Illegitimate publishers in physiology: attracting citations and infiltration into legitimate databases

• Published in: Advances in physiology education Vol. 49; no. 1; pp. 87 - 92
• Main Author: Tomlinson, Owen W.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States American Physiological Society 01.03.2025
• Subjects: Database Management Systems; Databases, Factual; Desktop Publishing; Fraud; Humans; Lipopolysaccharides; Periodicals; Periodicals as Topic; Physiology; Physiology - education; Publishing; Scholarly publishing
• ISSN: 1043-4046; 1522-1229
• DOI: 10.1152/advan.00162.2024

Illegitimate publishing exists in physiology, with 8,801 articles being published in 67 potentially illegitimate journals. Potentially illegitimate journals claim to be indexed by databases such as Google Scholar and Index Copernicus in an attempt to appear legitimate. Lists of legitimate and illegitimate publishers show overlap and some illegitimate articles infiltrate PubMed Central, leading to citations from the wider academic sector. An increase in scholarly publishing has been accompanied by a proliferation of potentially illegitimate publishers (PIPs), commonly known as “predatory publishers.” These PIPs often engage in fraudulent practices and publish articles that are not subject to the same scrutiny as those published in journals from legitimate publishers (LPs). This places academics at risk, in particular students who utilize journal articles for learning and assignments. This analysis sought to characterize PIPs in physiology, as this has yet to be determined, and identify overlaps in lists of PIPs and LPs used to provide guidance on legitimacy of journals. Searching seven databases (2 of PIPs and 5 of LPs), this analysis identified 67 potentially illegitimate journals (PIJs) that explicitly include “physiology” in their titles, with 8,801 articles being published in them. Of these articles, 39% claimed to be indexed in Google Scholar, and 9% were available on PubMed. This resulted in 17 publications “infiltrating” PubMed and attracting >100 citations in the process. Overlap between lists of PIPs and LPs was present, with eight PIJs occurring in both LP and PIP lists. Two of these journals appeared to be “phishing” journals, and six were genuine infiltrations into established databases, indicating that LP lists cannot be solely relied on as proof a journal is legitimate. This analysis indicates that physiology is not immune to the threat of PIPs and that future work is required by educators to ensure students do not fall prey to their use. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Illegitimate publishing exists in physiology, with 8,801 articles being published in 67 potentially illegitimate journals. Potentially illegitimate journals claim to be indexed by databases such as Google Scholar and Index Copernicus in an attempt to appear legitimate. Lists of legitimate and illegitimate publishers show overlap and some illegitimate articles infiltrate PubMed Central, leading to citations from the wider academic sector.