Predatory journals in dermatology: a bibliometric review

PurposeBy distorting the peer review process, predatory journals lure researchers and collect article processing charges (APCs) to earn income, thereby threatening clinical decisions. This study aims to identifying the characteristics of predatory publishing in the dermatology literature.Design/methodology/approachThe authors used Kscien's list to detect dermatology-related predatory journals. Bibliometric parameters were analyzed at the level of journals, publishers, documents and authors.FindingsSixty-one potential predatory dermatology publishers published 4,164 articles in 57 journals from 2000 to 2020, with most publishers claiming to be located in the United States. Most journals were 1–5 years old. Six journals were indexed in PubMed, two in Scopus and 43 in Google Scholar (GS). The average APC was 1,049 USD. Skin, patient, cutaneous, psoriasis, dermatitis and acne were the most frequently used keywords in the article's title. A total of 1,146 articles in GS received 4,725 citations. More than half of the journals had <10 citations. Also, 318 articles in Web of Science were contaminated by the most cited articles and 4.49% of the articles had reported their funding source. The average number of authors per article was 3.7. India, the United States and Japan had the most articles from 119 involved countries. Asia, Europe and North America had the most contributed authors; 5.2% of articles were written through international collaboration. A majority of authors were from high- and low-middle-income countries. Women contributed 43.57% and 39.66% as the first and corresponding authors, respectively.Research limitations/implicationsThe study had limitations, including heavy reliance on Kscien's list, potential for human error in manual data extraction and nonseparation of types of articles. Journals that only published dermatology articles were reviewed, so those occasionally publishing dermatology articles were missed. Predatory journals covering multiple subjects (Petrisor, 2016) may have resulted in overlooking some dermatology papers. This study did not claim to have covered all articles in predatory dermatology journals (PDJs) but evaluated many of them. The authors accept the claim that Kscien's list may have made a mistake in including journals.Originality/valueThe wide dispersion of authors involved in PDJs highlights the need to increase awareness among these authors.