An increase in scholarly publishing has been accompanied by a proliferation of potentially illegitimate publishers (PIP), commonly known as "predatory publishers". These PIP often engage in fraudulent practices and publish articles that are not subject to the same scrutiny as those published in journals from legitimate publishers (LP). ...
An increase in scholarly publishing has been accompanied by a proliferation of potentially illegitimate publishers (PIP), commonly known as "predatory publishers". These PIP often engage in fraudulent practices and publish articles that are not subject to the same scrutiny as those published in journals from legitimate publishers (LP). This places academics at risk, in particular students who utilize journal articles for learning and assignments. This analysis sought to characterise PIP in physiology, as this has yet to be determined, and identify overlaps in lists of PIP and LP used to provide guidance on legitimacy of journals. Searching seven databases (2 of PIP, 5 of LP), this analysis identified 67 potentially illegitimate journals (PIJ) that explicitly include "physiology" in their titles, with 8801 articles being published in them. Of these articles, 39% claimed to be indexed in GoogleScholar, and 9% were available on PubMed. This resulted in 17 publications 'infiltrating' PubMed and attracting >100 citations in the process. Overlap between lists of PIP and LP was present, with eight PIJ 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 upon as proof a journal is legitimate. This analysis indicates that physiology is not immune to the threat of PIP, and that future work is required by educators to ensure students do not fall prey to their use.
