Not All ‘Predators’ Are the Same: Exploring the Spectrum of Questionable Journals

So-called ‘predatory’ publishing is often framed as an issue of unethical journal practices, but this perspective overlooks deeper structural problems in scholarly communication. The reliance on blacklists as a primary solution to identifying questionable journals fails to acknowledge the complexity of academic publishing and the broader systemic issues that contribute to unethical or controversial publishing practices. These include not only so-called ‘predatory’ journals but also concerns such as ‘special issue-ization’ and the rise of paper mills. Furthermore, the strategies used by emerging open-access mega-publishers increasingly resemble those employed by traditional and hybrid publishers, demonstrating that questionable practices are not confined to a single category of journals. This research in progress critically examines the characteristics of journals labeled as so-called ‘predatory’ and questions the effectiveness of static blacklists in scholarly assessment. Using a dataset of 2,755 journals from Predatory Reports, we systematically analyze their ISSN registration, subject classifications, accessibility, financial models, editorial transparency, and indexing status. While we recognize the limitations of blacklists, this dataset provides a basis for exploring broader patterns in academic publishing. Preliminary findings reveal that 24% of the journals became inaccessible after being listed, suggesting that some publishers shut down or rebrand to evade scrutiny. While ISSN registration is not mandatory, 13% of the journals in the dataset do not have one, which may indicate variations in registration practices. The geographical distribution of these journals is concentrated in India (31.45%), Switzerland (30.17%), and the United States (21.36%). This distribution highlights the global nature of these practices, spanning a range of publication models. The study also finds that 71% of these journals charge Article Processing Charges (APCs), while 23.7% fail to disclose APCs before submission, creating financial uncertainty for authors. Rather than indiscriminately covering all fields, many journals now focus on STEM disciplines. These findings underscore the need for more nuanced, criteria-based evaluation frameworks that account for the complexities of scholarly publishing, moving beyond binary categorizations of journals as ‘predatory’ or legitimate.