing as a deceptive journal. While both may raise concerns, the underlying causes are quite different. One reflects resource constraints; the other reflects publishing practices designed to exploit authors.

Distinguishing between those situations is important because the solutions are different. Capacity-constrained journals may benefit from mentorship, training, improved infrastructure, or stronger editorial support. Labeling them as predatory may do little to address the underlying problem and may further exacerbate the constraints the journal is experiencing, rather than helping.

Authors should be cautious about interpreting every sign of organizational weakness as evidence of predatory intent. Many of us evaluate journals through the expectations of well-resourced Western publishing environments. A journal published by a small organization in India, Africa, Southeast Asia, or Latin America may not have the same technological infrastructure, staffing, or web presence as a journal supported by a major international publisher. Those differences may warrant closer examination, but they do not automatically indicate deceptive practices. In fact, conflating resource limitations with predatory intent risks unfairly stigmatizing legitimate journals that serve important scholarly communities.

Elevated Predatory Risk

A second group of journals occupied a more ambiguous space. These journals had multiple warning signs. Editorial structures were often difficult to understand. Peer review processes lacked transparency. Publisher accountability was sometimes unclear. Information presented on journal websites was occasionally incomplete or inconsistent.

These journals may not have demonstrated the extensive patterns of deception seen elsewhere, but they also raised more concerns than journals experiencing simple system stress. For authors, this is where careful evaluation becomes especially important.

A journal with elevated predatory risk may not be intentionally deceptive, but it may still expose authors to unnecessary uncertainty. Questions about governance, peer review quality, editorial oversight, and long-term sustainability become increasingly important.

In many ways, these journals remind us why publishing decisions should never be based on a single indicator. Neither inclusion on nor absence from a list alone provides enough information to make an informed decision.

System Exploitation

The third pattern was unmistakable. These journals frequently displayed multiple indicators associated with predatory publishing. Editorial boards were difficult or impossible to verify. Claims about indexing could not be confirmed. Peer review processes appeared vague or implausibly rapid. Aggressive solicitation practices were common. In some cases, multiple journals appeared to operate within publishing portfolios that shared similar structures, websites, and business practices.

Unlike journals experiencing system stress, these journals appeared to be organized around systems that prioritized revenue generation while providing limited evidence of meaningful editorial oversight.

For authors, the distinction is significant. A poorly resourced journal may create frustration. A predatory journal may compromise the integrity, visibility, and credibility of scholarly work. Recognizing the difference requires looking beyond appearances and examining how a journal actually functions.

Why This Matters for Authors

Most of us do not want to become experts in scholarly publishing systems. We simply want to identify appropriate journals for our work and avoid costly mistakes. That goal becomes easier when we move beyond labels and focus on observable practices. Lists are useful and can help identify journals that deserve closer examination, alerting us to potential concerns. But we should view them as starting points rather than final judgments.

The important question is whether the journal demonstrates transparency, accountability, editorial integrity, and a commitment to serving the scholarly community, not just its appearance on an exclusionary list.

The Bigger Picture

One of the lessons emerging from recent research on scholarly publishing is that journals do not operate in isolation.⁵ Every journal exists within a larger publishing ecosystem that includes authors, editors, peer reviewers, publishers, professional organizations, academic institutions, indexing services, and readers.³ Decisions made by one part of the system often influence the others. Authors decide where to submit their work. Editors establish standards and policies. Publishers invest in infrastructure and support. Institutions create incentives that shape publishing behavior. Viewed in this way, predatory publishing is not simply a problem of “bad journals.” It is also a reflection of broader system pressures.

The demand for rapid publication, pressure to build publication records, expansion of open-access publishing models, and global growth in research output have all created opportunities for legitimate innovation. They have also created opportunities for exploitation. This systems perspective helps explain why predatory publishing has proven so difficult to eliminate. The issue is not limited to individual journals. It is embedded within a complex network of incentives, expectations, and publishing practices.

The most effective responses involve education, transparency, strong editorial practices, responsible publishing policies, and informed decision-making by authors.

Conclusion: Curiosity Is Better Than Certainty

When encountering an unfamiliar journal, you may ask yourself, “Is this journal predatory?” This is a reasonable question, but it may not be the most useful. A more productive approach is to ask: “How does this journal operate?” and then consider:

• Who makes editorial decisions?
• How is peer review conducted?
• Are publication practices transparent?
• Can claims be verified?
• Does the journal demonstrate accountability to its readers, authors, and scholarly community? 

These questions encourage curiosity rather than reliance on labels alone.

Lists and databases remain valuable resources, and they continue to play an important role in helping authors identify journals that warrant closer examination. However, thoughtful evaluation requires looking beyond lists to understand the structures and practices that shape scholarly publishing.

Our study suggests that journals identified as potentially problematic are not all alike. Some exhibited signs of system stress. Others demonstrated elevated predatory risk. Still others operated through patterns of clear system exploitation. Recognizing these differences allows for more nuanced and informed decisions. Ultimately, the goal is not simply to avoid predatory journalists, but to become a more informed participant in the scholarly publishing ecosystem.

Those interested in exploring these ideas in greater depth are invited to read the accompanying research reports, Study of Predatory Open Access Nursing Journals and Predatory Publishing in Nursing Journals: A Systems-Based Analysis Using the Predation Index. We welcome your comments.

References

1. Nicoll LH, Oermann MH, Eisenhauer ER, Mastorovich ML. Predatory publishing in nursing journals: A systems-based analysis using the Predation Index. Revue canadienne de recherche en sciences infirmieres [The Canadian Journal of Nursing Research]. 2026;(08445621261449308):8445621261449308. doi:10.1177/08445621261449308
2. Basken P. Why Beall’s list died—and what it left unresolved about open access. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Published September 12, 2017. Accessed June 9, 2026. http://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-Beall-s-List-Died-/241171
3. Nicoll LH. How journals work: A systems-based framework for understanding scholarly publishing. The Writer’s Camp Journal. 2026;2(1):4. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.18037409
4. Hinze AMS, Stockemer D, Reidy T. The predation index: A tool to discover predatory journals. PS, Political Science & Politics. 2026;59(1):158-164. doi:10.1017/s1049096525101145
5. McGuire H, Anthony B, Hyde ZW, Ashok A, Bjarnason B, Mays E. The scholarly publishing ecosystem. In: An Open Approach to Scholarly Reading and Knowledge Management. The Rebus Foundation; 2018. Accessed June 9, 2026. https://press.rebus.community/scholarlyreading/chapter/the-scholarly-publishing-ecosystem/

Authors: Leslie H. Nicoll, Marilyn Oermann, Elizabeth Eisenhauer, Melissa Mastorovich

Reviewed and Edited by: Jenny Chicca

Copyright © 2026 Writer’s Camp and the Authors. CC-BY-ND 4.0

Citation: Nicoll LH, Oermann M, Eisenhauer E, Mastorovich M. Trail Pack: Predatory publishing: Beyond lists and labels. The Writer’s Camp Journal, 2026; 2(3):2. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20706392