The ultimate medium of scientific communication is a paper in a refereed journal. (Saffran, 1987)
Most researchers are evaluated primarily on their scholarly output, which is often measured by the number of publications they produce. Anyone even marginally engaged in academia is familiar with the challenge: conducting sound research, preparing a manuscript, navigating the submission process, undergoing peer review, and revising a paper are all demanding tasks that consume considerable time and effort. Time, however, is a resource that some scholars either do not have, or are unwilling – or unable – to invest.
A wide range of dubious business models exploit this structural problem. Thousands of self-proclaimed ‘academic journals’ have emerged that apply only minimal – or entirely absent –quality assurance procedures, provided that authors are willing to pay. In practice, the publishers of such outlets exploit the need (and often the ignorance or unawareness) of researchers by offering guaranteed publication regardless of quality. At the same time, these journals claim on their websites that submitted manuscripts are subject to peer review. Within academic discourse, this practice is referred to as predatory publishing.
The strange design of predatory publishing
For our research we examined a large number of predatory journals. One striking observation was that their published articles looked ‘off’ even at first glance. With experience in academia, one develops an intuitive sense that something about these documents is not quite right.
The ‘Uncanny Valley’
The underlying reason for this phenomenon is straightforward: predatory publishers are primarily motivated by financial gain. Consequently, they show little interest in branding, design, or even minimal standards of aesthetics and layout. On the contrary, investing in professional design incurs costs. Nevertheless, the publications must at least superficially resemble those issued by reputable publishers. The result is that most papers look as though they were hastily assembled with standard office software. While more design effort is evident than in a plain Word or LibreOffice template, the outcome still lacks the refinement of professional typesetting.
This situation recalls the concept of the Uncanny Valley in computer graphics, which suggests that the more closely a (3D) model approximates a human, the more unsettling it becomes – until it eventually becomes indistinguishable from a real human being, at which point the sense of uncanniness disappears. Predatory papers occupy a similar space: they feature ‘more design’ than rudimentary office documents, yet appear less polished than articles produced by established publishers, and therefore may appear ‘uncanny’.
Selected Findings from the Study
In our research, we compared 443 legitimate (i.e., reputable) with 555 potentially predatory publications. Several key patterns emerged:
-
On average, articles from predatory journals are significantly shorter than those from reputable outlets, both in character count and in page length.
-
Established journals employ greater typographic variation (e.g., italics, boldface) and a wider range of font sizes.
-
Standard fonts such as Arial, Times New Roman, Calibri, or Cambria are used far less frequently in reputable journals.
-
PDF metadata show that predatory journals rely much more heavily on standard office software to generate their documents.
-
Predatory journals include significantly fewer figures and graphics than legitimate publications.
-
Title pages of reputable journals are comparatively uniform, while those of predatory journals display greater inconsistency.
Predatory Mimicry
During the study, we also observed that some predatory journals attempt to imitate the design of established publishers. In particular, layouts resembling those of Elsevier and Springer Open appeared frequently. This further illustrates the Uncanny Valley effect: while the imitation may seem plausible at first glance, experienced researchers can quickly detect its inadequacy – often due to the lack of professional tools and production standards available to predatory publishers.
Conclusion
Predatory publishing continues to pose a significant challenge for scholarly communication. Although the findings of our study should not be regarded as a definitive basis for decision-making, we hope they will contribute to raising awareness of this problematic practice. Such awareness is crucial to prevent (early-career) researchers from being exploited by predatory outlets.