Unveiling the Predators: Contemporary Approaches to Identifying Illegitimate Open Access Journals in the Academic Publishing Ecosystem

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.10739v1
• Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:56:13 GMT
• Title: Unveiling the Predators: Contemporary Approaches to Identifying Illegitimate Open Access Journals in the Academic Publishing Ecosystem
• Abstract summary: Predatory journals pose a significant challenge to the integrity of the Open Access (OA) publishing model.<n>This study critically evaluates existing methodologies for identifying such journals.<n>The analysis highlights critical limitations, including the lack of a universally accepted definition of predatory journals.
• Score: 3.080202462807918
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Predatory journals pose a significant challenge to the integrity of the Open Access (OA) publishing model by exploiting its framework for financial gain while bypassing essential editorial and peer-review standards. This study critically evaluates existing methodologies for identifying such journals, ranging from manual blacklist checks to advanced automated approaches utilizing machine learning. The analysis highlights critical limitations, including the lack of a universally accepted definition of predatory journals, over-reliance on binary classification systems (e.g., blacklists and whitelists), and issues with scalability, reliability and interpretability. To address these shortcomings, this paper introduces a novel methodology based on multivariate graph analysis. By modeling the academic publishing ecosystem as a network of interconnected entities (such as authors, articles, journals, and publishers), this approach provides broader insights into the dynamics of scholarly communication and could help identify illegitimate publishing practices by utilizing graph algorithms like centrality measures, community detection, and anomaly detection. The proposed framework aims to enhance the accuracy, scalability, and transparency of detection of illegitimate journals and publishing practices while fostering a more comprehensive understanding of the academic publishing landscape.

Related papers

• Automatic Reviewers Fail to Detect Faulty Reasoning in Research Papers: A New Counterfactual Evaluation Framework [55.078301794183496]
  We focus on a core reviewing skill that underpins high-quality peer review: detecting faulty research logic.<n>This involves evaluating the internal consistency between a paper's results, interpretations, and claims.<n>We present a fully automated counterfactual evaluation framework that isolates and tests this skill under controlled conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T08:48:00Z)
• Does Machine Unlearning Truly Remove Knowledge? [80.83986295685128]
  We introduce a comprehensive auditing framework for unlearning evaluation comprising three benchmark datasets, six unlearning algorithms, and five prompt-based auditing methods.<n>We evaluate the effectiveness and robustness of different unlearning strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T09:19:07Z)
• AutoRev: Multi-Modal Graph Retrieval for Automated Peer-Review Generation [5.72767946092813]
  AutoRev is an automatic peer-review system designed to provide actionable, high-quality feedback to both reviewers and authors.<n>By modelling documents as graphs, AutoRev effectively retrieves the most pertinent information.<n>We envision AutoRev as a powerful tool to streamline the peer-review workflow, alleviating challenges and enabling scalable, high-quality scholarly publishing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T13:59:58Z)
• Out-of-Distribution Detection on Graphs: A Survey [58.47395497985277]
  Graph out-of-distribution (GOOD) detection focuses on identifying graph data that deviates from the distribution seen during training.<n>We categorize existing methods into four types: enhancement-based, reconstruction-based, information propagation-based, and classification-based approaches.<n>We discuss practical applications and theoretical foundations, highlighting the unique challenges posed by graph data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T04:07:12Z)
• Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges [16.35265384114857]
  The rapid advancements of Large Language Models (LLMs) have blurred the lines between human and machine authorship.<n>This literature review serves a roadmap for researchers and practitioners interested in understanding the state of the art in this rapidly evolving field.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T17:58:49Z)
• Network Analytics for Anti-Money Laundering -- A Systematic Literature Review and Experimental Evaluation [1.7119723306387908]
  This paper presents an extensive and unique literature review, based on 97 papers from Web of Science and Scopus.<n>We conclude that most research relies on expert-based rules and manual features, while deep learning methods have been gaining traction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T08:48:52Z)
• Domain Generalization through Meta-Learning: A Survey [6.524870790082051]
  Deep neural networks (DNNs) have revolutionized artificial intelligence but often lack performance when faced with out-of-distribution (OOD) data. This survey paper delves into the realm of meta-learning with a focus on its contribution to domain generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-03T14:55:17Z)
• Exploring Federated Unlearning: Review, Comparison, and Insights [101.64910079905566]
  federated unlearning enables the selective removal of data from models trained in federated systems.<n>This paper examines existing federated unlearning approaches, examining their algorithmic efficiency, impact on model accuracy, and effectiveness in preserving privacy.<n>We propose the OpenFederatedUnlearning framework, a unified benchmark for evaluating federated unlearning methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T01:34:33Z)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)
• A Survey of Graph Unlearning [15.699845459180144]
  Graph unlearning provides the means to remove sensitive data traces from trained models.<n>It is evident that graph machine learning exhibits sensitivity to data privacy and adversarial attacks.<n>This survey seeks to inspire researchers to further advance the field of graph unlearning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T20:50:52Z)
• Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach [77.61131357420201]
  We conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs) We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date. We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T16:19:42Z)
• Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey [0.0]
  There is significant literature on approaches to mitigate bias and promote fairness. This article seeks to provide an overview of the different schools of thought and approaches to mitigating (social) biases and increase fairness in the Machine Learning literature. It organises approaches into the widely accepted framework of pre-processing, in-processing, and post-processing methods, subcategorizing into a further 11 method areas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-04T21:01:34Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.