The demand behind predatory publishing
How predatory publishing led to academic renewal
For some time I have been involved in a task force concerned with predatory practices in academic publishing. Together with colleagues, we produced a number of articles examining the problem and proposing ways in which researchers, institutions, learned societies and funding bodies might push back. I provide links to these pieces at the end, because they provide the background to what followed.
At one level, the issue seemed straightforward. Predatory publishing operators, along with a range of related practices, exploit researchers and the public funds that often support their work. They diminish the value of knowledge, undermine trust in science, and mimic the outward forms of scholarly communication while abandoning its responsibilities. Rapid publication, cursory or absent review, editorial pretence and invented or inflated metrics create the appearance of academic legitimacy without the substance. The business model feeds on pressure, especially the pressure to publish.
The task force discussions were practical in spirit. We asked what could be done: how researchers might recognise predatory invitations, how institutions might avoid rewarding dubious outputs, how learned societies might defend standards, and how funders might help change the incentives. A central proposal was journal accreditation. Journals would need to demonstrate adherence to an agreed code of conduct before article processing charges could be paid from public funds; accreditation could also become a condition for inclusion in indexing services, rankings and bibliographic databases. The aim was to make public support conditional on credible editorial practice.
Accreditation might restrict the flow of public money to bad operators, but it would not explain why the market had become so large in the first place. Poor and sometimes worthless publications are gaining legitimacy. New predatory publishers continue to appear. More troubling still, practices once associated with the margins of scholarship have begun to appear within parts of mainstream academic publishing, including large commercial publishers whose names still carry institutional weight.
The uncomfortable issue is demand. Predatory and low-quality publishing persist because academics, institutions and assessment systems find uses for their outputs. Without that demand, the market would wither. Its growth points back to the conditions of academic life itself.
Part of the answer lies in the way academic careers are now built. Researchers are judged by visible outputs: publication counts, journal names, citation measures, grant income, international activity and other proxy indicators of success. These measures are not meaningless, but when they dominate, they change behaviour. They reward speed, volume and visibility. They create anxiety around gaps in a CV. They make researchers vulnerable to anyone offering a faster route to the appearance of productivity.
The pressures are especially sharp for early-career researchers. They are told to be original, rigorous, independent and creative, while knowing that their future may depend on producing enough measurable output within a narrow period of time. Under those conditions, integrity matters, but incentives matter too.
From there, the argument widened. Predatory publishing began to look less like a self-contained problem and more like a clue to a wider disorder in academic life. The issue was no longer only how to push back against predatory journals, but how the academy had created such a large market for them.
This kind of thought led to the Times Higher Education article. The piece argued that academic renewal requires more than declarations of principle. Many universities and research organisations now speak fluently about responsible assessment, openness, integrity and research culture. They endorse principles, sign statements and publish institutional commitments. The harder test comes in hiring, promotion, funding, mentoring, doctoral training, publishing and evaluation.
Early-career researchers often see the contradiction most clearly. They are urged to pursue serious, careful and original work, while being judged by signals that reward something narrower. They are asked to trust values that the system itself often fails to honour. However, they are also the least able to take risks. Their dependence on the system is immediate.
Senior academics have a different responsibility. Those with security and influence should not simply advise younger researchers to adapt, nor should they treat institutional declarations as evidence that the problem is being solved. Values become real only when they alter decisions.
This Substack grows from the same concern. Predatory publishing was the starting point, but the larger issue is the academic environment that creates demand for hollow forms of recognition. Once that demand is taken seriously, the discussion moves quickly to research assessment, career structures, mentoring, institutional incentives and the conditions under which serious scholarship can still be pursued.
The point is not to shift blame onto individual researchers, least of all those at the beginning of their careers. People respond to the conditions placed before them. If the system rewards speed, volume and visibility, it should not be surprising when industries arise to manufacture them. The more useful question is what academic institutions actually reward, and whether those rewards match the values they claim to uphold.
I want to keep returning to that question here. Academic life should make room for careful thought, rigorous work, intellectual courage, openness, and contributions that may take time to mature. Those values are often affirmed in public. They matter only when they shape decisions.
Predatory publishing made the contradiction visible. Academic renewal begins with asking why the contradiction exists, who benefits from it, and what would have to change for scholarship itself to matter more than its increasingly elaborate appearance.
A selection of articles (all open access) arising from work of the European Academy for Microbiology Task Force on Predatory Practices
1. Fragile research systems, brain drain, and predatory publishing in under-resourced countries.
2. Society journals matter—supporting science through renewed commitment.
3. Storm over science: predatory practices and the fight for research reliability.
4. Journals operating predatory practices are systematically eroding the science ethos: A gate and code strategy to minimise their operating space and restore research best practice.
5. An evaluation system for scientific journals.