ÌÇÐÄÊÓƵ

Science journalists aren't particularly concerned about so-called "predatory journals," confident that they have the skills and intuition needed to avoid reporting on problematic research. For many, a journal's reputation and name-recognition are decisive factors in assessing the quality of scientific research—but this could be exacerbating existing imbalances in science and journalism.

This perspective emerges from a new study led by Dr. Alice Fleerackers of the University of Amsterdam (UvA), and on 2 September in Journalism Practice.

Predatory journals prioritize profit over editorial and publication standards. They often charge researchers publication fees but offer little to no real quality control, such as peer review. As a result, some journals publish almost everything submitted.

"Predatory journals are not a harmless side effect of the academic publishing industry," says Fleerackers. "They are becoming increasingly common, raising concerns about the integrity of scientific publishing. They not only undermine the reliability of science but also jeopardize science journalism, as journalists can unknowingly report on weak or even flawed research."

In the new study, Fleerackers—along with colleagues from Simon Fraser University (Canada) and San Francisco State University (U.S.)—investigated how science journalists view predatory journals and what strategies they employ to ensure the reliability of the journals they report on. The researchers present a qualitative analysis of interviews with 23 health, science, and environmental journalists in Europe and North America.

Problematic, but only in theory

Some of the journalists interviewed were familiar with the phenomenon of predatory journals and acknowledged that they are theoretically problematic.

However, most weren't concerned that they might be using them in their own work. They acknowledged that these journals might be a problem for colleagues, but not for them.

Well-known, therefore reliable

Journalists in the study were confident they wouldn't fall for a predatory journal because of their strong intuition, which they said allowed them to immediately distinguish high-quality from problematic research. Besides their intuition, they also relied on strategies for verifying the reliability of research that they had developed through years of experience. These strategies often centered on trust proxies—like the journal's prestige, impact factor, and selectivity—as well as whether the journal claimed to conduct peer review.

Proofreading also played a role for some journalists: if an article contained grammatical or spelling errors, it could be a sign of low-quality research. Open access journals were also considered less reliable by several journalists. "But by far the most commonly used benchmark for reliability was the journal's reputation," Fleerackers explains. "Some journalists avoid all journals they're not familiar with and report only on research published in top journals like Science and Nature."

Distortion in science news

According to Fleerackers, journalists' focus on the reputation and prestige of journals has major consequences for the diversity of research in the news media. "Research from newer, lesser-known journals, and from journals in the Global South, for example, remains hidden from the public.

"Most journalists in our study didn't realize that their selection strategies could perpetuate the existing imbalance in science news. I hope that our study can raise awareness of this among journalists."