current drug research reviews predatory

(New Updated) List of Predatory Journals – 2023

Table of Contents

What are predatory journals?

Well, a predatory journal is a publication, which actively asks researchers for the manuscripts . Moreover, they have no peer review system and also they have no true editorial board as well as are often found to publish mediocre or may worthless papers. Including this, they are also asking for the huge publication charges.

Moreover, the term predatory journal was found by Jeffery Beall , a librarian at the University of Colorado . He is the person who analyzed and observed a growing number of the exploitative academic journals charging author fees without the proper quality and the published papers.

Deceptive or scamming journals are also the other name of the predatory journals and are accused of applying the poor academic standards .

How do you identify a predatory journal?

Here, is the list of eth criteria that can assist you to identify the unethical behavior in the publications of the journals. In the following, there is a list of the most prominent and easy to spot the indicators that are provided by Shamseer et al, the think, check, and many more.

• The journal that you want to submit is a predatory one?
• Chose criteria of the predatory journals

List of predatory journals 

Here is the list of possibly predatory journals .  The predatory journal is a publication, which actively asks researchers for the manuscripts . Moreover, they have no peer review system and also they have no true editorial board as well as are often found to publish mediocre or may worthless papers. 

This list of the predatory journals is just only for the individual journals. As there is a long list of predatory journals , so check the most common list of predatory journals.

A – predatory journals

• Academic Exchange Quarterly
• Academic Research Reviews
• Academy of Contemporary Research Journal (AOCRJ)
• ACME Intellects
• Acta  de Gerencia Ciencia (CAGENA)
• Acta Advances in Agricultural Sciences (AAAS)
• Acta Kinesiologica
• Acta Medica International
• Acta Scientiae et Intellectus
• Advance Journals of Engineering Mathematics and Computer Sciences (AJEMCS)
• Advance Research Journal of Multidisciplinary Discoveries
• The Advanced Science Journal
• Advances in Aerospace Science and Technology (AAST)
• Advances in Biomedicine and Pharmacy (ABP)
• Advances in Forestry Letter
• Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal (ASTESJ / ASTES Journal)
• Afrasian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (AAJHSS)
• African Journal of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicines (AJTCAM)
• Ahead International Journal of Recent Research Review (AIJRRR)
• Al Ameen Journal of Medical Sciences (AJMS)
• Aloy Journal of Soft Computing and Applications (AJSCA)
• American Based Research Journal (ABRJ)
• American International Journal of Contemporary Research (AIJCR)
• American International Journal of Contemporary Scientific Research
• American Journal of Advanced Agricultural Research (AJAAR)
• American Journal of Advanced Drug Delivery
• American Journal of Advanced Scientific Research (AJASR)
• American Journal of Advances in Medical Science (ARNACA)
• American Journal of Biotechnology and Medical Research
• American Journal of Engineering Research
• American Journal of Essential Oils and Natural Products (Essential oil International Journal)
• American Journal of Innovative Research and Applied Sciences (AJIRAS)
• American Journal of Pharmacy and Health Research (AJPHR)
• American Journal of PharmTech Research (AJPTR)
• American Journal of Phytomedicine and Clinical Therapeutics
• American Journal of Research Communication (AJRC)
• American Journal of Scientific Research
• American Journal of Social issues and Humanities
• American Research Thoughts
• American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS)
• American Transactions on Engineering & Applied Sciences
• Anglisticum: International Journal of Literature, Linguistics & Interdisciplinary Studies
• Annals of EURASIAN MEDICINE
• Annals of British Medical Sciences (ABMS)
• Annals of Clinical Case Reports
• Annals of International Medical and Dental Research (AIMDR)
• Annals of Medical and Biomedical Sciences (AMBS)
• Annals of Phytomedicine
• Applied Research Journal
• Archives Des Sciences Journal
• Archives of Clinical and Experimental Surgery
• ARNACA American Journal of Advances in Medical Science
• ARPN Journal of Science and Technology
• ARPN Journal of Systems and Software
• Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences (APJEAS)
• Asia-Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
• Asian Pacific Journal of Natural Products (APJNP)
• Asian Pacific Journal of Pharmacy and Phytochemistry (APJPP)
• Asia-Pacific Journal of Research
• Asian Journal of Applied Science and Engineering
• Asian Journal of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences
• Asian Journal of Chemistry
• Asian Journal of Health and Medical Sciences
• Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences
• Asian Journal of Business and Management Sciences (AJBMS)
• Asian Journal of Mathematics and Applications
• Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies
• Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Health Sciences
• Asian Journal of Pharmacy and Life Science
• Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research and Health Care (AJPRHC)
• Asian Journal of Science and Technology (Science and Technology Asian Journal)
• Asian Pacific Journal of Health Sciences (APJHS)
• Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Disease
• Asian Research Journal of Business Management (ARJBM)
• Australasian Journal of Herpetology
• Australasian Medical Journal (AMJ)
• Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences
• Australian Journal of Business and Management Research (AJBMR)
• Astronomical Review
• Averroes European Medical Journal (Averroes-EMJ)
• Ayupharm: International Journal of Ayurveda and Allied Sciences

B – predatory journals

• Bio Bulletin
• Bioinformation
• Biointerface Research in Applied Chemistry
• Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering Bulletin
• Biomedical & Pharmacology Journal
• Biomedical Engineering Review
• Bionano Frontier
• Biopharm Journal
• The Bioscan
• Bioresearch Bulletin
• Bioscience and Bioengineering Communications (BBC)
• Bioscience Biotechnology Research Communications (BBRC)
• Bioscience Discovery
• Biosciences, Biotechnology Research Asia (BBRA)
• Biosciences International
• Biotechnological Research
• Botany Journal
• British Biomedical Bulletin
• British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences
• British Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies
• British Journal of Medical and Health Research (BJMHR)
• British Journal of Science
• Buletin Teknologi Makanan
• Bulletin of Applied and Research Science (BARS)
• Bulletin of Environment, Pharmacology and Life Sciences (BEPLS)
• Bulletin of Mathematical Sciences & Applications
• Bulletin of Pharmaceutical Research
• Bulletin of Society for Mathematical Services and Standards
• Business and Economics Journal
• The Business Review, Cambridge

C- predatory journals

• Canadian Chemical Transactions
• Canadian International Journal of Science and Technology
• Canadian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences
• Canadian Journal of Biotechnology
• Canadian Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences
• Canadian Scientific Journal
• Cancer Research Frontiers
• Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
• Caribbean Journal of Science and Technology
• Case Study and Case Report
• Caspian Sea Journal (CSJ)
• Cellular and Molecular Biology
• Cellular and Molecular Biology [alt]
• Chemical Science Transactions
• Chemistry Research Journal
• Clinics in Oncology
• Clinics in Surgery
• Columban Journal of Life Sciences
• Communications on Applied Electronics (CAE)
• Computational Research Progress in Applied Science & Engineering
• Computer Science Chronicle
• Computer Science Journal
• Contemporary Research in India
• Contemporary Sociological Global Review (CSGR)
• The Criterion: An International Journal in English
• Cumhuriyet Science Journal
• Current Biotica
• Current Botany
• Current Discovery
• Current Trends in Technology and Sciences (CTTS)

D- predatory journals

• DAV International Journal of Science (DAVIJS)
• Dawn Journal
• Der Pharma Chemica
• Direct Research Journals
• Diyala Journal for Pure Science (DJPS)

E- predatory journals

• East European Science Journal (Czasopismo Naukowe)
• Eastern Academic Journal
• Eastern European Scientific Journal
• E-Library Science Research Journal
• Ecoletra.com Scientific eJournal
• Education Reform Journal
• EDUVED Global Management Research (GMR)
• Eduved, International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research
• Electronic Journal of Biology (eJBio)
• Electronic Journal of Engineering and Technology (EJET)
• Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (EJGE)
• Electronic Journal of Vocational Colleges
• Elixir International Journal (formerly)
• Elixir Online  Journal
• Engineering & IT Journal (EIT Journal)
• Engineering Physics and Thermodynamics Journal
• Engineering Research Journal
• Entomology and Applied Science Letters (EASL)
• ESSENCE: International Journal for Environmental Rehabilitation and Conservation
• Euro-Afro Journal of Arts and Social Sciences (EAJASS)
• European Academic Research
• European Chemical Bulletin (ECB)
• European Environmental Sciences and Ecology Journal
• European International Journal of Science and Humanities (EIJSH)
• European International Journal of Science and Technology (Center for Enhancing Knowledge, UK)
• European Journal of Academic Essays (EJAE)
• European Journal of Advanced Computer Science (EJACS)
• European Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology (EJAET)
• European Journal of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences (EJBPS)
• European Journal of Biotechnology and Bioscience
• European Journal of Business and Social Sciences (EJBSS)
• European Journal of Chemistry (EurJChem)
• European Journal of Contemporary Economics and Management (EJCEM, EJEM)
• European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences (Revue Européenne d’Economie, Finance et Sciences de l’Administration)
• European Journal of Educational Research (EUJER)
• European Journal of Educational Sciences (EJES)
• European Journal of Engineering Research and Science (EJERS)
• European Journal of Natural History (EJNH)
• European Journal of Pharmaceutical and Medical Research (EJPMR)
• European Journal of Science and Theology
• European Journal of Scientific Research
• European Journal of Social Sciences (Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales)
• European Journal of Sustainable Development
• European Law and Politics Journal (ELPJ)
• European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences
• European Scientific Journal

F- predatory journals

• First Independent Scientific Journal
• FLUIDS: International Journal of Medical Fluid Management
• Food Biology
• FOREX Technical Journal Library
• Frontiers in Aerospace Engineering
• Functional Analysis: Theory, Method & Applications (FATMA)

G – predatory journals

• G-Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (GJEST)
• G-Journal of Education, Social Science and Humanities (GJESH)
• Galaxy: International Multidisciplinary Research Journal
• Genes & Cancer
• Generics and Biosimilars Initiative Journal (GaBI Journal)
• Genetics and Molecular Research
• Geodynamics Research International Bulletin (GRIB)
• Global Business & Finance Review
• Global Journal for Research Analysis (GJRA)
• Global Journal of Advanced Engineering Technologies and Sciences (GJAETS)
• Global Journal of Advanced Research (GJAR)
• Global Journal of Animal Scientific Research (GJASR)
• Global Journal of Business and Social Science (GJBSS)
• Global Journal of Business and Social Science Review (GJBSSR)
• Global Journal of Engineering Science and Research Management (GJESRM)
• Global Journal of Management Science and Technology
• Global Journal of Medical and Health Sciences (GJM)
• Global Journal of Medicine and Public Health
• Global Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies (GJMS)
• Global Media Journal
• Golden Research Thoughts
• Global Scholastic Research Journal

H – predatory journals

• HCTL Open International Journal of Technology Innovations and Research (IJTIR)
• Hiperboreea Journal
• HortFlora Research Spectrum (HRS)
• Hygeia: Journal for Drugs and Medicines

J – predatory journals

• Journal of Advanced Computing and Communication Technologies (JACOTECH)
• Jai Maa Saraswati Gyandayini
• Journal of Accounting, Ethics & Public Policy
• Journal de Afrikana
• Journal der Pharmazie Forschung (RAPSR)
• Journal for Research (Journal 4 Research / J4R)
• Journal Francophone de Cas Clinique
• The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies (JASSS)
• Journal of Advanced Agricultural Technologies (JOAAT)
• Journal of Advanced Studies in Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences (JABE)
• Journal of Advanced Veterinary and Animal Research (JAVAR)
• Journal of Advances in Civil Engineering (JACE)
• Journal of Advances in Electronics and Communication Engineering (JAECE)
• Journal of Advances in Information Technology (JAIT)
• Journal of Advances in Internal Medicine
• Journal of Advances in Science and Technology (JADBM)
• Journal of Advances in Social Science and Humanities
• Journal of Agriculture, Forestry & Environmental Sciences
• Journal of American Academic Research (JAAR)
• The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge
• The Journal of American Business Review, Cambridge
• Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPANDS)
• Journal of Anaesthesia and Critical Care Case Reports
• Journal of Analytical Research
• Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences (Nairobi, Kenya)
• Journal of Animal and Poultry Sciences (JAPSC)
• Journal of Applicable Chemistry
• Journal of Applied Biology & Biotechnology (JABB)
• Journal of Applied Economics and Business
• Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research (JALLR)
• Journal of Applied Linguistics (Dubai)
• Journal of Applied Management and Investments (JAMI)
• Journal of Applied Pharmacy
• Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science
• Journal of Arts and Humanities
• Journal of Automation and Control Engineering (JOACE)
• Journal of Ayurveda and Integrated Medical Sciences (JAIMS)
• Journal of Ayurveda and Holistic Medicine (JAHM)
• Journal of Basic and Environmental Sciences (JBES)
• Journal of Behavioral Health
• Journal of Behavioral Sciences in Asia
• Journal of Bio Innovation
• Journal of Biological and Scientific Opinion (JBSO)
• Journal of Biological Sciences and Medicine (JBSM)
• Journal of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Research (JBPR)
• Journal of Bioscience and Technology (JBST)
• Journal of Biospectracal
• Journal of Business Management and Applied Economics
• Journal of Business Management and Economic Studies (JBMES)
• Journal of Business Studies Quarterly (JBSQ)
• Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research
• Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences
• Journal of Chemical, Biological and Physical Sciences (JCBPSC)
• Journal of Clean Energy Technologies (JOCET)
• Journal of Clinical and Analytical Medicine (JCAM)
• Journal of Communications Technology, Electronics and Computer Science (JCTECS)
• Journal of Computers
• Journal of Computing
• Journal of Computing Technologies (JCT)
• Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business Research
• Journal of Contemporary Management Sciences (JCMS)
• Journal of Contemporary Medical Education
• Journal of Coastal Life Medicine
• Journal of Cosmology
• Journal of Current Pharma Research
• Journal of Current Research in Science (JCRS)
• Journal of Current Trends in Big Data Analytics
• Journal of Drug Discovery and Therapeutics (JDDT)
• Journal of Economics and Banking
• Journal of Economics and Engineering
• Journal of Economics and Political Economy
• Journal of Economics, Business and Management (JOEBM)
• Journal of Education and Social Science
• Journal of Education and Sociology
• Journal of ELT and Applied Linguistics (JELTAL)
• Journal of Electrical Engineering
• Journal of Electrical Engineering and Science (JEES)
• Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences
• Journal of English Language and Literature (JOELL)
• Journal of Engineering and Applied Mathematics (JEAM)
• Journal of Engineering Innovation & Research (JEIR)
• Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
• Journal of Environment and Life Sciences (JELS)
• Journal of Environmental and Occupational Science
• Journal of Environmental Biology
• Journal of Environmental Hydrology
• Journal of Environmental Nanotechnology
• Journal of Environmental Research and Development (JERAD)
• Journal of Environmental Science, Computer Science and Engineering & Technology (JECET)
• Journal of Evidence Based Medicine and Healthcare (JEBMH)
• Journal of Evolution of Research in Dermatology and Venerology (JERDV)
• Journal of Evolution of Research in Human Physiology (JERPH)
• Journal of Evolution of Research in Medical Microbiology (JERMM)
• Journal of Evolution of Research in Medical Pharmacology (JERMP)
• Journal of Evolution of Research in Paediatrics and Neonatology (JERPN)
• Journal of Excellence in Computer Science and Engineering (JECSE)
• Journal of Experimental Biology and Agricultural Sciences (JEBAS)
• Journal of Experimental Sciences
• Journal of Financial Education
• Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment (JFAE)
• Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences
• Journal of Genetic and Environmental Resources Conservation (JGERC)
• Journal of Geotechnical and Transportation Engineering
• Journal of Global Biosciences
• Journal of Global Business Management
• Journal of Global Innovations in Agricultural and Social Sciences (JGIASS)
• Journal of Global Research in Computer Science (JGRCS)
• Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research (JHEOR)
• Journal of Health, Sport and Tourism
• Journal of HerbMed Pharmacology (JHP)
• Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning
• Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies R&D
• Journal of Hydrology and Environment Research (JHER)
• Journal of IMAB
• Journal of Industrial and Intelligent Information (JIII)
• Journal of Information Management (JIM)
• Journal of Innovations in Applied Pharmaceutical Science (JIAPS)
• Journal of Innovations in Pharmaceuticals and Biological Sciences (JIPBS)
• Journal of Innovative Biology (JIB)
• Journal of Innovative Engineering
• Journal of Innovative Research and Solutions (JIRAS)
• Journal of Intercultural Ethnopharmacology
• Journal of Interdisciplinary Histopathology
• Journal of International Academic Research for Multidisciplinary (JIARM)
• Journal of International Anatolia Sport Science (Uluslararası Anadolu Spor Bilimleri Dergisi)
• Journal of International Environmental Application & Science
• Journal of International Management Studies
• Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce
• Journal of Investigational Biochemistry
• Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology
• Journal of Language and Literature
• Journal of Law and Ethics
• Journal of Materials and Environmental Science (JMES)
• Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science (JMCS)
• Journal of Mathematics and Technology
• Journal of Media & Mass Communication
• Journal of Media Critiques (JMC)
• Journal of Medical Science and Technology
• Journal of Molecular Pathophysiology
• Journal of Nano Innovation
• Journal of Natural Products
• Journal of Novel Applied Sciences
• Journal of Medical Biomedical and Applied Sciences
• Journal of Medical Pharmaceutical and Allied Sciences (JMPAS)
• The Journal of Medical Research
• Journal of Medical Research and Practice (JMRP)
• Journal of Medical Science and Clinical Research (JMSCR)
• Journal of Middle East and North Africa Sciences (Journal of MENA Sciences)
• Journal of Middle East Applied Science and Technology (JMEAST)
• Journal of Microbiology and Antimicrobial Agents (JMAA)
• Journal of Modern Science & Heritage
• Journal of Modern Science And Technology
• Journal of Multidisciplinary Developments (JOMUDE)
• Journal of Multidisciplinary Engineering Science and Technology (JMEST)
• Journal of Multidisciplinary Engineering Science Studies (JMESS)
• Journal of Nature and Science (JNSCI)
• Journal of Neurology & Neuromedicine
• Journal of New Sciences
• Journal of Nonlinear Science and Applications (JNSA)
• Journal of Pharmaceutical and Bioanalytical Science (JPB Science)
• Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biological Sciences (JPABS)
• Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Sciences (JPBMS)
• Journal of Pharmaceutical and Scientific Innovation (JPSI)
• Journal of Pharmaceutical, Chemical and Biological Sciences (JPCBS)
• Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry
• Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Community Medicine
• Journal of Pharmacy Research (JPR)
• Journal of Physical Education Research (JOPER)
• Journal of Physical Therapy Science (JPTS)
• Journal of Psychology and Theology
• Journal of Postharvest Technology
• Journal of Process Management New Technologies International (JPMNT)
• Journal of Rare Diseases Research & Treatment
• Journal of Reading and Literacy (JRL)
• Journal of Research in Anaesthesology and Pain Medicine (JRAP)
• Journal of Research in Biology
• Journal of Research in Computers and Technology (JRCT)
• Journal of Research in Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (JRFMT)
• Journal of Research in General Surgery and Laparoscopy (JEGSL)
• Journal of Research in Human Anatomy and Embryology (JRHAE)
• Journal of Research in Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Infertility (JROGI)
• Journal of Research in Preventive and Social Medicine (JRPSM)
• Journal of Research in Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences (JRPBS)
• Journal of Research in Radiodiagnosis, Teleradiology and Imaging (JRRTI)
• Journal of Research in Traditional Medicine (JRTM)
• Journal of Science
• Journal of Science and Its Applications (JOSAIA)
• Journal of Science and Technology Advances
• Journal of Science Editing
• Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research
• Journal of Scientific Letters
• Journal of Scientific Research and Development
• Journal of Scientific Research and Development [alt]
• Journal of Scientific Research in Pharmacy (JSRP)
• Journal of Scientific Research in Physical & Mathematical Sciences
• Journal of Scientific Theory and Methods
• Journal of Social Issues & Humanities
• Journal of Software (JSW)
• Journal of Spectroscopy and Molecular Physics
• Journal of Studies in Social Sciences and Humanities (JSSSH)
• Journal of Surgery & Patient Care (Surgery Open Access)
• Journal of Telecommunications
• Journal of The International Association of Advanced Technology and Science (JIAATS)
• Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology (JATIT)
• Journal of Translational Science (JTS)
• Journal of Trends in the Development of Machinery and Associated Technology (TMT proceedings)
• Jundishapur Journal of Health Sciences (JJHS)
• Junior Scientific Researcher

K – predatory journals

• Kashmir Economic Review

L – predatory journals

• Lecture Notes on Software Engineering (LNSE)
• Legal Research Development (LRD)
• Letters in Applied NanoBioScience
• LiBRI: Linguistic and Literary Broad Research and Innovation
• Lingua: International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture (Lingua- IJLLC)
• Lokavishkar International E-Journal

M – predatory journals

• The Macrotheme Review
• Malti: International Hindi e-Research Journal (मालती: अंतर्राष्ट्रीय हिंदी इ-शोध)
• Mathematical and Computational Applications (MCA)
• Mechanics, Materials Science & Engineering Journal (MMSE Journal)
• Medical Research Archives
• Medico Research Chronicles
• Mediterranean Journal of Biosciences (MJB)
• Mediterranean Journal of Chemistry
• Mediterranean Journal of Modeling & Simulation
• Mediterranean Journal of Physics
• MedLife Clinics
• Modern Behavioral Science
• The Modern Journal of Applied Linguistics (MJAL)
• Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)
• Multidisciplinary Scientific Reviewer
• Munis Entomology & Zoology

N – predatory journals

• nternational Journal of Research in Engineering and Science (IJREAS)
• NanoWorld Journal (NWJ)
• National Journal of Basic Medical Sciences
• National Journal of Community Medicine
• National Journal of Medical and Dental Research
• National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy, and Pharmacology
• Norwegian Journal of Development of the International Science

O – predatory journals

• OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development
• Oncoscience
• Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal
• Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies
• The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning (TOJDEL)
• Online Journal of Library & Information Science (OJLIS)
• The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education (TOJNED)
• The Online Journal of Science and Technology (TOJSAT)
• Open Access Journal of Science and Technology
• Open Journal of Clinical & Medical Sciences
• Open Journal of Clinical & Medical Case Reports
• Oriental Journal of Computer Science and Technology

P – predatory journals

• Plants Journal / Journal of Medicinal Plants Studies
• Paripex Indian Journal of Research (PIJR)
• Path of Science (Traektoriâ Nauki)
• Pattern Recognition in Physics
• People’s Journal of Scientific Research
• Pharma Innovation
• The Pharma Research (Journal)
• Pharmaceutical and Biological Evaluations
• Pharmaceutical and Chemical Journal
• Pharmacie Globale: International Journal of Comprehensive Pharmacy (IJCP)
• Pharmacognosy: Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry
• Pharmacologia
• PharmacologyOnline (PhOL)
• PHARMANEST: An International Journal of Advances in Pharmaceutical Sciences
• Physical Education and Sports Research Journal (Academic Sports Scholars)
• Plant Digest
• Professionals Center for Business Research
• Progress in Physics
• Pyxis Journal

Q – predatory journals

• Quarterly Physics Review

R – predatory journals

• Reef Resources Assessment and Management Technical Paper
• Remedy Open Access
• Research (French version)
• Research Ambition
• Research Chronicler
• Research Chronicles (Research Chronicle in Health Sciences)
• Research Dimension
• Research Directions: International Multidisciplinary Research Journal (Research Directions Journal)
• Research in Biotechnology
• Research in Pharmacy and Health Sciences
• Research Innovator
• Research Inspiration
• Research Inventy: International Journal of Engineering and Science
• Research Journal of Life Sciences, Bioinformatics, Pharmaceutical, and Chemical Sciences (RJLBPCS)
• Research Journal of Pharmaceutical, Biological and Chemical Sciences (RJPBCS)
• Research Opinions in Animal and Veterinary Sciences (ROAVS)
• Research Revolution
• Research Scholar
• ResearchDesk
• Researchers World – Journal of Arts Science & Commerce
• Review of Research
• Reviews of Progress
• Revista Electrónica de las Ciencias Computacionales e Informática (RECI)
• Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencas
• Revista Iberoamericana de Contaduría, Economía y Administración (RICEA)
• Revista Iberoamericana de las Ciencias Biológicas y Agropecuarias (CIBA)
• Revista Iberoamericana de las Ciencias de la Salud (RICS)
• Revista Iberoamericana de las Ciencias Sociales y Humanísticas (RICSH)
• Revista Iberoamericana para la Investigación y el Desarrollo Educativo (RIDE)
• Romanian Biotechnological Letters

S – predatory journals

• Sanskruti International Multidisciplinary Research Journal (SIMRJ)
• Scholarly Research Exchange
• Scholars World- International Refereed Multidisciplinary Journal Of Contemporary Research
• Science and Engineering Applications (SAEA)
• Science International
• Science International (Lahore)
• Science Park
• Science Postprint (SPP)
• Science Research Reporter
• Science Reuters
• Scientific Light
• Scientific Research Journal (Scirj)
• Scientific Research Journal of India
• Scientific Researches
• Scientific Transactions in Environment and Technovation
• Scientific World
• Scitech Journal
• Scottish Journal of Arts, Social Sciences and Scientific Studies (SJASS)
• SCRO Annual Report Journal
• Sensors & Transducers Journal
• Seventh Sense Research Group Journal
• Shiraz E-Medical Journal
• Shiv Rudraksha International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering & Management
• Smart & Young
• Smart Nanosystems in Engineering and Medicine
• South Asian Journal of Food Technology and Environment
• South Asian Journal of Mathematics
• South Indian Journal Of Biological Sciences
• South Pacific Journal of Technology and Science (SPJTS)
• South Pacific Journal of Pharma and Bio Sciences (SPJPBS)
• Sport Science
• Swedish Journal of Scientific Research (SJSR)
• Swiss Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (SJRBSS)

T – predatory journals

• Tactful Management Research Journal (TMRJ)
• Technical Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences (TJEAS)
• Technics Technologies Education Management
• Tehnički vjesnik = Technical Gazette (TV-TG)
• Translational Medicine and Biotechnology (TMB)
• Transnational Journal of Science and Technology (TJST)
• Transworld Medical Journal (TWMJ)
• Trends Journal of Sciences Research (TJSR)
• Tropical Plant Research
• Turkish Journal of Scientific Research
• Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET)

U – predatory journals

• Ultra Engineer
• Ulutas Genetic Research Journal
• The Ulutas Medical Journal
• Universal Journal of Applied Computer Science and Technology
• Universal Journal of Computer Science and Engineering Technology (UniCSE)
• Universal Journal of Pharmaceutical Research (UJPR)
• Universal Journal of Pharmacy (UJP Online)
• Universe of Emerging Technology and Science (UNIETS)

V – predatory journals

• Visi Jurnal Akademik

W – predatory journals

• Weberbauerella
• Weekly Science International Research Journal
• World Academy of Informatics and Management Sciences (WAIMS)
• World Applied Sciences Journal
• World Essays Journal (WEJ)
• World Journal of Innovative Research (WJIR)
• World Journal of Engineering Research and Technology (WJERT)
• World Journal of Pharmaceutical and Medical Research (WJPMR)
• World Journal of Pharmaceutical and Life Sciences (WJPLS)
• World Journal of Pharmaceutical Research (WJPR)
• World Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences (WJPS)
• World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (WJPPS)
• World Journal of Research and Review (WJRR)
• World Journal of Science and Technology (WJST)
• World Medical Student Journal (WorldMSJ)
• World Scientific News
• World Wide Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development

Open Access Journals has been found with a genuine mission of giving free access to quality scholarly research journals and dissertations to everyone in need and impacting countless people in the process. We know it’s tough to get hands-on educational journals that pack a punch. We give you the tools so that you can have the advantage and be smarter by learning a bit more.

29 Comments

Wow, superb blog layout! How lengthy have you been running a blog for? you make blogging glance easy. The entire look of your website is magnificent, as well as the content!

Thank you very much for the list of Predatory journal. Its very useful.

Thank You for the list of predatory journals. It’s very useful

A very useful information, Thank you

can you pls tell me where you got this list any authorised source?

Please visit : beallslist.net

International Journal of Current Advanced Research not found in beallslist.net as a predatory journal (updated December 8, 2021)

You need to add Journal of Economics and Management Sciences (JEMS) as a predatory journal.

Thank you very much for this clear-cut revelation of predatory journals. Let us promote research honesty with the highest sense of ethics and moral integrity.

Also, International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering is a predatory journal.

I am a teacher. I need reserve the information in journal

As long as there is no place like Federal College of Agriculture, Benin, Nigeria, Dr. Maryam Tousi purported to be an editorial member of Open Access Journal of Life Sciences remains fake; as such Open Access Journal of Life Sciences remains fake is a predatory journal.

The editorial member named Dr. Maryam Tousi of open access research journal of life sciences-predatory-, Federal College of Agriculture, Benin, Nigeria, is nonexistent. No place like Federal College of Agriculture Benin, Nigeria; the journal is therefore predatory.

thank you for this work, International Journal of Biology and Life Sciences (IJBLS) shhould be on this list

Missing some: the Frontier Publishing group have a number of journals: Oncology Review, articles poorly written/many grammar/spelling issues, and data cloudy/blurred in issue.

thank you very much for giving fake journals list

This is a great job. Keep it up because it will help many scholars from being deceived and exploited.

Check that first N listing.

What do you think about MDPI journal? It has beeen debating that MDPI should be included in predatory journal list.

We submitted a manuscript and it went through a peer review process like any other journals.

¿Por qué Genetics and Molecular Research es Predatory Journal? Aparece en Journal Citation Report con el ISSN: 16765680

Please share how you are defining “predatory journal” for this list. It will be helpful to know a little about how journals are added/removed from this list. Thanks.

Can you please provide a list of journals without publication fees.

Please visit for journals list without publication fees : https://www.openacessjournal.com/blog/list-of-journals-without-publication-fee/

Is International Journal of Novel Research and Review predatory? I’m a researcher who needs clarification having searched through Beal’s list of predatory Journals but not finding it there

Is “International Journal of Novel Research and Development (IJNRD) also predatory journal?

I’m a researcher at university of rwanda, What about ” International Journal of Progressive science and Technology”, thank you

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 08 February 2021

Hundreds of ‘predatory’ journals indexed on leading scholarly database

• Dalmeet Singh Chawla

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

The widely used academic database Scopus hosts papers from more than 300 potentially ‘predatory’ journals that have questionable publishing practices, an analysis has found 1 . Together, these titles contributed more than 160,000 articles over three years — almost 3% of the studies indexed on Scopus during the period. Their presence on Scopus and other popular research databases raises concerns that poor-quality studies could mislead scientists and pollute the scientific literature.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00239-0

Macháček, V. & Srholec, M. Scientometrics https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03852-4 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Severin, A. & Low, N. Int. J. Public Health 64 , 1123–1124 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Manca, A. et al. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 98 , 1051–1056 (2017).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

Predatory journals: evolution keeps them under the radar

The undercover academic keeping tabs on predatory publishing

Payouts push professors towards predatory journals

A guide to the Nature Index

Nature Index 13 MAR 24

Decoding chromatin states by proteomic profiling of nucleosome readers

Article 06 MAR 24

‘All of Us’ genetics chart stirs unease over controversial depiction of race

News 23 FEB 24

Londoners see what a scientist looks like up close in 50 photographs

Career News 18 APR 24

Researchers want a ‘nutrition label’ for academic-paper facts

Nature Index 17 APR 24

Structure peer review to make it more robust

World View 16 APR 24

Postdoctoral Position

We are seeking highly motivated and skilled candidates for postdoctoral fellow positions

Boston, Massachusetts (US)

Boston Children's Hospital (BCH)

Qiushi Chair Professor

Distinguished scholars with notable achievements and extensive international influence.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Zhejiang University

ZJU 100 Young Professor

Promising young scholars who can independently establish and develop a research direction.

Head of the Thrust of Robotics and Autonomous Systems

Reporting to the Dean of Systems Hub, the Head of ROAS is an executive assuming overall responsibility for the academic, student, human resources...

Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou)

Head of Biology, Bio-island

Head of Biology to lead the discovery biology group.

BeiGene Ltd.

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 16 March 2017

Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison

• Larissa Shamseer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3690-3378 1 , 2 ,
• David Moher 1 , 2 ,
• Onyi Maduekwe 3 ,
• Lucy Turner 4 ,
• Virginia Barbour 5 ,
• Rebecca Burch 6 ,
• Jocalyn Clark 7 ,
• James Galipeau 1 ,
• Jason Roberts 8 &
• Beverley J. Shea 9  

BMC Medicine volume  15 , Article number:  28 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

67k Accesses

225 Citations

592 Altmetric

Metrics details

The Internet has transformed scholarly publishing, most notably, by the introduction of open access publishing. Recently, there has been a rise of online journals characterized as ‘predatory’, which actively solicit manuscripts and charge publications fees without providing robust peer review and editorial services. We carried out a cross-sectional comparison of characteristics of potential predatory, legitimate open access, and legitimate subscription-based biomedical journals.

On July 10, 2014, scholarly journals from each of the following groups were identified – potential predatory journals (source: Beall’s List), presumed legitimate, fully open access journals (source: PubMed Central), and presumed legitimate subscription-based (including hybrid) journals (source: Abridged Index Medicus). MEDLINE journal inclusion criteria were used to screen and identify biomedical journals from within the potential predatory journals group. One hundred journals from each group were randomly selected. Journal characteristics (e.g., website integrity, look and feel, editors and staff, editorial/peer review process, instructions to authors, publication model, copyright and licensing, journal location, and contact) were collected by one assessor and verified by a second. Summary statistics were calculated.

Ninety-three predatory journals, 99 open access, and 100 subscription-based journals were analyzed; exclusions were due to website unavailability. Many more predatory journals’ homepages contained spelling errors (61/93, 66%) and distorted or potentially unauthorized images (59/93, 63%) compared to open access journals (6/99, 6% and 5/99, 5%, respectively) and subscription-based journals (3/100, 3% and 1/100, 1%, respectively). Thirty-one (33%) predatory journals promoted a bogus impact metric – the Index Copernicus Value – versus three (3%) open access journals and no subscription-based journals. Nearly three quarters ( n  = 66, 73%) of predatory journals had editors or editorial board members whose affiliation with the journal was unverified versus two (2%) open access journals and one (1%) subscription-based journal in which this was the case. Predatory journals charge a considerably smaller publication fee (median $100 USD, IQR $63–$150) than open access journals ($1865 USD, IQR $800–$2205) and subscription-based hybrid journals ($3000 USD, IQR $2500–$3000).

Conclusions

We identified 13 evidence-based characteristics by which predatory journals may potentially be distinguished from presumed legitimate journals. These may be useful for authors who are assessing journals for possible submission or for others, such as universities evaluating candidates’ publications as part of the hiring process.

Peer Review reports

The Internet has transformed scholarly publishing. It has allowed for the digitalization of content and subsequent online experimentation by publishers, enabling print journals to host content online, and set the course for online open-access publishing. Nevertheless, an unwelcome consequence of the Internet age of publishing has been the rise of so-called predatory publishing.

In the traditional subscription model of publishing, journals typically require transfer of copyright from authors for articles they publish and their primary revenue stream is through fees charged to readers to access journal content, typically subscription fees or pay-per-article charges. Open access publishing, in contrast, typically allows for authors to retain copyright, and is combined with a license (often from Creative Commons), which enables free and immediate access to published content coupled with rights of reuse [ 1 ]. Some open access journals [ 2 ] and many hybrid journals (i.e., those with some open access content and also with non-open access content) [ 3 ] use a business model that relies upon publication charges (often called article publication or processing charges, or APC) to the author or funder of the research to permit immediate and free access.

Predatory publishing is a relatively recent phenomenon that seems to be exploiting some key features of the open access publishing model. It is sustained by collecting APCs that are far less than those found in presumably legitimate open access journals and which are not always apparent to authors prior to article submission. Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado in Denver, first sounded the alarm about ‘predatory journals’ and coined the term. He initiated and maintains a listing of journals and publishers that he deems to be potentially, possibly, or probably predatory, called Beall’s List [ 4 ] (content unavailable at the time of publishing). Their status is determined by a single person (Jeffrey Beall), against a set of evolving criteria (in its 3rd edition at the time of writing) that Beall has based largely on The Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct for Journal Editors and membership criteria of the Open Access Scholarly Publisher’s Association [ 5 – 7 ]. Others have suggested similar criteria for defining predatory journals [ 8 , 9 ].

The phenomenon of predatory publishing is growing and opinions on its effects are divided. Critics say that it is extremely damaging to the scientific record and must be stopped [ 10 , 11 ]. Others feel that, while problematic, predatory publishing is a transient state in publishing and will disappear or become obvious over time [ 12 ]. A fundamental problem of predatory journals seems to be that they collect an APC from authors without offering concomitant scholarly peer review (although many claim to [ 13 ]) that is typical of legitimate journals [ 14 ]. Additionally, they do not appear to provide typical publishing services such as quality control, licensing, indexing, and perpetual content preservation and may not even be fully open access. They tend to solicit manuscripts from authors through repeated email invitations (i.e., spam) boasting open access, rapid peer review, and praising potential authors as experts or opinion leaders [ 13 ]. These invitations may seem attractive or an easy solution to inexperienced or early career researchers who need to publish in order to advance their career, or to those desperate to get a publication accepted after a number of rejections, or to those simply not paying attention. Predatory journals may also be a particular problem in emerging markets of scientific research, where researchers face the same pressure to publish, but lack the skills and awareness to discern legitimate journals from predatory ones.

Still, many researchers and potential authors are not aware of the problem of predatory journals and may not be able to detect a predatory journal or distinguish one from a legitimate journal. In order to assist readers, potential authors, and others in discerning legitimate journals from predatory journals, it would be useful to compare characteristics from both predatory and non-predatory journals to see how they differ.

In this study, we undertook a cross-sectional study comparing the characteristics of three types of biomedical journals, namely (1) potential predatory journals, (2) presumed legitimate, fully open access journals, and (3) presumed legitimate subscription-based biomedical journals that may have open access content (e.g., hybrid).

This was a cross-sectional study.

Journal identification and selection

We searched for journals on July 10, 2014. For feasibility, only journals with English-language websites were considered for inclusion and we set out to randomly select 100 journals within each comparison group. The following selection procedures were used to identify journals within each comparison group:

Potential predatory journals (‘Predatory’): We considered all journals named on Beall’s List of single publishers for potential inclusion. We applied the MEDLINE Journal Selection criteria [ 15 ]: “[Journals] predominantly devoted to reporting original investigations in the biomedical and health sciences, including research in the basic sciences; clinical trials of therapeutic agents; effectiveness of diagnostic or therapeutic techniques; or studies relating to the behavioural, epidemiological, or educational aspects of medicine. ” Three independent assessors (OM, DM, LS) carried out screening in duplicate. From the identified biomedical journals, a computer-generated random sample of 100 journals was selected for inclusion. Journals that were excluded during data extraction were not replaced.

Presumed legitimate fully open-access journals (‘Open Access’): A computer-generated, random sample of 95 journals from those listed on PubMed Central as being full, immediate open access, were included. In addition, five well-established open access journals were purposefully included: PLOS Medicine , PLOS One , PLOS Biology , BMC Medicine , and BMC Biology .

Presumed legitimate subscription-based journals (‘Subscription-based’): A computer-generated, random sample of 100 journals from those listed in the Abridged Index Medicus (AIM) was included. AIM was initiated in 1970 containing a selection of articles from 100 (now 119) English-language journals, as a source of relevant literature for practicing clinicians [ 16 ]. AIM was used here since all journals in this group were initiated prior to the digital era and presumed to have a maintained a partially or fully subscription-based publishing model [confirmed by us].

For all journals, their names and URLs were automatically obtained during the journal selection process and collected in Microsoft Excel. Screening and data extraction were carried out in the online study management software, Distiller SR (Evidence Partners, Ottawa, Canada). Journals with non-functioning websites at the time of data extraction or verification were excluded and not replaced.

Data extraction process

Data were extracted by a single assessor (OM) between October 2014 and February 2015. An independent audit (done by LS) of a random 10% of the sample showed discrepancies in 34/56 items (61%) on at least one occasion. As such, we proceeded to verify the entire sample by a second assessor. Verification was carried out in April 2015 by one of eight assessors (RB, JC, JG, DM, JR, LS, BJS, LT) with experience and expertise on various aspects of biomedical publishing process. Any disagreements that arose during the verification process were resolved by third party arbitration (by LS or LT). It was not possible to fully blind assessors to study groups due to involvement in the journal selection process (OM, DM, LS).

Data extraction items

Items for which data were extracted were based on a combination of items from Beall’s criteria (version 2, December 2012) for determining predatory open-access publishers [ 6 ], the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers ( http://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct ), and the OASPA Membership criteria ( http://oaspa.org/membership/membership-criteria/ ). Data for 56 items were extracted in the following nine categories: aims and scope, journal name and publisher, homepage integrity (look and feel), indexing and impact factor, editors and staff, editorial process and peer review, publication ethics and policies, publication model and copyright, and journal location and contact.

Data analysis

Data were descriptively summarized within each arm. Continuous data were summarized by medians and interquartile range (IQR); dichotomous data were summarized using proportions.

Ninety-three potential predatory journals, 99 open access journals, and 100 subscription-based journals were included in the analysis. The process of journal identification, inclusion, and exclusions within each study group is outlined in Fig.  1 ; 397 journals were identified as potential predatory journals. After de-duplication and screening for journals publishing biomedical content, 156 journals were identified, from which a random sample of 100 were chosen. Seven journals from the predatory group and one from the legitimate open access group were excluded during data extraction due to non-functional websites. No journal appeared in more than one study group.

Flow diagram of journal identification, selection, and inclusion in each study group. a Potential predatory journals identified from Beall’s list. b Presumed legitimate fully open access journals identified from PubMed Central including five purposely selected journals: PLOS Medicine , PLOS One , PLOS Biology , BMC Medicine , and BMC Biology . c Subscription-based journals identified from AIM

There were four unanticipated journal exclusions during data extraction in the presumed legitimate open access and subscription-based groups for which randomly selected replacement journals were used. One journal was listed twice in the open access group and was deemed to be a magazine rather than a scientific journal. Two journals in the subscription-based journal group were deemed to be a magazine and a newsletter, respectively. The decision to exclude and replace these was made post-hoc, by agreement between LS and DM.

Our main findings of journal characteristics for each data extraction category are summarized in Tables  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 and 9 .

Homepage and general characteristics

About half of the predatory journals in our sample indicated interest in publishing non-biomedical topics (e.g., agriculture, geography, astronomy, nuclear physics) alongside biomedical topics in the stated scope of the journal and seemed to publish on a larger number of topics than non-predatory journals (Table  1 ). Predatory journals included pharmacology and toxicology ( n  = 59) in the scope of their journal four and a half times more often than open access journals ( n  = 13) and almost 30 times more than subscription-based journals ( n  = 2).

When we examined the similarity of the journal name to other existing journals (e.g., one or two words different on the first page of Google search results), we found that over half of predatory journals ( n  = 51, 55.84%) had names that were similar to an existing journal compared to only 17 open access journals (17.17%) and 22 subscription-based journals (22.00%) (Table  2 ). In all study groups, the journal name was well reflected in the website URL. For journals that named a country in the journal title, some journals named a different country in the journal contact information (11/21 (52.38%) predatory; 4/13 (30.77%) open access; 1/31 (3.23%) subscription-based) (Table  3 ). There was a high prevalence of predatory journals from low or low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) (48/64, 75.00%) compared to open access journals (18/92, 19.56%); none of the subscription-based journals listed LMIC addresses.

We assessed the integrity of the homepage by examining the content for errors (Table  4 ). Spelling and grammatical errors were more prevalent in predatory journals ( n  = 61, 65.59%) compared to in open access ( n  = 6, 6.06%) and subscription-based journals ( n  = 3, 3.00%). In addition, we found a higher frequency of distorted or potentially unauthorized image use (e.g., company logos such as Google, MEDLINE, COPE, Crossref) in predatory journals (n = 59, 63.44%) versus in open access ( n  = 5, 5.05%) and subscription-based journals ( n  = 1, 1%). Readers were the main target of language used on subscription-based journal webpages ( n  = 58, 58%) but less so in open access ( n  = 14, 14.14%) and predatory ( n  = 3, 3.23%) journals, where authors (predatory journals) or both authors and readers (open access journals) were the primary target.

Metrics and indexing

Most subscription-based journals indicated having a journal impact factor (assumed 2-year Thomson Reuters JIF unless otherwise indicated) ( n  = 80, median 4.275 (IQR 2.469–6.239)) compared to less than half of open access journals ( n  = 38, 1.750 (1.330–2.853)) and fewer predatory journals ( n  = 21, 2.958 (0.500–3.742)) (Table  5 ). More than half of predatory journals ( n  = 54, 58.06%) and subscription-based journals ( n  = 62, 62%) mentioned another journal-level metric, compared to only 16 (16.16%) open access journals. A metric called the Index Copernicus Value was the most common other metric mentioned in 31 predatory journals (33.33%) and in three open access journals (3.03%), followed by the 5-year impact factor (Thomson Reuters) mentioned in two open access journals (2.02%) and 27 subscription-based journals (27.00%), followed by the Scientific Journal Rankings (i.e., SCImago Journal Rank by Scopus) mentioned in seven predatory, six open access, and eight subscription-based journals. The top databases in which journals indicated being indexed were Google Scholar for predatory journals ( n  = 47, 50.54%), PubMed for open access journals ( n  = 85, 85.86%), and MEDLINE for subscription-based journals ( n  = 39, 39%). About half of predatory journals ( n  = 48, 51.61%) and 65 (65.65%) open access journals mention DOAJ (indexed in or applied for indexing). International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) was mentioned in some capacity in 16 predatory journals and about three quarters of non-predatory journals.

Editors and editorial process

Nearly a quarter ( n  = 22, 23.66%) of predatory journals, 17 (17.17%) open access journals, and 9 (9%) subscription-based journals did not name an editor-in-chief (EIC) (Table  6 ). Of those that did, 40 (56.33%) predatory, 71 (86.59%) open access, and 57 (62.64%) subscription-based journals provided an institutional affiliation for the named EIC. An editorial board listing individual members was provided in 60 (64.52%) predatory journals, 92 (92.93%) open access journals, and 72 (72%) subscription-based journals, each comprising a median of 23 (IQR 14–37), 32.5 (22–50), and 27.5 (16.5–62) board members, respectively. If editors, journal staff, or editorial board members were identified, we completed a subjective assessment of the validity of three arbitrary names and the likelihood of their association with the journal by performing a Google search of their name (in quotations) and searching any online profiles for affiliation with the journal. Details of this assessment can be found in Table  6 . For journals with names of editors, staff, or board members available, 100% of names checked in subscription-based journals were found to be legitimate as well as in 95/98 (96.94%) open access journals. Only 24/90 (26.67%) named editors, staff, or board members were assessed as having a legitimate association with the journal among predatory journals. Almost 100% of non-predatory journals appear to use a manuscript submission system, whereas just over half of predatory journals use such a system; almost 70% of predatory journals request that authors send their manuscripts by email and 63% of those journals provide what appears to be a non-professional (e.g., Gmail, Yahoo) email address to do so. Almost all journals (95% predatory journals, 100% open access journals, 92% of subscription-based journals) indicate using peer review during publication consideration (Table  7 ).

Publication ethics and policies

We examined journals’ promotion and practices around publications ethics (Table  8 ). About three quarters ( n  = 77, 77.78%) of open access journals and about a third ( n  = 33, 33.00%) of subscription-based journals mentioned COPE somewhere on their website whereas only 13 predatory journals (13.98%) did. Few predatory journals had policies about retractions ( n  = 12, 12.90%), corrections/errata ( n  = 22, 23.66%), or plagiarism ( n  = 44, 47.31%) whereas more than half of all non-predatory journals had available policies for all three (retractions: n  = 112, 56.28%; corrections/errata: n  = 100, 50.25%; plagiarism: n  = 199, 59.80%). Sixty-two subscription-based (62%), 56 open access (56.57%), and only 6 predatory (6.45%) journals suggested, recommended or required study registration. No predatory journals mentioned the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of health Research (EQUATOR) Network, whereas about a quarter (49/195) of presumed legitimate journals did so.

Publication model, fees, and copyright

We assessed whether journals made any indication about accessibility, fees, and copyright (Table  9 ). Forty-two (42.00%) subscription-based journals indicated being partially open access in some capacity (e.g., hybrid or delayed access), with the remainder not mentioning open access. Almost all ( n  = 95, 95.00%) subscription-based journals indicated that there was a subscription charge. Eighty-three potential predatory (89.25%) and 94 open access (94.95%) journals claimed to be open access (presumed to be full, immediate open access as no qualification regarding partial or delayed access was stated). For the five (5.05%) open access journals that did not specifically indicate being open access, all had content that was free to access (we did not investigate this further). Subscription-based journals and open access journals seemed to collect revenue from a range of sources (Table  9 ), while predatory journals appeared to mainly collect revenues from APCs ( n  = 73, 78.49%) and to a lesser extent, subscription fees ( n  = 13, 13.98); in 14 predatory journals (15.05%), no sources of revenue (including an APC) could be found. Of journals listing an APC, the median fee (USD) was $100 ($63–$150) in predatory journals ( n  = 59), $1866 ($800–$2205) in open access journals ( n  = 70), and $3000 ($2500–$3000) in subscription-based hybrid journals ( n  = 44). Almost 90% of all journals indicated which party retained copyright of published work. Explicit statements that authors retained copyright were present in 68.09% ( n  = 64) of open access journals, 36.78% ( n 2 = 32) of the time in subscription-based journals, and in only 12% ( n  = 9) of predatory journals.

This study demonstrates that our sample of potential predatory journals is distinct in some key areas from presumed legitimate journals and provides evidence of how they differ. While criteria have been proposed previously to characterize potential predatory journals [ 7 ], measuring each journal against a long list of criteria is not practical for the average researcher. It can be time consuming and some criteria are not straightforward to apply, as we have learned during this study. For instance, whether or not the listed editors of a journal are real people or have real affiliations with a journal is quite subjective to assess. Another example pertains to preservation and permanent access to electronic journal content. We found that not all presumed legitimate journals made explicit statements about this; however, we know that in order to be indexed in MEDLINE, a journal must “ Have an acceptable arrangement for permanent preservation of, and access to, the content ” [ 17 ].

From our findings, we have developed a list of evidence-based, salient features of suspected predatory journals (Table  10 ) that are straightforward to assess; we describe them further below. We recognize that these criteria are likely not sensitive enough to detect all potentially illegitimate, predatory journals. However, we feel they are a good starting point.

Non-biomedical scope of interest

We found that predatory journals tend to indicate interest in publishing research that was both biomedical and non-biomedical (e.g., agriculture, geography, astrophysics) within their remit, presumably to avoid limiting submissions and increase potential revenues. While legitimate journals may do this periodically (we did not assess the scope of presumed legitimate biomedical journals), the topics usually have some relationship between them and represent a subgroup of a larger medical specialty (e.g., Law and Medicine). Authors should examine the scope and content (e.g., actual research) of the journals they intend to publish in to determine whether it is in line with what they plan to publish.

Spelling and grammar

The home page of a journal’s website may be a good initial indicator of their legitimacy. We found several homepage indicators that may be helpful in assessing a journal’s legitimacy and quality. The homepages of potential predatory journals’ websites contained at least 10 times more spelling and grammar errors than presumed legitimate journals. Such errors may be an artefact of foreign language translation into English, as the majority of predatory journals were based in countries where a non-English language is dominant. Further, legitimate publishers and journals may be more careful about such errors to maintain professionalism and a good reputation.

Fuzzy, distorted, or potentially unauthorized image

Potential predatory journals appeared to have images that were low-resolution (e.g., fuzzy around the edges) or distorted ‘knock-off’ versions of legitimate logos or images.

Language directed at authors

Another homepage check authors can do is to examine the actual written text to gauge the intended audience. We found that presumed legitimate journals appear to target readers with their language and content (e.g., highlighting new content), whereas potential predatory journals seem to target prospective authors by inviting submissions, promising rapid publication, and promoting different metrics (including the Index Copernicus Value).

Manuscript submission and editorial process/policies

Authors should be able to find information about what happens to their article after it is submitted. Potential predatory journals do not seem to provide much information about their operations compared to presumed legitimate journals. Furthermore, most potential predatory journals request that articles be submitted via email rather than a submission system (e.g., Editorial Manager, Scholar One), as presumed legitimate journals do. Typically, journals have requirements that must be met or checked by authors or the journal during submission (e.g., declaration of conflicts of interest, agreement that the manuscript adheres to authorship standards and other journal policies, plagiarism detection). When a manuscript is submitted via email, these checks are not automatic and may not ever occur. Authors should be cautious of publishing in journals that only take submissions via email and that do not appear to check manuscripts against journal policies as such journals are likely of low quality. In addition, the email address provided by a journal seems to be a good indicator of its legitimacy. Predatory journals seem to provide non-professional or non-academic email addresses such as from providers with non-secured servers like Gmail or Yahoo.

Very low APC and inappropriate copyright

Finally, authors should be cautious when the listed APC of a biomedical journal is under $150 USD. This is very low in comparison to presumed legitimate, fully open access biomedical journals for which the median APC is at least 18 times more. Hybrid subscription journals charge 30 times the amount of potential predatory journals to publish and make research openly accessible. It has been suggested that hybrid journals charge a higher fee in order to maintain their ‘prestige’ (e.g., journals can be more selective about their content based on who is willing to pay the high fee) [ 18 ]. On the contrary, extremely low APCs may simply be a way for potential predatory journals to attract as many submissions as possible in order to generate revenue and presumably to build their content and reputation. Evidently, the APC varies widely across journals, perhaps more than any other characteristic we measured. Journal APCs are constantly evolving and increasing requirements by funders to make research open access may have a drastic impact on APCs as we know them over the coming years.

Researchers should be trained on author responsibilities, including how to make decision about where to publish their research. Ideally, authors should start with a validated or ‘white’ list of acceptable journals. In addition to considering the items listed in Table  10 in their decision-making, tools to guide authors through the journal selection process have started to emerge, such as ThinkCheckSubmit ( http://thinkchecksubmit.org/ ). Recently, COPE, OASPA, DOAJ, and WAME produced principles of transparency against which, among other measures, DOAJ assesses journals in part, before they can be listed in the database ( https://doaj.org/bestpractice ). We also encourage researchers to examine all journals for quality and legitimacy using the characteristics in Table  10 when making a decision on where to submit their research. As the journal landscape changes, it is no longer sufficient for authors to make assumptions about the quality of journals based on arbitrary measures, such as perceived reputation, impact factor, or other metrics, particularly in an era where bogus metrics abound or legitimate ones are being imitated.

This study examined most of Beall’s criteria for identification of predatory publishers and journals together with items from the COPE and OASPA. While many of the characteristics we examined were useful to distinguish predatory journals from presumed legitimate journals, there were many that do not apply or that are not unique to predatory journals. For instance, defining criteria of predatory journals [ 4 ] suggest that no single individual is named as an editor and that such journals do not list an editorial board. We found that this was not the case in over two thirds of predatory journals and, in fact, a named EIC could not be identified for 26 (13.07%) of the presumed legitimate journals in our sample. Such non evidence-based criteria for defining journals may introduce confusion rather than clarity and distinction.

The existing designation of journals and publishers as predatory may be confusing for other reasons. For instance, more than one presumed-legitimate publisher has appeared on Beall’s list [ 19 ]. In October 2015, Frontiers Media, a well-known Lausanne-based open access publisher, appeared on Beall’s List [ 20 ]. Small, new, or under-resourced journals may appear to have the look and feel of a potential predatory journal because they do not have affiliations with large publishers or technologies (e.g., manuscript submission systems) or mature systems and the features of a legitimate journal. This is in line with our findings that journals from low-resourced (LMIC) countries were more often in the potentially predatory group of journals than either of the presumed-legitimate journal arms. However, this does not imply that they are necessarily predatory journals.

Another limitation is that the majority of the open access biomedical journals in our sample (95%) charged an APC, while generally many open access journals do not. May 2015 was the last time that the DOAJ provided complete information regarding APCs of journals that it indexes (fully open access, excluding delayed or partial open access). At that time, approximately 32% of journals charged an APC. At the time of writing this article, approximately 40% of medical journals in DOAJ appear to charge an APC. However, these figures do not account for the hybrid-subscription journals that have made accommodations in response to open access, many of which are included in our sample of subscription-based journals. For such journals, our data and that of others [ 21 ] show that their fees appear to be substantially higher than either potential predatory or fully open access journals.

In context of other research

To the best of our knowledge this is the first comparative study of predatory journal publishing and legitimate publishing models aimed at determining how they are different and similar. Previously, Shen and Björk [ 22 ] examined a sample of about 5% of journals listed on Beall’s List for a number of characteristics, including three that overlap with items for which we collected data: APC, country of publisher, and rapidity of (submission to) publishing [ 22 ]. In a large part, for the characteristics examined, our findings within the predatory journal group are very similar. For example, Shen and Björk [ 22 ] found the average APC for single publisher journals to be $98 USD, which is very similar to our results ($100 USD). They also found that 42% of single predatory journal publishers were located in India, whereas our estimates were closer to 62%. Differences between their study and ours may exist because we focused on biomedical journals while they included all subject areas.

Limitations

It was not possible to fully blind assessors to study groups since, given the expertise of team members, a minimum knowledge of non-predatory publishers was expected. In addition, we could only include items that could be assessed superficially rather than those requiring in-depth investigations for each journal. Many items can and should be investigated further.

Since some characteristics are likely purposely similar between journals (e.g., journals from all groups claim to be open access and indicate carrying out peer review) [ 14 ], and it was difficult to anticipate which, we did not carry out a logistic regression to determine whether characteristics were likely to be associated with predatory or presumed legitimate journals.

This research initiates the evidence-base illuminating the difference between major publishing models and, moreover, unique characteristics of potential predatory (or illegitimate) journals (Table  10 ).

The possibility that some journals are predatory is problematic for many stakeholders involved in research publication. Most researchers are not formally trained on publication skills and ethics, and as such may not be able to discern whether a journal is running legitimate operations or not. For early career researchers or for those who are unaware of the existence or characteristics of predatory journals, they can be difficult to distinguish from legitimate journals. However, this study indicates that predatory journals are offering at least 18-fold lower APCs than non-predatory journals, which may be attractive to uninformed authors and those with limited fiscal resources. Assuming that each journal publishes 100 articles annually, the revenues across all predatory journals would amount to at least a $USD 100 million dollar enterprise. This is a substantial amount of money being forfeited by authors, and potentially by funders and institutions, for publications that have not received legitimate professional editorial and publishing services, including indexing in databases.

Established researchers should beware of predatory journals as well. There are numerous anecdotes about researchers (even deceased researchers [ 23 ]) who have been put on a journal’s editorial board or named as an editor, who did not wish to be and who were unable to get their names delisted [ 24 ]. Aside from this potentially compromising the reputation of an individual that finds him or herself on the board, their affiliation with a potential predatory journal may confer legitimacy to the journal that is not deserved and that has the potential to confuse a naïve reader or author. As our findings indicate, this phenomenon appears to be a clear feature of predatory journals.

In addition to the costs and potential fiscal waste on publication in predatory journals, these journals do not appear to be indexed in appropriate databases to enable future researchers and other readers to consistently identify and access the research published within them. The majority of predatory journals indicated being ‘indexed’ in Google Scholar, which is not an indexing database. Google does not search pre-selected journals (as is the case with databases such as Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus), rather it searches the Internet for scholarly content. Some potentially predatory journals indicate being indexed in well-known biomedical databases; however, we have not verified the truthfulness of these claims by checking the databases. Nonetheless, if legitimate clinical research is being published in predatory journals and cannot be discovered, this is wasteful [ 25 ], in particular when it may impact systematic reviews. Equally, if non-peer reviewed, low quality research in predatory journals is discovered and included in a systematic review, it may pollute the scientific record. In biomedicine, this may have detrimental outcomes on patient care.

Future research

What is contained (i.e., ‘published’) within potential predatory journals is still unclear. To date, there has not been a large-scale evaluation of the content of predatory journals to determine whether research is being published, what types of studies predominate, and whether or not data (if any) are legitimate. In addition, we have little understanding of who is publishing in predatory journals (i.e., experience of author, geographic location, etc.) and why. Presumably, the low APC is an attractive feature; however, whether or not authors are intentionally or unintentionally publishing within these journals is critical to understanding the publishing landscape and anticipate future potential directions and considerations.

The findings presented here can facilitate education on how to differentiate between presumed legitimate journals and potential predatory journals.

Abbreviations

Abridged Index Medicus

article processing charge

CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials

Committee On Publication Ethics

Directory Of Open Access Journals

editor-in-chief

Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of health Research

international standard serial number

journal impact factor

low- or middle-income country

Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association

Public Library Of Science

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses

STAndards for Reporting Diagnostic accuracy

STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology

United States Dollar

Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing. http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm . Accessed 31 Mar 2016.

Morrison H, Salhab J, Calve-Genest A, Horava T. Open access article processing charges: DOAJ survey May 2014. Publications. 2015;3:1–16.

Article   Google Scholar  

Crotty D. Is it True that Most Open Access Journals Do Not Charge an APC? Sort of. It Depends. The Scholarly Kitchen on WordPress.com. The Scholarly Kitchen. 2015. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/08/26/do-most-oa-journals-not-charge-an-apc-sort-of-it-depends/ . 4 Apr 2016.

Beall J. Beall’s List: Potential, Possible, or Probable Predatory Scholarly Open-Access Publishers. 2015. http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ . Accessed 7 Jan 2016.

Google Scholar  

Beall J. Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers. 1st ed. 2012.  http://wp.me/p280Ch-g5 . Accessed 1 Apr 2014.

Beall J. Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers. 2nd ed. 2012.  http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/11/30/criteria-for-determining-predatory-open-access-publishers-2nd-edition/ . Accessed 5 July 2016.

Beall J. Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers. 3rd ed. 2015.  https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/criteria-2015.pdf . Accessed 1 July 2016.

Dadkhah M, Bianciardi G. Ranking predatory journals: solve the problem instead of removing it! Adv Pharm Bull. 2016;6(1):1–4.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Glick M, Springer MD, Bohannon J, Bohannon J, Shen C, Björk B-C. Publish and perish. J Am Dent Assoc Elsevier. 2016;147(6):385–7.

Clark J, Smith R. Firm action needed on predatory journals. BMJ. 2015;350(jan16_1):h210.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Caplan AL, Bohannon J, Beall J, Sarwar U, Nicolaou M, Balon R, et al. The problem of publication-pollution denialism. Mayo Clin Proc. 2015;90(5):565–6.

Eisen M. Door-to-Door Subscription Scams: The Dark Side of The New York Times. It is NOT Junk. 2013. http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1354 . Accessed 22 Jun 2016

Moher D, Srivastava A. You are invited to submit…. BMC Med. 2015;13:180.

Bohannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review. Science. 2013;342:60–5.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Fact SheetMEDLINE® Journal Selection. U.S. National Library of Medicine. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/jsel.html . Accessed Apr 2014.

Selection C. Abridged Index Medicus. N Engl J Med. 1970;282(4):220–1.

U.S. National Library of Medicine. MEDLINE Policy on Indexing Electronic Journals. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/policy/ejournals.html . Accessed 26 Jul 2016.

Van Noorden R. Open access: the true cost of science publishing. Nature. 2013;495(7442):426–9.

Butler D. Investigating journals: the dark side of publishing. Nature. 2013;495(7442):433–5.

Bloudoff-Indelicato M. Backlash after Frontiers journals added to list of questionable publishers. Nature. 2015;526(7575):613.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Wellcome Trust. Wellcome Trust and COAF Open Access Spend, 2014-15. Wellcome Trust blog. 2015. https://blog.wellcome.ac.uk/2016/03/23/wellcome-trust-and-coaf-open-access-spend-2014-15/ . Accessed 21 Jun 2016

Shen C, Bjork B-C. ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med. 2015;13:230.

Spears T. The Editor is Deceased: Fake Science Journals Hit New Low. Ottawa: Ottawa Citizen; 2016.

Kolata G. For Scientists, an Exploding World of Pseudo-Academia. NYTimes.com. 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-world-of-pseudo-academia.html?pagewanted=all . Accessed July 2016.

Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, Jefferson T, Dickersin K, Gøtzsche PC, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):257–66.

Download references

No funding was received for this project.

Availability of data and materials

The screening and data extraction forms used, and the data generated, in this study are available from the authors on request.

Authors’ contributions

DM and LS conceived of this project and drafted the protocol, with revisions by VB. RB, JC, JG, OM, DM, JR, LS, BJS, and LT were involved in the conduct of this project. LS and LT performed analysis of data. LS drafted the manuscript. All authors provided feedback on this manuscript and approved the final version for publication.

Competing interests

VB is the Chair of COPE and the Executive Director of the Australasian Open Access Strategy Group.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Transparency declaration.

David Moher affirms that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported, that no important aspects of the study have been omitted, and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, K1H 8L6, Canada

Larissa Shamseer, David Moher & James Galipeau

School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventative Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, K1H 8M5, Canada

Larissa Shamseer & David Moher

School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 7BL, UK

Onyi Maduekwe

Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, K1H 8L6, Canada

Lucy Turner

Office of Research Ethics and Integrity, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia

Virginia Barbour

Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, 02115, USA

Rebecca Burch

icddr,b, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh

Jocalyn Clark

Origin Editorial, Plymouth, MA, 02360, USA

Jason Roberts

Knowledge Synthesis Group, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, K1H 8L6, Canada

Beverley J. Shea

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Larissa Shamseer .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Maduekwe, O. et al. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Med 15 , 28 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9

Download citation

Received : 11 November 2016

Accepted : 09 January 2017

Published : 16 March 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Scientific publishing
• Publishing models
• Biomedical journal
• Journalology

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Predatory Journals: What They Are and How to Avoid Them

Affiliations.

• 1 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Cellular and Molecular Pathology Branch, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
• 2 Vista Technology Services Inc, Contractor for the NIEHS Library, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
• PMID: 32319351
• PMCID: PMC7237319
• DOI: 10.1177/0192623320920209

Predatory journals-also called fraudulent, deceptive, or pseudo-journals-are publications that claim to be legitimate scholarly journals but misrepresent their publishing practices. Some common forms of predatory publishing practices include falsely claiming to provide peer review, hiding information about article processing charges, misrepresenting members of the journal's editorial board, and other violations of copyright or scholarly ethics. Because of their increasing prevalence, this article aims to provide helpful information for authors on how to identify and avoid predatory journals.

Keywords: deceptive journal; fake peer review; predatory journals; predatory publishing; publishing ethics; scholarly communications.

Publication types

• Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
• Peer Review, Research
• Periodicals as Topic*

Grants and funding

• Z99 ES999999/ImNIH/Intramural NIH HHS/United States

Solving the Mystery of Peer Review for Predatory Journals

One such fault is that predatory publishers and journals often claim legitimacy because they carry out peer review. While we know quite a bit about the academics that publish in predatory journals, surprisingly little research has been carried out on the scholars who carry out peer review for them. It could be argued that by carrying out peer review, these reviewers are giving each article (and the journals in turn) a “stamp” of legitimacy.

To plug this gap in our collective knowledge, Publons has been working with the Swiss National Science Foundation on a paper which aims to find out whether there are patterns to reviewer characteristics for predatory journals, and how reviews for potentially predatory journals are distributed globally. The paper was originally due to be presented at the PEERE conference, but as that was cancelled it has been posted on BioArXiv.

We were able to provide valuable data into a previously unseen part of the scholarly ecosystem because researchers sometimes provide Publons evidence of reviews that they performed for journals that are considered to be predatory. Of course, Publons does not endorse these journals, but displays the reviews to provide greater transparency into the peer review practices and communities surrounding their practices.

We provide clear guidance to academics on how to choose a reputable journal, but the line between predator and legitimate publisher isn’t always black or white – sometimes academics thoughtfully and painstakingly carry out reviews without having any idea that the journal is predatory, and we believe their work should be recognised regardless.

The investigation found:

• 6,077 reviews were conducted for 1,160 predatory journals (3.31% of all reviews).
• 177,666 were claimed for 6,403 legitimate journals (96.69% of all reviews).
• The vast majority of scholars either never, or only occasionally submitted reviews for predatory journals to Publons (89.96% and 7.55% of all reviewers, respectively). This means their shares of predatory reviews ranged from one to 25% of all reviews.
• Smaller numbers of scholars claimed reviews predominantly or exclusively (between 76% and 99% of reviews) for predatory journals (0.26% and 0.35% of all reviewers, respectively).
• The two latter groups of scholars were less experienced – they had a younger academic age, fewer publications and fewer reviews than the first two groups of scholars.
• Developing regions feature larger shares of reviews for predatory reviews than developed regions.

These findings reflect what we already know about the authors of papers published in predatory journals, who are also more likely to be inexperienced, and from developing regions. While it doesn’t tell us anything about their motivations, we believe it shows a strong need for more education on what makes a journal predatory, and why researchers need to carefully examine every review request they receive. This is job for everyone involved in research – from researchers, to institutions, funders, publishers and peer review platforms alike.

For now, we’re proud to help do our bit in shedding the first light on a very important topic – but watch this space for more research from Publons on review quality and the review infrastructure.

Andrew Preston is co-founder of Publons

Related posts

Demonstrating socioeconomic impact – a historical perspective of ancient wisdom and modern challenges.

Unlocking U.K. research excellence: Key insights from the Research Professional News Live summit

For better insights, assess research performance at the department level

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• News & Views
• Firm action needed on...

Firm action needed on predatory journals

• Related content
• Peer review
• Jocalyn Clark , executive editor and assistant professor of medicine 1 2 ,
• Richard Smith , chair 1 3
• 1 International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh
• 2 University of Toronto, Canada
• 3 Patients Know Best, London, UK
• Correspondence to: J Clark j.clark{at}utoronto.ca

They’re harming researchers in low and middle income countries most, but everyone must fight back

The rapid rise of predatory journals—publications taking large fees without providing robust editorial or publishing services—has created what some have called an age of academic racketeering. 1 Predatory journals recruit articles through aggressive marketing and spam emails, promising quick review and open access publication for a price. There is little if any quality control and virtually no transparency about processes and fees. Their motive is financial gain, and they are corrupting the communication of science. Their main victims are institutions and researchers in low and middle income countries, and the time has come to act rather than simply to decry them.

Unfortunately, predatory publishing is often confused with open access publishing, whereby studies are free to all and can be reused for many purposes. Legitimate open access publishing—which has widely benefited scientific communication—uses all the professional and ethical practices associated with the best science publishing. Predatory publishing upholds few if any of the best practices yet demands payment for publishing. Under traditional models of publishing librarians were sophisticated purchasers of subscriptions, but in this new model many individual researchers are unable to distinguish between reputable and predatory publishers. The Committee on Publication Ethics and others offer advice. 2

The term predatory journals was coined by Jeffrey Beall at the University of Colorado, who maintains a “Beall’s list” of offenders. 3 According to Beall, the number of predatory publishers has risen from 18 in 2011 to nearly 700 in 2015. 3 Most are in low and middle income countries, particularly India, Pakistan, and Nigeria, although they often claim addresses in the US or UK. 4 The names of the journals are not easily distinguished from those of the 20  000 or so genuine journals.

Each week, academic authors receive several email requests to publish in these journals, review for them, or join their editorial boards. Most researchers will simply delete the emails, but some fall victim to them. A recent analysis of the authors of articles in biomedical journals found that authors in predatory journals are more likely to be junior and based in developing countries, especially South Asia, compared with authors of articles in reputable open access journals. 4 This is unsurprising because authors in low and middle income countries are under the same pressure to publish as those in high income countries but often lack the guidance, support, and mentorship that is available in more developed countries. Ironically, cost poses little barrier as predatory publishers usually charge “low enough” fees, and many developing country organisations are externally funded by donors who require research to be published in open access journals.

Lost science

Articles in predatory journals, although publicly available through internet searches, are not indexed in reputable library systems. The articles are not discoverable through standard searches, and experienced readers and systematic reviewers will be wary of citing anything from these journals. The research is thus lost. Discoverability is important to raise the visibility of the work of developing country institutions and the often neglected problems of the south. It’s also important for funders expecting return on their investment in research.

Predatory publishers are thus undermining the core business of generating evidence to improve global health. The journals also pollute the evidence base on which clinical practice and public health policy depend, and, as Beall points out, 5 the weak or absent review systems mean that predatory journals can be “reservoirs of author misconduct,” including plagiarism, falsified data, and image manipulation.

United action

Defeating the predatory publishers will not be easy. As long as they can make money they will continue, and if responses to their emails decline they will simply increase the number of emails they send. They may not be doing anything illegal, and even if they are a legal response seems unlikely to succeed.

Action therefore needs to be on the demand side. The first step is to raise awareness of the problem, and reputable publishers and journals have a role: all journals should publish something on the problem. So far few have published anything. Beall’s list is helpful, but keeping it up to date is difficult: predatory journals are increasing rapidly, and some exist for only a few weeks. 4 Furthermore, his list doesn’t include some new and weak publishers who don’t meet his criteria but are nevertheless questionable. Predatory publishers unsurprisingly are working to discredit Beall’s list, and many legitimate open access publishers have raised concerns about his stance against open access publishing in general. 6 7 There is a helpful list of reputable open access journals, the Directory of Open Access Journals, but unfortunately this is not fail safe either.

The lists are important, but the main response must lie with the researchers and their institutions, supported by their partners and donors. Research institutions in low and middle income countries must improve the oversight, training, and mentorship needed to optimise publication literacy, especially among junior researchers. They must establish clear guidance and requirements for publishing research in legitimate journals. Researchers should probably be required to clear with a central body the journal they plan to submit to, and they should be allowed to submit only to journals that are reputable.

Predatory journals are yet another problem that disproportionately harms people in low and middle income countries, and the response will rest primarily with institutions in those countries. But it’s important that funders, scientific societies, and reputable publishers in high income countries offer full support.

Cite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h210

Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: RS is the chair of the oversight committee of the Cochrane Library, which could be damaged by predatory publishing. He’s also the recipient of a pension from the BMA, which owns The BMJ , which might be damaged by predatory publishing. JC is employed by and RS chairs the board of trustees of icddr,b, which has been and might be further harmed by predatory publishing.

Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed

• ↵ Truth F. Pay big to publish fast: Academic journal rackets. J Crit Educ Policy Studies 2012 ; 10 : 54 -105. OpenUrl
• ↵ Committee on Publication Ethics. Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing. http://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Principles_of_Transparency_and_Best_Practice_in_Scholarly_Publishing.pdf
• ↵ Beall J. Beall’s list of predatory publishers. http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/01/02/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2015/ .
• ↵ Xia J, Harmon JL, Connolly KG, Donnelly RM, Anderson MR, Howard HA. Who publishes in “predatory” journals? J Assoc Inform Sci Technol 2014 Nov 6. doi: 10.1002/asi.23265 . [Epub ahead of print.]
• ↵ Beall J. Medical publishing triage—chronicling predatory open access publishers. Ann Med Surg 2013 ; 2 (2): 47 -9. OpenUrl CrossRef
• ↵ Esposito J. Parting company with Jeffrey Beall. Scholarly Kitchen 2013 Dec 16. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/16/parting-company-with-jeffrey-beall/
• ↵ McGlynn T. Retraction of a previous post about pseuodjournals, 10 March 2014. http://smallpondscience.com/tag/pseudojournals/ .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Diagn Interv Radiol
• v.26(5); 2020 Sep

Analysis of potential predatory journals in radiology

The aim of this study is to determine the presence and evaluate the features of potential predatory journals in the radiology field.

The presence of the keywords related to radiology listed in the name of journals was investigated in Beall’s list. We have searched and recorded the features and the information of the included journals listed under the following headings: address and location, publishing features, editorial board, indexing features, submission, and peer-review processes.

A total of 66 radiology journals from 27 publishers were identified from the updated version of the original Beall’s list. Regarding the publishers, 33 journals (50%) reported an address in the United States of America, while others were from United Kingdom, India, Hong Kong, Iran, and Canada. While 44 journals’ (67%) website reported a contact address, no addresses were declared in the website of 21 journals (32%). The median time of publication activity was 3.5 years (interquartile range [IQR], 1–5 years; range, 0–16 years). Thirty-five journals (53%) indicated their publication ethics policy on the website. Forty-seven (71%) journals reported a regular editorial board (EB) list. The competency of the EB was considered as “inappropriate” in 27 (41%) journals. Only 18% of the total number of EB members had affiliations related to radiology (n=286/1566). Forty journals (61%) did not report any indexing and database coverage. We found 26 journals (39%) which had a DOI number in its latest 5 articles. Fifty-nine (89%) journals clearly reported article processing change (APC) on the webpage. The median APC value was 641.43 USD (IQR, 300–918.75 USD; range, 100–2588 USD). Considering the latest 5 articles, the number of journals with radiologic images in all of the articles was 8 (12%). Mean peer-review time was 63.5 days (IQR, 21.75–87.5 days; range, 1–237 days) for the journals which indicated the submission and acceptance dates clearly.

We demonstrated the several main characteristics of potential predatory journals in the radiology field such as reliability of the reported address, APC, publication frequencies, indexing features, features of published article and peer-review time which were all found to be similar to the characteristics of potential predatory journals in other biomedical fields.

The term predatory journal was first coined by Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado, to describe a fraudulent open-access model that applies charges to the authors under the pretense of legitimate publishing operations without providing adequate editorial services, including proper peer-review, as with legitimate journals ( 1 ). At present, more than 10 000 predatory journals harboring more than 500 000 articles are estimated to exist within the literature ( 2 , 3 ). Those articles that do not undergo a peer-review process or are poorly reviewed have a negative impact on current and future scientific studies. This summative impact would cause irreversible consequences in the following years. To prevent the authors from becoming a prey to these predatory journals, Jeffrey Beall shared “Beall’s list”, a blacklist of potential or probable predatory journals, using more than 50 inclusion criteria in his blog in 2012 ( 4 ). The list was constantly updated and kept operational by Beall until 2017. Currently, Beall’s list is active as an anonymously updated, freely accessible database on the web.

Predatory journals and their presence in the literature have been researched in recent years with increased awareness. Studies investigating predatory publishing in the fields of neuroscience, rehabilitation, nursery, dermatology, anesthesiology and critical care, otolaryngology, orthopedics, and pediatric urology are present in the medical literature.

This study aims to determine the presence and evaluate the features of predatory journals in the radiology field.

Three authors independently searched, analyzed, and archived a freely accessible, constantly updated online version of the original Beall’s list ( 4 ). The last scan was completed on October 15th, 2019. Since the present study does not involve human subjects, there is no ethical committee approval and the informed consent was waived. It is confirmed that the study is appropriate for Declaration of Helsinki Standards.

The presence of at least one of the following keywords listed in the name of journals was investigated: “radiology”, “imaging”, “medical imaging”, “radiography”, “ultrasound”, “computed tomography”, “magnetic resonance”, “interventional radiology”. In case of any doubt or uncertainty about potentially relevant journals in each author’s list, the decision was made by consensus considering the information reported in the aims and scope of the journal.

We have searched and recorded the features and the information listed under the following headings:

Address and location: The addresses of the publishers were noted and verified by using Google Maps application. The location was considered as reliable if any building is present at the given address, otherwise, it was accepted as unreliable.

Publishing features: The number of years of editorial activity, publishing frequency and presence of editorial policy/ethics about scientific misconducts were noted.

Editorial board: The presence of the editorial board (EB) list and the editor-in-chief (EIC) were evaluated. The number of EB members and their affiliation were noted in order to understand the EB competency. EB competency was defined as “inappropriate” when ≥30% of reported affiliations were mismatched with the journal scope; it was defined as “unidentified” if the affiliations were not clear and detailed enough to make a final decision. Otherwise, then EB competency was accepted as “appropriate”.

Indexing features: The database/registries in which each journal claimed to be indexed were analyzed. We classified the indexing features in indices and databases like Google Scholar, MEDLINE, Scopus, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ); and following or registered in organizations like International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Then we verified the journals’ declaration about database coverage and indexing in these 6 indices, databases, and organizations’ official lists. Additionally, the database or registries other than the aforementioned ones, the presence of the International Standard Serial Number ( ISSN) of the journal and the presence of Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number of the latest 5 articles were also noted.

Submission and peer-review processes: Submission procedures were categorized into three patterns, i.e., by e-mail, directly on the website, or through a specifically designed submission manager program. The presence of an article processing charge (APC), the payment amount (in USD currency) and the availability of discount were noted. Non-USD amounts of APC were converted to USD according to current exchange rates. The total number of published articles and the review time which was accepted as the lapse between submission and acceptance of the latest five articles published in the current issue of the journal were recorded. If there were fewer than 5 articles published in the current issue, missing articles were completed and evaluated from the previous issue(s).

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 23.0 (IBM Corp.). Descriptive statistics were performed to calculate mean, median, totals, maximum-minimum values and interquartile range (IQR) for continuous variables. Categorical variables were reported as number and percentages.

A total of 66 radiology journals from 27 publishers were identified from the updated version of the original Beall’s list.

Regarding location, 33 journals (50%) reported an address in the United States of America, 12 journals (18%) in the United Kingdom, 7 journals (11%) in India, and one each in Hong Kong, Iran, and Canada. While 44 journals’ (67%) website reported the contact address, no addresses were declared on the website of 21 journals (32%). In addition, two different contact addresses were identified in one journal (1%). The stated addresses of two journals were not verified on the map. Totally, the addresses of 23 journals (35%) were found to be unreliable. Fifty-nine journal websites (89%) indicated an e-mail address as the primary contact method.

The oldest journal on the list was first published in 2003. The median time of publication activity was 3.5 years (IQR, 1–5; range, 0–16 years). Detailed years of publishing activity and frequency of the journals are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. Thirty-five journals (53%) indicated their publication ethics policy on the website.

Detailed years of publishing activity of the potential predatory radiology journals.

Forty-seven (71%) journals reported a regular EB list. Only 22 of these journals (33%) specified the name of EIC on their website. More than half of the journals (n=38, 58%) had no EB members whose declared affiliation was related to radiology. The EB competency of 19 journals (29%) without an EB list or whose editors’ affiliations were not clearly understood was accepted as unidentified. The competency of the EB was found to be inappropriate in 27 journals (41%) and appropriate in only 20 journals (30%) ( Table 1 ). Only 18% of the total number of EB members had affiliations related to radiology (n=286/1566).

Editorial board competency of the potential predatory journals

Twenty-seven journals (41%) reported an ISSN number. Forty journals (61%) did not report any indexing and database coverage. Indexing and following features of the journals in 6 major indices, databases and organizations (Google Scholar, COPE, MEDLINE, Scopus, DOAJ, ICMJE), including the numbers of the journals claiming verified registration or coverage is shown in Table 2 . Furthermore, all of the journals indexed in major databases also declared to be indexed in at least one other database that could be accepted as potential fake-metrics.

Indexing features of the journals in six major indices/databases/organizations.

COPE, Committee on Publication Ethics; DOAJ, Directory of Open Access Journals; ICMJE, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

The average number of indices that the journals claimed to be registered in, except for these major indices, databases and organizations was 3.83 (IQR, 0–4.25; range, 0–41) per journal. Twenty-seven journals (41%) had no published articles. We found 26 journals (39%) which had a DOI number in its latest 5 articles. But articles in 13 journals (20%) were published without a DOI number.

Submission procedures of the journals are shown in Table 3 . Fifty-nine (89%) journals reported APC on the webpage. The median APC value was 641.43 USD (IQR, 300–918.75 USD; range, 100–2588 USD) independently from the submission categories. Eighteen (30%) of these journals stated that they offer waivers under certain conditions. The total number of articles published in all the potentially predatory journals was 4834 ( Fig. 3 ). The average number of articles per journal was 73.4 (IQR, 0–34.5; range, 0–1084). There were no original articles among the latest 5 articles published in about half of the journals (n=32). There were only 10 journals (15%) in which the latest 5 articles were all original articles. Considering the latest 5 articles; while the number of journals with radiological images in all of the articles was 8 (12%), the number of journals without radiological images in any of the publications was 31 (47%) ( Table 4 ). We found 30 journals (45%) which indicated the submission and acceptance dates clearly for the latest five articles. Mean peer-review time was 63.5 days (IQR, 21.75–87.5 days; range, 1–237 days) for these journals.

Distribution of journals by mean number of articles per year.

Categorization of the submission features of the journals

Journals containing radiological images in the last five articles published

As expected, the main findings of our study showed that the indispensable rules of the scientific article publishing processes were not adopted by the potential predatory journals in the field of radiology. The existence of even a simple feature of known and accepted radiology journals in the vast majority of these publishers exposes the point reached in predatory and illegitimate publishing very clearly.

The initial literature in predatory publishing has been focused on the general comments and the potential risks of medical scientific developments ( 5 , 6 ). But detailed evaluations of potential predatory journals and articles in the specific medical fields are now taking place in the current literature ( 7 , 8 ). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study about predatory publishing in radiology.

There are some common features discussed in the literature for predatory journals ( 9 ). First of all, one of the most concrete indicators of the reliability of a journal is the presence of a verified address and contact information. Almost one-third of the journals were found to be unreliable in our study. Cortegiani et al. ( 10 ) reported this ratio as 43% in their study focused on predatory publishing in critical care medicine.

Since the publication policies are not based on certain rules, other expected features for illegitimate publishing is the irregular frequency of publication. We demonstrated that about two-thirds of the journals in our study have irregular publication frequency. On the other hand, considering the median time of publication activity (3.5 years), it is clear that the number of such potential predatory journals have been increasing significantly in the last 5 years.

The most accurate and prevailing method for the evaluation of a scientific paper is the appropriate peer-review process by the editors and reviewers who are experts in the issues related to the content of the manuscript ( 11 ). Although we could not obtain data on the potential reviewers of the journals, it should not be forgotten that the EIC and the EB members are responsible to oversee the peer-review processes. This point is called “editorial board competency”. In addition to this, the EIC who leads the publication activities of the journal must be identified. The adequacy of these two points without any suspicion means that there will be a proper and scientific article evaluation process. We found the EB competency as appropriate in only one-third of the journals in the present study. Worse, only 18% of all EB members’ reported affiliations were related to radiology. In contrast, the EB competency was found to be sufficient in nearly half of the journals in the study of Cortegiani et al. ( 10 ).

Apart from the quality of the journals and the publishers, one of the main parameters for a journal to demonstrate the scientific validity and impact of its articles is being indexed in well-established electronic databases. However, database coverage is not always the guarantee of the journal integrity ( 12 ). It is necessary to highlight two points related to database coverage and indexing features. One of them is the presence of well-established electronic indices, databases and organizations that the journals claim to be indexed in and the other one is the verification of the journals’ declaration about this database coverage and indexing against the possibility of it being fake-metrics. In our study, we demonstrated that 40% of the journals that claimed to be indexed in major databases were in fact not indexed. In other words, it is not surprising to encounter fake-metrics and databases in predatory publishing ( 13 ). DOI number is a digital article tag, and it is accepted as the standard for unique and permanent online content identification and linking on the Internet. While the usage of DOI number is about 90% in the Web of Science Core Collection ( 14 ), we found only 38% of the journals using the DOI number in our study.

Another concept that was introduced with illegitimate publishing is the article processing charge, more widely known as APC. Although it is also available for some reputable medical scientific journals, this term is quite common in predatory publishing. The requested fees also enhance the interest in legitimate publishing, besides being the potential fund for these journals. However, we do not suggest that every article could be published directly without any peer-review process if the APC is paid, since the article acceptance rates of the journals could not be established. In this present study, we found that almost all of the listed journals reported APC clearly on their webpages and the median APC value was 641.43 USD. The average APC amount (634.5 USD) in the study of Cortegiani et al. ( 10 ) about critical care medicine is very similar to our value. However, it is a somewhat lower than the average APC value (751 USD) declared in the study of Manca et al. ( 15 ) about predatory rehabilitation journals.

The articles related to radiology are expected to involve certain radiological images except for a few specific types such as editorial, letter to the editor, or commentary. The presence of the didactic images demonstrates the quality of the article as well as its scientific content. We found this feature in only about one-tenth of the journals in our study and this rate was quite unsatisfying for publishing policy in the radiology field. On the other hand, the number or ratio of the original articles published in the journal is an indirect indicator of the journal’s quality. In the present study, almost half of the journals were outside of this scope.

Acceptance without a proper and serious peer-review process or after a very short and inappropriate evaluation period is quite common in predatory publishing ( 16 ). Hence, a considerable amount of these published articles contain some obvious structural and methodological errors ( Fig. 4 ). This is the main point that misleads the science. We found that in more than half of the journals (55%, n=36), the submission and acceptance dates, evidence of peer-review process, were not stated clearly. Yan et al. ( 9 ) reported that the response period was less than one month in %36.5 of all the predatory journals. Nevertheless, the mean peer-review time for the journals (45%, n=30) was 63.5 days in our study.

Example of an article published in one of the potential predatory journals analyzed in the study. There are some misspellings in the title, keywords, and within the main body of the article (red oval callouts) . No reference for the basic literature data (yellow oval callout) . Please note the rapid review and publication period (blue oval callout) .

Interestingly, potential predatory journals also have proactive aspects. Although not examined in the present study, sending invitation e-mails to the members of the related field about submitting an article or becoming an editorial board member of their journals is quite common feature for these journals ( 17 ). In other words, they make a living the hard way.

Apart from its contribution to science, which should be the main goal, the most important aim in publishing an article is to use it for academic promotion. From this point of view, taking active measures by formal government structures would be the most effective method in order to limit popularity and spread of the potential predatory journals. In a study on awareness about predatory journals by Christopher et al. ( 18 ), it was reported that only 23% of the authors had considered the journal where they submitted their article as predatory and the awareness rate about Beall’s list was found to be only 4.8% among the authors. Therefore, raising awareness of illegitimate publishing and potential predatory journals among the authors and the academicians through conferences, editorials, and other activities is another important and proactive measure. Abstaining to submit the articles to these journals and not replying to the invitation emails sent by potential predatory journals are some examples of the author’s responsibilities.

Since the criteria which define the journals as potential predators have not yet reached a consensus, the main limitation of our study is using the Beall’s list. Another limitation of our study is the evaluation of only the journals which have radiology-related names. We did not investigate the medical journals whose scopes covered but were not limited by the radiology field.

In conclusion, we demonstrated the main characteristics of potential predatory journals in the radiology field such as reliability of the reported address, APC, publication frequencies, indexing features, features of published articles and peer-review time, which were all similar with their counterparts in other biomedical fields. As in the other fields of medicine, there is a considerable amount of potential or probable predatory journals related to radiology and their number is increasing day by day. The authors should be aware of these journals in order not to waste their scientific articles prepared with long and valuable efforts. On the other hand, taking active measures to avoid selecting these predatory journals is the main point to limit their spread and prevent misleading science.

Main points

• There is a considerable amount of potential or probable predatory journals related to radiology and their number is increasing day by day.
• Presence of article processing charge (APC), inappropriate peer-review process, indexing in probable fake-metrics rather than major databases, and having an inappropriate editorial board are the most common features for illegitimate and predatory publishing.
• The authors should be aware of these journals in order not to waste their scientific work resulting from long and valuable efforts.

Conflict of interest disclosure

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Current Drug Research Reviews

(Formerly as Current Drug Abuse Reviews )

Indexed in: Scopus, MEDLINE/PubMed, Cabell's Directory/Journalytics... View all

Volume 16 , Issues , 2024

This journal supports open access

Submission for General Articles

Submit to thematic issues, author guidelines ☰ toggle sidepanel -->.

Authors are requested to electronically submit their papers to this journal for evaluation and submission at https://bentham.manuscriptpoint.com/journals/cdrr / View Submission Instructions . The Manuscript Processing System (MPS) has been designed to ensure step-by-step online processing and tracking of manuscripts for authors, editors and the publisher from submission to acceptance and final reproduction.

Through the submission process, this website will guide authors through each stage of the submission process. The text, tables, and artwork should be uploaded at ( https://bentham.manuscriptpoint.com/journals/cdrr ) in electronic format by the authors. However, the authors who are unable to provide an electronic version or who are facing other difficulties must contact the editorial office by emailing at [email protected] to discuss any alternatives. Submissions that do not adhere to these guidelines will unfortunately not be taken into consideration.

Manuscripts must be submitted by one of the authors of the manuscript, and should not be submitted by anyone on their behalf. The principal/corresponding author will be required to submit a Copyright Letter along with the manuscript, on behalf of all the co-authors (if any). The author(s) will confirm that the manuscript (or any part of it) has not been published previously or is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Furthermore, any illustration, structure, or table that has been published elsewhere must be reported, and copyright permission for reproduction must be obtained.

The author's time is valuable and should not be wasted on research formatting. Free Format Submission makes it easier and faster to prepare text for submission.

When submitting to any Bentham journal, authors are not required to follow any formatting guidelines. When an article is accepted for publication, authors can submit it in the format of their choice, and Bentham will convert it into a journal-specific format for them.

If the submission is accepted for publication, Bentham will format it in accordance with the style and format of the journal.

For all online submissions, please provide soft copies ofall the materials (main text in MS Word or Tex/LaTeX), figures/illustrations in TIFF, PDF or JPEG, and chemical structures drawn in ChemDraw (CDX)/ISISDraw (TGF) as separate files, while a PDF version of the entire manuscript must also be included, embedded with all the figures/illustrations/tables/chemical, structures, etc ., It is advisable that the document files related to a manuscript submission should always have the name of the corresponding author as part of the file name, i.e. , "Cilli MS text.doc," "Cilli MS Figure 1" etc .

It is imperative that before submission, authors should carefully proofread the files for special characters, mathematical symbols, Greek letters, equations, tables, references and images, to ensure that they appear in a proper format.

References, figures, tables, chemical, structures, etc ., should be referred to in the text at the appropriate place where they are first discussed. Figure legends/captions should also be provided.

Successful electronic submission of a manuscript will be followed by a system-generated acknowledgements to the principal/corresponding author. Any queries therein should be addressed to [email protected]

Authors who publish in Bentham Science print & online journals will transfer copyright to their work to Bentham Science Publishers. Submission of a manuscript to the respective journals implies that all authors have read and agreed to the content of the Copyright Letter or the Terms and Conditions. It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to this journal have not been published and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. Plagiarism is strictly forbidden, and by submitting the article for publication the authors agree that the publishers have the legal right to take appropriate action against the authors, if plagiarism or fabricated information is discovered. By submitting a manuscript, the authors agree that the copyright of their article is transferred to the publishers if and when the article is accepted for publication. Once submitted to the journal, the author will not withdraw their manuscript at any stage prior to publication.

It is mandatory that a signed copyright letter also be submitted along with the manuscript by the author to whom correspondence is to be addressed. The article should not contain any such material or information that may be unlawful, defamatory, fabricated, plagiarized, or which would, if published, in any way whatsoever, violate the terms and conditions as laid down in the copyright agreement. Copyright letter can be downloaded from the journal's Web site. Download the Copyright letter.

Permission to Reuse Bentham Content

Bentham Science has collaborated with the Copyright Clearance Center to meet our customer’s licensing, besides rights & permission needs.

The Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink® service makes it faster and easier to secure permission from Bentham Science’s journal titles. Visit Journals by Title and locate the desired content. Then go to the article’s abstract and click on “Rights and Permissions” to open the RightsLink’s page. If authors can't find the content they are looking for or can't get the rights they need, please contact us at [email protected]

Third-Party Permissions

Authors are responsible for managing the inclusion of third-party content as an author/editor of a work. We refer to 'third party content' as any work that authors haven't developed themselves and have copied or adapted from other sources. Text, figures, photographs, tables, screenshots, and other items may be included.

Unless the figure is in the public domain (copyright-free) or permitted for use under Creative Commons or other open licences, the author must get permission from the copyright holder(s).

Published/reproduced material should not be included unless written permission has been obtained from the copyright holder, which should be forwarded to the Editorial Office in case of acceptance of the article for publication.

Articles are licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode ), which permits unrestricted distribution and reproduction in any medium, as long as the work is properly credited/attributed. For more details, please visit Open Access Policy

By signing the Copyright Letter, the authors retain the rights of self-archiving (subject to certain restrictions).

Following are the important features of the self-archiving policy of Bentham Science journals:

Authors can deposit the first draft of a submitted article on their personal websites or their institution's repositories for personal use, internal institutional use, or for permitted scholarly posting only.

Authors may deposit the ACCEPTED VERSION of the peer-reviewed article on their personal websites, their institution's repository or the non-commercial repositories, PMC and arXiv, after 12 MONTHS of publication on the journal website. For personal use, internal institutional use, or for permitted scholarly posting only.

In case of (b) above, an acknowledgement must be given to the original source of publication and a link must be inserted to the published article on the journal's/publisher's website. The link to the original source of publication should be provided by inserting the DOI number of the article in the following sentence: "The published manuscript is available at EurekaSelect via https://www.eurekaselect.com/openurl/content.php?genre=article&doi= ."

If the research is funded by NIH, Wellcome Trust or any other Open Access Mandate, authors are allowed the archiving of published versions of manuscripts in the nominated institutional repositories, after the mandatory embargo period. Authors should first contact the Editorial Office of the journal for information about depositing a copy of the manuscript to a repository. Consistent with the copyright agreement, Bentham Science does not allow archiving of FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION of manuscripts unless under an Open Access mandate as above. Archiving, under any of the above mentioned Open Access mandates, is done under the terms of the Creative Commons License CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 - Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International .

There is no embargo on the archiving of articles published under the OPEN ACCESS PLUS category. Authors are allowed deposition of such articles on institutional, non-commercial repositories and personal websites immediately after publication on the journal website. This is done under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License CC-BY 4.0 .

In case of any form of archiving, an acknowledgement must be given to the original source of publication and a link must be inserted to the published article on the journal's/publisher's website. The link to the original source of publication should be provided by inserting the DOI number of the article in the following sentence: "The published manuscript is available at EurekaSelect via https://www.eurekaselect.com/openurl/content.php?genre=article&doi= ."

The journal publishes peer-reviewed original research, mini- and full- length review articles, systematic review, meta-analysis, randomized drug clinical trial studies, case report, current frontiers and perspective written in English. Single topic/ thematic issues may also be considered for publication.

These peer reviewed issues will be restricted to invited review/mini-review articles. The Guest Editor will offer a short perspective and co-ordinate the solicitation of about 10 to 13 manuscripts from leading scientists, with a total page limit ranging between 100 to 150 printed journal pages. Each printed journal page is on average 900 words (excluding any figures, plates and diagrams). Authors interested in editing a single topic issue in an emerging field of drug research may submit their proposal to the Editor-in-Chief at [email protected] for consideration.

For proposals to publish conference proceedings in this journal, please contact us at email: [email protected]

The length of a published comprehensive review article is from 6000-10000 words with 100 or more references excluding figures, structures, photographs, schemes, tables, etc .

Mini-reviews should be 3000- 6000 words with 75 or more references excluding figures, structures, photographs, schemes, tables etc .

Systematic Reviews include systematic updates on review protocols, methods, research and results from all relevant fields for any studies and updates on already published issues. The total number of words for a published systematic review is from 4000 to 6000 words with 100 or more references excluding figures, structures, photographs, schemes, tables etc . Systematic reviews and meta-analyses must be reported according to PRISMA guidelines; ( www.prisma-statement.org ).

Bentham Science Publishers supports retrospective registration of systematic reviews, in a suitable registry (such as PROSPERO ). The registered systematic review must include the registration number as the last line of the manuscript abstract.

Case reports should describe new observations of findings or novel/unique outcomes relevant to the field. The total number of words for a published case report is 1500 to 2500 words with 40 or more references excluding figures, structures, photographs, schemes, tables etc .

The maximum total page length for a Meta-Analysis published in the journal is four journal pages. Each journal page is on average 900 words with 30 or more references excluding figures, structures, photographs, schemes, tables etc .

Trial studies should be 4000 to 6000 words with 50 or more references excluding figures, structures, photographs, schemes, tables etc.

The articles should be contributed by eminent experts on cutting-edge recent developments. They should be written in the format of mini-reviews (about 4 to 5 pages, approximately 800 to 850 words per composed page excluding tables, structures, graphics, figures and captions) with about 70 references to recent literature. All pages should be numbered sequentially.

Editorials are short papers on important topics related to the journal. The total number of words in an editorial should not exceed 1000 to 1500, and it should contain only 10-15 references. An abstract is not required.

Commentaries present an analysis by scientists on different important issues related to the publications in the journal. Commentaries should contain less than 3000 words, including the abstract, main text, references, and figure legends. However, an abstract is not necessary.

A perspective provides a short overview of a research topic relevant to the field. The length of a published perspective ranges from 1500 to 1800 words, with 20 or more references, excluding figures, structures, photographs, schemes, tables, etc .

Industry News should provide important developments in industries related to the scope of the Journal, that could be of interest to the readers. The length of the submission should be about 1000 words, and it should ideally have 10 or more references (abstract is not required).

Patent News may present important information about recent important patents that have been granted, relevant to the scope of this journal. The length should be about 1000 words, and it should ideally have 10 or more references (abstract is not required).

Position papers are based on thorough research and analysis and aim to influence policy decisions, guide future research directions, or provide guidance to practitioners or stakeholders.

They are short papers on important topics related to the journal. The length of a position paper article is from 3000-4000 words with 40 or more references excluding figures, structures, photographs, schemes, tables, etc.

The manuscript should be written in English in a clear, direct and active style. All pages must be numbered sequentially, facilitating in the reviewing and editing of the manuscript.

It is advisable that authors prepare their manuscript using the template available on the Web, which will assist in preparation of the manuscript according to journal’s format. Download the Template .

Professional editing services may be availed by the team available at Bentham Science , for the correction of grammatical, scientific and typographical errors.

Structured Abstract

Graphical Abstract

Text Organization

List of Abbreviations (if any)

Consent for Publication

Availability of Data and Materials

Conflict of Interest

Acknowledgements

Figures/Illustrations (if any)

Chemical Structures (if any)

Tables (if any)

Supportive/Supplementary Material (if any)

The title of the article should be precise and brief and must not be more than 120 characters. Authors should avoid the use of non-standard abbreviations and question marks in titles. The first letter of each word should be in capital letters except for articles, conjunctions and prepositions.

As recommended by the Reporting guidelines information about the study should be a part of the title (particularly for randomized or clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta analyses).

Authors should also provide a short 'running title with no more than 80 characters'. Title, running title, byline, correspondent footnote, and keywords should be written as presented in the original manuscript.

Title page should include paper title, author(s) full name and affiliation, corresponding author(s) names and complete affiliation/address, along with phone, fax and email.

The abstract of an article should be a clear, concise and accurate summary, having no more than 250 words, and including the explicit sub-headings (as in-line or run-in headings in bold). Use of abbreviations should be avoided and the references should not be cited in the abstract.

All the original research articles, systematic reviews and meta-analyses must be accompanied by a structured abstract. Ideally, each abstract should include the following sub-headings, but these may vary according to the requirements of the article.

Introduction/Objective: Summarize the objective or purpose of the research in a few sentences.

Methods: Give a brief description of the research design, methodology, and other relevant details about the conduct of the study.

Results: Outline the main conclusions or findings of the study, often with statistical data or significant findings.

Conclusion: Provide an overview of the study's key findings and any implications.

The headings can vary, but must state the purpose of the study, details of the participants, measurements, methods, main findings and conclusion.

A graphic must be included with each manuscript for use in the Table of Contents (TOC). This must be submitted separately as an electronic file (preferred file types are EPS, PDF, TIFF, Microsoft Word, PowerPoint and CDX etc.). A graphical abstract, not exceeding 30 words along with the illustration, helps to summarize the contents of the manuscript in a concise pictorial form. It is meant as an aid for the rapid viewing of the journals' contents and to help capture the readers’ attention. The graphical abstract may feature a key structure, reaction, equation, etc ., that the manuscript elucidates upon. It will be listed along with the manuscript title, authors’ names and affiliations in the contents page, typeset within an area of 5 cm by 17 cm, but it will not appear in the article's PDF file or in print.

Graphical Abstracts should be submitted as a separate file (must clearly mention graphical abstract within the file) online via Bentham's Manuscript Processing System (MPS).

You can view a few examples of the Graphical Abstracts on our website.

6 to 8 keywords must be provided. Choose important and relevant keywords that researchers in your field will be searching for so that your paper will appear in a database search. The keywords should be contained in the title and they should appear several times in the article. In biomedical fields, MeSH terms are a good ‘common vocabulary’ source to draw keywords from https://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/meshhome.html .

The main text should begin on a separate page and should be divided into title page, abstract and the main text. The text may be subdivided further according to the areas to be discussed, which should be followed by the Acknowledgements and Reference sections. The Review Article should mention any previous important recent and old reviews in the field and contain a comprehensive discussion starting with the general background of the field. It should then go on to discuss the salient features of recent developments. The authors should avoid presenting material which has already been published in a previous review. The authors are advised to present and discuss their observations in brief.

For Research Articles the manuscript should begin with the title page and abstract followed by the main text, which must be structured into separate sections as Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate, Human and Animal Rights, Conflict of Interest, Acknowledgements and References.

Manuscripts for meta-analysis should be divided as: Title page, abstract and the main text. The text may be subdivided further into Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. This should be followed by the Acknowledgements and Reference sections. The first page should contain the title, the authors names (initials and surname only), with an asterisk in front of the name of the principal author. The manuscript should be organized according to PRISMA guidelines for meta-analysis ( www.prisma-statement.org ). Authors of reports of meta-analyses of randomized trials are encouraged to submit the PRISMA 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. Authors of meta-analyses of observational studies are encouraged to submit the proposed MOOSE checklist (DF Stroup et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology. JAMA 2000, 283:2008-2012).

All randomized clinical trials must include a flow diagram and authors should provide a completed randomized trial checklist (see CONSORT Flow Diagram and Checklist; www.consort-statement.org ) and a trial protocol.

For case reports, the authors should follow the CARE guidelines . The CARE checklist should be submitted as a separate file.

The manuscript style must be uniform throughout the text and 10 pt Times New Roman font should be used. The full term for an abbreviation should precede its first appearance in the text unless it is a standard unit of measurement. The reference numbers should be given in square brackets in the text. Italics should be used for Binomial names of organisms (Genus and Species), for emphasis and for unfamiliar words or phrases. Non-assimilated words from Latin or other languages should also be italicized e.g. per se, et al. etc. .

Section headings should be numbered sequentially, left aligned and have the first letter capitalized, starting with the introduction. Sub-section headings however, should be in lower-case and italicized with their initials capitalized. They should be numbered as 1.1, 1.2, etc.

The Introduction section should include the background and aims of the research in a comprehensive manner.

This section provides details of the methodology used along with information on any previous efforts with corresponding references. Any details for further modifications and research should be included. Sufficient details should be provided to the reader about the original data source in order to enable the analysis, appropriateness and verification of the results reported in the study.

It is important for the Methods Section should be sufficiently detailed in respect of the data presented, and the results produced from it. This section should include all the information and protocol gathered for the study at the time when it was being written. If the study is funded or financially supported by an organization to conduct the research, then it should be mentioned in the Methods Section. Methods must be result-oriented. The statement regarding the approval by an independent local, regional or national review committee (e.g. name of ethic committee and institutional review board) should be part of the Methods Section.

Authors who use AI tools for the production of images or graphical elements of the paper, or in the collection and analysis of data, must disclose the use of such tools in the Materials and Methods (or similar section) of the paper, stating how the AI tool was used and which tool was used.

Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, including parts produced with the assistance of an AI tool, and are thus liable for any breach of publication ethics.

Bentham Science Publishers will assess whether the manner AI was used and declared is reasonable and compliant with its published principles and practices. After publication, content may be rejected or changed due to inadequate declaration or the specific circumstances of its use.

Repeated information should not be reported in the text of an article. A calculation section must include experimental data, facts and practical development from a theoretical perspective.

The important and main findings of the study should come first in the Results Section. The tables, figures and references should be given in sequence to emphasize the important information or observations related to the research. The repetition of data in tables and figures should be avoided. Results should be precise.

This should explore the significance of the results of the work, present a reproducible procedure and emphasis the importance of the article in the light of recent developments in the field. Extensive citations and discussion of published literature should be avoided.

This section of research articles should discuss the implications of the findings in the context of existing research and highlight the study's limitations. The authors should justify the sample size according to the study purpose and methods.

The Results and Discussion may be presented together under one heading of “Results and Discussion”. Alternatively, they may be presented under two separate sections (“Results” section and “Discussion” Sections). Short sub-headings may be added in each section if required.

A small paragraph summarizing the contents of the article, presenting the final outcome of the research or proposing further study on the subject, may be given at the end of the article under the Conclusion section.

Greek symbols and special characters often undergo formatting changes and get corrupted or lost during preparation of manuscript for publication. To ensure that all special characters used are embedded in the text, these special characters should be inserted as a symbol but should not be a result of any format styling (Symbol font face) otherwise they will be lost during conversion to PDF/XML.

Authors are encouraged to consult reporting guidelines. These guidelines provide a set of recommendations comprising a list of items relevant to their specific research design. Chemical equations, chemical names, mathematical usage, unit of measurements, chemical and physical quantity & units must conform to SI and Chemical Abstracts or IUPAC.

All kinds of measurements should be reported only in International System of Units (SI).

In case there is a need to present lengthy, but essential methodological details, use appendices, which can be a part of the article. An appendix must not exceed three pages (Times New Roman, 10 point fonts, 900 max. words per page). The information should be provided in a condensed form, ruling out the need of full sentences. A single appendix should be titled APPENDIX, while more than one can be titled APPENDIX A, APPENDIX B, and so on.

We do encourage to append supportive material, for example a PowerPoint file containing information about the study, a PowerPoint file containing additional screenshots, a Word, RTF, or PDF document showing the original instrument(s) used, a video, or the original data (SAS/SPSS files, Ms Excel files, Access Db files etc.) provided it is inevitable or endorsed by the journal's Editor.

Supportive/Supplementary material intended for publication must be numbered and referred to in the manuscript but should not be a part of the submitted paper. In-text citations as well as a section with the heading "Supportive/Supplementary Material" before the "References" section should be provided. Here, list all Supportive/Supplementary Material and include a brief caption line for each file describing its contents.

Any additional files will be linked to the final published article in the form supplied by the author, but will not be displayed within the paper. They will be made available in exactly the same form as originally provided only on our Web site. Please also make sure that each additional file is a single table, figure or movie (please do not upload linked worksheets or PDF files larger than one sheet). Supportive/Supplementary material must be provided in a single zipped file not larger than 4 MB.

Authors must clearly indicate if these files are not for publication but meant for the reviewers'/editors' perusal only.

If abbreviations are used in the text either they should be defined in the text where first used, or a list of abbreviations can be provided.

All potential conflicts of interest (competing interests) that could have a direct or indirect influence on the work must be disclosed by the authors. Even if an author does not have a conflict, disclosing affiliations and interests allows for a more comprehensive and open approach, which leads to a more accurate and objective evaluation of the work. Conflicts of interest, whether genuine or imagined, are a perspective to which the readers are entitled.

The publication of a conflict statement in the article itself, as well as the submission of the conflict disclosure form, is required for all types of papers. It is not necessarily the case that a monetary relationship with examination support or funding for counseling work is inappropriate. Even if the authors do not have any conflict of interest, they still need to provide a confirmation statement in their manuscripts, i.e., “The author(s) confirm(s) that there is no conflict of interest related to the manuscript.”

The following are some examples of potential conflicts of interest that are directly or indirectly related to the research:

Type of support/grant number

Institutional Conflicts of Interest

Funds received by the author

Funds received by the institution

Travel allowances for the research

Funds received for article preparation and reviewing

Funds for conducting review activities

Support provided for article writing assistance, for drugs, equipment, etc

Paid lectures

Pending fund or grant

Financial conflicts of interest can be personal as well as institutional. Personal conflict of interest occurs when a contributor involved in the publication process either receives an amount of money or expects to receive some financial help (including any other financial benefits such as patents or stocks, gifts or services) that may impact the work related to a specific publication. More importantly, in academic research, such financial relationships can lead to institutional conflicts of interest (COIs) because the economic interests of the institution or institutional representatives may unsuitably affect the decision-making process.

An institutional conflict of interest arises in a situation when financial interests of an institution or any institutional official (e.g., investments held by the university in a company) have the potential to unduly influence the research conducted by its employees or students, or pose an unacceptable risk to human subjects. Such conflicts usually arise in a state of affairs where a research project directly offers assistance or a benefit to an external entity via evaluation, validation, trial or test of an invention, product, drug, service or technology, and the institution holds a financial interest with the external entity. Such financial interests incorporate, but are not limited to, receipt of licensing payments or royalties from the external entity, or ownership interest with the external entity. When human subjects are involved in any research project, and the institution supports such a financial interest, the conflict of interest is speculated to be unreasonable.

Non-financial competing interests include (but are not limited to):

In addition, interests other than monetary and any funding (non-financial interests) should be declared if they are relevant to readers. Personal relationships or conflicting interests directly or indirectly related to research, as well as professional interests or personal opinions that may impact your research, are examples of these.

Intellectual property, in basic terms, refers to any intangible property that is the result of creativity, such as patents, copyrights, etc. Similarly, this section seeks to know about copyright and patent (licensed patent, pending or issued) and any payment received for intellectual property, such as:

Licensed Patent

Issued Patent

Pending Patent

All conflict of interest disclosure forms are collected by the corresponding author. It is sufficient for the corresponding author to sign the disclosure form on behalf of all authors in author collaborations when legal agreements for representation allow it. The templates of the form can be found here.

Disclosure form

ICMJE disclosure form

Before the reference list, the corresponding author will include a summary statement in the text of the article that reflects what is reported in the potential conflict of interest disclosure form (s). Author(s) may declare(s) names of reviewers who they think might have a potential conflict of interest; therefore, Editorial Office could avoid inviting such reviewers for an unbiased opinion.

Undisclosed conflict of interest cases before or after the publication of an article are dealt with as per the guidelines of COPE.

Undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted article (View COPE guidelines)

Undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article (View COPE guidelines)

For more information on COIs, see the guidance from the ICMJE.

Bentham Science tries to conduct a transparent peer-review process with the help of the reviewers who do not have any conflict of interest with the authors. In this connection, reviewers who belong to the same institute or countries as authors are not invited to review manuscripts. However, it is not possible for the Editorial Office to be aware of all competing interests; therefore, it is expected from authors to submit:

List of reviewers who they think have a conflict of interest to ensure a transparent and unbiased review process.

The Editorial Office expects reviewers:

Not to accept manuscript review requests if they have any potential conflict of interest and inform the Editorial Office accordingly.

To decline review requests if they have recently published or submitted an article with any of the authors listed in the manuscript.

To inform the Editorial Office if they have any personal relationship with the authors or work in the same institutes as of authors, which could affect the review transparency.

To abstain from reviewing and informing the Editorial Office/Editor-in-Chief/Handling Editors about any scientific misconduct or fraud, plagiarism, conflict of interest, or any other unethical behavior related to the manuscript, which they found while reviewing it.

During the submission of review comments, reviewers are asked to reconfirm that they do not have any conflict of interest related to the article. After confirming the below statement, they can submit their comments.

“I hereby confirm that I don’t have any conflict of interest related to the manuscript.”

If, however, there are still any remaining interests, then reviewers must mention those in the ‘Confidential’ section of the review form.

Reviewers are not encouraged to contact authors directly regarding any of their conflicts of interest. Peer reviewers should follow journals’ policies in situations they consider to represent a conflict to reviewing.

If reviewers intentionally undisclosed any conflict of interest, then they will be blacklisted for any future peer reviewing activity of the journal.

The Editorial Office always ensures that an author, if added after peer review activity of a manuscript, is not part of the reviewers’ list who have conducted a peer review of the same manuscript.

Editors must not review submitted manuscripts if they have any personal, professional or financial involvement/conflict of interest with the authors of the manuscript. Every participant involved in the peer review process, including editorial board members, reviewers, and editors, must declare any potential conflicts of interest to ensure a transparent and unbiased review activity.

Editors-in-Chief or Editors who are responsible for the initial and final decision should recuse themselves to review or take decisions on any manuscript that is written by authors affiliated to the same institute as of editor, or if they have been a family member, competitor, collaborator, or have published any manuscript in last 3 years with the authors associated with the manuscript. They can however nominate someone else on the Board who could provide a neutral opinion on the manuscript.

The Editorial office recommends editors to follow COPE and WAME guidelines to process such manuscripts which involves their personal relationship.

Manuscripts submission by an Editor/Editor-in-Chief

The initial and final decision on the manuscripts submitted by an Editor/Editor-in-Chief will be taken by any other member of the Board. The Editorial Office will identify members who do not have any potential conflict of interest with the Editor or Editor-in-Chief.

Any research assistants or other individuals who assisted with the research but are not listed as authors, such as those who carried out the literature review, produced, computerized, and analyzed the data, or helped with the language, writing, or proofreading of the article, or offered any comments or suggestions, should be acknowledged. Briefly, everyone who has contributed significantly to the improvement of the paper should be acknowledged. It is recommended to mention the "Declared None" if there is no acknowledgement for the study.

Guest or honorary authorship based solely on position (e.g. research supervisor, departmental head) is discouraged.

The specific requirements for authorship have been defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE; www.icmje.org ). Examples of authors' contributions are: 'designed research/study', 'performed research/study', 'contributed important reagents', 'collected data', 'analyzed data', 'wrote paper' etc. This information must be included in the submitted manuscript as a separate paragraph under the heading 'Authors' Contribution'. The corresponding author is responsible for obtaining permission from all co-authors for the submission of any version of the manuscript and for any changes in the authorship.

All clinical investigations should be conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki principles. For all manuscripts reporting data from studies involving human participants, formal review and approval by an appropriate institutional review board or ethics committee are required.

Compliance with the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors ( www.icmje.org ) is recommended, in accordance with the patient’s consent for research or participation in a study as per the applicable laws and regulations regarding the privacy and/or security of personal information, including, but not limited to, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") and other U.S. federal and state laws relating to confidentiality and security of personally distinguishable evidence, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679 and member state implementing legislation, Canada's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, India's Information Technology Act and related Privacy Rules, (together "Data Protection and Privacy Laws").

It is the responsibility of the author to ensure that:

Patients' names, initials, or hospital numbers are not mentioned anywhere in the manuscript (including figures).

Authors are responsible for obtaining the patient consent-to-disclose forms for all recognizable patients in photographs, videos, or other information that may be published in the Journal, in derivative works, or on the journal’s website and for providing the manuscript to the recognizable patient for review before submission.

The consent-to-disclose form should indicate specific use (publication in the medical literature in print and online, with the understanding that patients and the public will have access) of the patient's information and any images in figures or videos, and must contain the patient's signature or that of a legal guardian along with a statement that the patient or legal guardian has been offered the opportunity to review the identifying materials and the accompanying manuscript.

If the manuscript has an individuals’ data, such as personal details, audio-video material, etc ., consent should be obtained from that individual. In case of children, consent should be obtained from the parent or the legal guardian.

A specific declaration of such approval and consent-to-disclose form must be made in the copyright letter and in a stand-alone paragraph at the end of the article especially in the case of human studies where inclusion of a statement regarding obtaining the written informed consent from each subject or subject's guardian is a must. The original should be retained by the guarantor or the corresponding author. Editors may request to provide the original forms by fax or email.

All such case reports require by a proper consent being obtained prior to publishing. Please refer COPE guidelines available at https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/journals%E2%80%99-best-practices-ensuring-consent-publishing-medical-case-reports .

Editors may request that authors provide documentation of the formal review and recommendation from the institutional review board or ethics committee responsible for oversight of the study. The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. The author will be held responsible for false statements or failure to fulfill the above-mentioned requirements.

Anonymous images, that do not identify the individual directly or indirectly, such as through any identifying marks or text, do not require formal consent, for example, X-rays, ultrasound images, pathology slides or laparoscopic images.

In case consent is not obtained, concealing the identity through eye bars or blurring the face would not be acceptable.

For research involving animals, the authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the standards set forth in the eighth edition of “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” ( grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/guide-for-the-care-and-use-of-laboratory-animals_prepub.pdf published by the National Academy of Sciences, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.).

Research work on animals should be carried out in accordance with the NC3Rs ARRIVE Guidelines. For In Vivo Experiments, please visit https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/arrive-guidelines

Authors should clearly state the name of the approval committee, highlighting that legal and ethical approvals were obtained prior to initiation of the research work carried out on animals, and that the experiments were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations stated below.

US authors should cite compliance with the US National Research Council's " Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals "

The US Public Health Service's " Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals " and " Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals "

UK authors should conform to UK legislation under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations (SI 2012/3039) .

European authors outside the UK should conform to Directive 2010/63/EU .

Research on animals should adhere to ethical guidelines of the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) ethical guidelines .

The manuscript should clearly include a declaration of compliance with the relevant guidelines ( e.g . the revised Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the UK and Directive 2010/63/EU in Europe) and/or relevant permissions or licenses obtained by the IUCN Policy Statement on Research Involving Species at Risk of Extinction and the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora .

If a study is exempted from ethics approval, authors must indicate the reasons for exemption in the ethical statement.

Following is an example of Ethical Statements:

"This study involving animal subjects is exempted from ethics approval for [specific reasons]. The exemption was evaluated and authorized by [Full name of ethics committee], ensuring adherence to ethical standards”.

Client-owned animals (non-commercially available animals such as pets or livestock) should be studied exercising best practices in veterinary care. Authors must confirm that the owner(s) (or their legal representatives) have provided written consent for this purpose.

"The animal study was evaluated and authorized by [Full name of the ethics committee]. The owners provided written informed consent for their animals' involvement in this study, ensuring ethical treatment and compliance with standards."

Studies involving animals must comply with internationally accepted standards and adhere to the 3Rs principles (Replace, Reduce, Refine).

• Replace: Whenever possible, replace animals with alternatives.
• Reduce: Reducing the number of animals used and
• Refine: Refining experimental settings can reduce animal damage.

Authors are encouraged to follow the ARRIVE guidelines (Reporting in Vivo Experiments) for reporting experiments involving live animals.

An example of Ethical Statements:

"This study adheres to internationally accepted standards for animal research, following the 3Rs principle. The ARRIVE guidelines were employed for reporting experiments involving live animals, promoting ethical research practices."

Studies on euthanasia, including chloral hydrate, ether, and chloroform overdose, are severely discouraged. Authors should include an in-depth description of any anesthetic, surgical, or euthanasia procedures conducted throughout the study.

If the experimental details explained in the study violate the standard animal research procedure, editors may seek extra documentation, such as approval forms and relevant literature citations.

All experimental research on plants (either cultivated or wild), should comply with international guidelines. The manuscript should include a declaration of compliance of field studies with relevant guidelines and/or relevant permissions or licenses obtained by the IUCN Policy Statement on Research Involving Species at Risk of Extinction and the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora .

Any unusual risks associated with the use of any chemicals, procedures, or equipment used in the work must be explicitly stated by the author in the manuscript, preferably in both the materials and methods section and the declaration section. For more information, visit The World Medical Association ( https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/public-health/chemicals )

We strive to promote gender and sex equity in research and adhere to the guidelines of Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) to ensure inclusivity and rigor of the work. All authors submitting research papers are required to follow the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines . These guidelines are intended to encourage the inclusion of sex and gender considerations in research in order to improve the rigor and relevance of our publications.

The SAGER guidelines for reporting sex and gender information in methodology or study design, data analysis, results, and interpretation of findings are strongly encouraged. Authors of review articles are advised to address the methods used for selecting, locating, extracting, and synthesizing data; systematic reviews are required to do so.

Bentham Science expects all contributors to respect values of justice, benevolence, and autonomy when conducting research. We understand that certain situations such as medical emergencies or humanitarian crises may differ from non-emergency scenarios. Bentham Science recommends that research efforts should not hurt human subjects/respondents or the researchers, and should be conducted with sufficient scientific rigor as permissible in these situations, respectively. Care should be taken to address potential problems faced by persons who may be victims of disasters or involved in a medical emergency. These are vulnerable individuals and their privacy and dignity should be respected. Researchers should make note of this in their research and identify potential issues in their work that may arise because of such situations. Research directed in emergency circumstances should be to the greatest advantage of survivors involved in the research and with the goal of minimizing any future casualties. For guidance, the essential requirements of research in emergency situation are the preservation of human life, wellbeing and security, along with the rights to protection, privacy and confidentiality of subjects.

Unethical behavior and misconduct may be pointed out by anyone to the Editor and Publisher with sufficient evidences. The Editor, in consultation with the Publisher, will initiate investigation against this Unethical misconduct, complete the procedure till an unbiased decision is reached, and maintain confidentiality throughout the process of the investigation. The Author should be given the opportunity to reply to all minor or major accusations.

In case of serious breaches, the employer may be informed where appropriate, by the Editor/Publisher, after reviewing all available information and evidences or after seeking help from experts in that field.

Author(s) and Reviewers must be informed in case of misinterpretation or mishandling of International Acceptable Standards

A strict notice should be sent to the author and reviewer to avoid future unethical misconduct

An Editorial on the reported misconduct should be published or official notice of unethical behavior should be posted on the website

Official letter about this misconduct should be issued to the Head of Departments, Funding Agencies of the accused author and the reviewer, as well as Abstracting & Indexing Agencies.

Where required, retraction and withdrawal of publication may be undertaken from the Publisher’s journal in discussion with the Head of the Department of the author or reviewer, and other higher authorities should be informed

The Publisher may impose restrictions for some period on future publications from the accused author in the journals

If the manuscript has an individuals’ data, such as personal detail, audio-video material etc., consent should be obtained from that individual. In case of children, consent should be obtained from the parent or the legal guardian.

A specific declaration of such approval and consent-to-disclose form must be made in the copyright letter and in a stand-alone paragraph at the end of the article especially in the case of human studies where inclusion of a statement regarding obtaining the written informed consent from each subject or subject's guardian is a must. The original should be retained by the guarantor or corresponding author. Editors may request to provide the original forms by fax or email.

All such case reports should be followed by a proper consent prior to publishing.

Post-publication discussions are well-timed and engaging scientific remarks and justifications on research articles published in "Current Drug Research Reviews" . These remarks must be based on the information concurrent with the original study and not on the scientific advancements being made subsequently.

Manuscript Preparation, Submission & Editorial Process:

• Post-publication discussion should commence with a short paragraph that outlines the summary of the article.
• Authors are advised to avoid using inciting tone in the comments and keep the message clear and concise.
• The main text should not exceed 1200 words with up to 15 references and may include one or two figures and/or tables.
• References should be submitted in the ACS or Vancouver style.
• The correspondents are recommended to contact the original authors first prior to submitting their comments to the journal as this may resolve the issues that may have arisen due to some misunderstanding.
• The correspondence that has been done with the authors should also be submitted as an attachment with the manuscript.

Any queries therein should be addressed to [email protected]

Randomized drug clinical trial studies are biomedical or health-related interventional and/or observational research studies conducted in phases in human beings who are randomly allocated to receive or not receive a preventive, therapeutic, or diagnostic intervention that follows a pre-defined protocol. The study is intended to determine the safety and efficacy of approaches to disease prevention, diagnosis and treatment.

Authors of randomized controlled trials are encouraged to submit trial protocols along with their manuscripts. All clinical trials must be registered (before recruitment of the first participant) at an appropriate online public trial registry that must be independent of for-profit interest (e.g., www.clinicaltrials.gov ). If you wish the editor(s) to consider an unregistered trial, please explain briefly why the trial has not been registered.

All randomized clinical trials should include a flow diagram and authors should provide a completed randomized trial checklist (see CONSORT Flow Diagram and Checklist; www.consort-statement.org ) and a trial protocol. For further details, please visit complete guidelines at: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html

Studies of diagnostic accuracy must be reported according to STARD guidelines; ( www.stard-statement.org )

Observational studies (cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional designs) must be reported according to the STROBE statement, and should be submitted with their protocols; ( www.strobe-statement.org ).

Genetic association studies must be reported according to STREGA guidelines; ( http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/strobe-strega/ )

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses must be reported according to PRISMA guidelines; ( www.prisma-statement.org )

To find the reporting guidelines see ( www.equator-network.org )

Important points to remember while submitting clinical trials:

Each manuscript should clearly state an objective or hypothesis; the design and methods (including the study setting and dates, patients or participants with inclusion and exclusion criteria, or data sources, and how these were selected for the study); the essential features of any interventions; the main outcome measures; the main results of the study; a comment section placing the results in context with the published literature and addressing study limitations; and the conclusions. Data included in research reports must be original.

Trial registry name, registration identification number, and the URL for the registry should be included at the end of the abstract and also in the space provided on the online manuscript submission form. If your research article reports the results of a controlled health care intervention, list the trial registry, along with the unique identifying number (Please note that there should be no space between the letters and numbers of your trial registration number). Studies designed for other purposes, such as to study pharmacokinetics or major toxicity (e.g., phase 1 trials), are exempted.

All reports of randomized trials should include a section entitled “Randomization and Masking”, within the Methods section.

The manuscript must include a statement identifying the institutional and/or licensing committee that has approved the experiments, including any relevant details.

The SI system of units and the recommended international non-proprietary name (rINN) for drug names must be used. Kindly ensure that the dose, route, and frequency of administration of any drug you mention are correct.

Please ensure that the clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies follow the guidelines on good publication practice: ( https://www.ismpp.org/gpp2 )

The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. The author will be held responsible for false statements or failure to fulfill the above-mentioned requirements.

References must be listed in the Vancouver Style only. References should be numbered sequentially [in square brackets] in the text and listed in the same numerical order in the reference section. The reference numbers must be finalized and the bibliography must be fully formatted before submission.

The references should be relevant to the study and should refer to the original research sources. Self-citation and self-interest should be avoided by the authors, editors, and peer-reviewers.

See below few examples of references listed in the correct Vancouver Style

Boehm M, Nabel EG. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2-a new cardiac regulator. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1795-7.

Frankel AE, Zuckero SL, Mankin AA, et al . Anti-CD3 recombinant diphtheria immunotoxin therapy of cutaneous T cell lymphoma. Curr Drug Targets 2009; 10(2); 104-9.

Stevenson WG, Friedman PL. In: Hennekens CH, Ed. Clinical trials in cardiovascular disease. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co. 1999; pp. 217-30.

Carlson BM. Human embryology and developmental biology. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby 2004.

Brown AM, Stubbs DW, Eds. Medical physiology. New York: Wiley 1983.

Bengtsson S, Solheim BG. Enforcement of data protection, privacy and security in medical informatics. In: Lun KC, Degoulet P, Piemme TE, Rienhoff O, Eds. MEDINFO 92. Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Medical Informatics; 1992 Sep 6-10; Geneva, Switzerland. Amsterdam: North-Holland 1992; pp. 1561-5.

Kimura J, Shibasaki H, Eds. Recent advances in clinical neurophysiology. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of EMG and Clinical Neurophysiology; 1995 Oct 15-19; Kyoto, Japan. Amsterdam: Elsevier 1996.

Aylin P, Bottle A, Jarman B, Elliott, P. Paediatric cardiac surgical mortality in England after Bristol: descriptive analysis of hospital episode statistics 1991-2002. BMJ [serial on the Internet]. 2004 Oct 9; [cited 2004 October 15]; 329: [about 10 screens]. Available from: bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7470/825

Donaldson MS, Ed. Measuring the quality of health care [monograph on the internet]. Washington: National Academy Press 1999 [cited 2004 Oct 8]. Available from: legacy.netlibrary.com/

HeartCentreOnline [homepage on the Internet]. Boca Raton, FL: HeartCentreOnline, Inc.; c2000-2004 [updated 2004 May 23; cited 2004 Oct 15]. Available from: www.heartcenteronline.com/

If a journal carries continuous pagination throughout the volume, then the issue number can be omitted.

Glauser TA. Integrating clinical trial data into clinical practice. Neurology 2002; 58(12 Suppl 7): S6-12.

Abend SM, Kulish N. The psychoanalytic method from an epistemological viewpoint. Int J Psychoanal 2002; 83(Pt 2): 491-5.

Ahrar K, Madoff DC, Gupta S, Wallace MJ, Price RE, Wright KC. Development of a large animal model for lung tumors. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2002; 13(9 Pt 1): 923-8.

Pagedas AC, inventor; Ancel Surgical R&D Inc., assignee. Flexible endoscopic grasping and cutting device and positioning tool assembly. United States patent US 20020103498. 2002 Aug.

Citations for articles/material published exclusively online or in open access (free-to-view), must contain the exact Web addresses (URLs) at the end of the reference(s), except those posted on an author’s Web site unless editorially essential, e.g. ‘Reference: Available from: URL’.

Some important points to remember:

All references must be complete and accurate.

It is necessary to list all authors if the total number of authors is 6 or less and for more than 6 authors use 3 authors and thenet al. (the term “ et al .” should be in italics).

Date of access should be provided for online citations.

Journal names should be abbreviated according to the Index Medicus/MEDLINE.

Punctuation should be properly applied as mentioned in the examples given above.

Superscript in the in-text citations and reference section should be avoided

Abstracts, unpublished data and personal communications (which can only be included if prior permission has been obtained) should not be given in the references section. The details may however appear in the footnotes.

The authors are encouraged to use a recent version of EndNote (version 5 and above) or Reference Manager (version 10) when formatting their reference list, as this allows references to be automatically extracted.

The source of data and materials should be mentioned in the manuscript, in support of the findings. Sharing research data is integral to its transparency and reproducibility. Data sharing involves the citation and availability of data that support the findings of the research.

Bentham Science encourages authors to share the source of data and materials in the manuscript, in support of the findings.

The four types of research data policies are mentioned below.

Case 1: Data sharing and data citation

Case 2: Data sharing and its evidence

Case 3: Statement for Data sharing and data availability

Case 4: Data sharing, evidence of data sharing and data for peer-review

Wherever appropriate and possible, the journal encourages authors to publish data to support their research findings in a public repository. Any datasets mentioned in the article that are available in external repositories should be cited.

How to Cite the Data?

Whether the data was developed by the author(s) or researcher(s), all publicly available data referenced in the preparation of an article should be cited in the text and reference list. The references relating to the data availability should be presented in the following format:

Example: Name of author(s), the title of data set, data repository, document version (e.g., most recent updated version), Digital Object Identifier (DOI), and Bentham Science reference style should be included in data citations.

When authors submit a paper to a journal, the authors agree that the data provided in the publication, including the relevant raw data, will be freely available to any researcher who wants to use these for non-commercial reasons without jeopardising participant anonymity.

Data availability declarations are required under Bentham Science research data policy types.

The statement relating to the data availability should be presented in the following format under a separate section for ‘Availability of Data and Materials’ in the manuscript:

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary materials.

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [author initials], on special request.

The datasets generated or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to [mention the reason(s)].

Authors who do not wish to share their data should clearly state that the data will not be shared, and thus mention as ‘Not applicable’.

The statement relating to the data should be presented in the following format:

"The data supporting the findings of the article is available in the [repository name] at [URL], reference number [reference number]”.

Additional Data Availability Statements

Authors can add or change the statement(s) above, to fit their work the best. Depending on the nature of the research, several assertions may need to be merged.

All datasets on which the paper's conclusions are based must be made accessible to reviewers and readers, according to the journal's rules. Prior to peer review, authors must either deposit their datasets in publicly accessible repositories or provide them as supplementary materials with their submission. For further details, please visit complete guidelines at: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-andeditorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html

Authors may provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data. if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

The Authors are encouraged to use industry-recognized reporting guidelines for biomedical and biological research, if applicable, to explain that all requirements for reporting have been adopted.

All authors must strictly follow the reporting guidelines below for preparing the study for publication.

CONSORT: All randomized clinical trials must include a flow diagram and authors should provide a completed randomized trial checklist (see CONSORT Flow Diagram and Checklist; www.consort-statement.org ) and a trial protocol. For further details, please visit complete guidelines at: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html

STARD and TRIPOD: Studies of diagnostic accuracy must be reported according to STARD guidelines; ( www.stard-statement.org ) and TRIPOD guidelines; ( www.tripod-statement.org )

STROBE: Observational studies (cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional designs) must be reported according to the STROBE statement, and should be submitted with their protocols; ( www.strobe-statement.org ).

CARE: Case report must be reported according to CARE guidelines; ( www.care-statement.org )

COREQ: Qualitative research must be reported according to COREQ guidelines; ( academic.oup.com/intqhc/article/19/6/349/1791966 )

CHEERS: Economic evaluations must be reported according to CHEERS guidelines; ( www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f1049 )

STREGA: Genetic association studies must be reported according to STREGA guidelines; ( www.medicine.uottawa.ca )

PRISMA: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses must be reported according to PRISMA guidelines; ( www.prisma-statement.org )

MOOSE: Meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology must be reported according to MOOSE guidelines ( http://www.ijo.in/documents/14MOOSE_SS.pdf )

EQUATOR: To find the reporting guidelines see ( www.equator-network.org )

All authors must strictly follow the guidelines below for preparing illustrations for publication in Current Drug Research Reviews . If the figures are found to be sub-standard, then the manuscripts will be rejected.

The authors are expected to submit good quality figure(s) in PDF, PPT, MS Word, TIFF or JPEG versions, which, if required, should be improved yourself or by professional graphic designers of your organization/country. You may even consider approaching our contracted service provider Eureka Science for Graphics Enhancement Services.

The Graphics Designing team at Eureka Science can assist in improving the quality of your images at affordable rates. Eureka Science has offered special rates of US $155 for the improvement of up to five figures, with any additional figures being charged at US $25 each.

The quality of Graphic Enhancement Services offered by Eureka Science can be viewed at http://www.eureka-science.com/images/Binder1.pdf , along with valuable feedback on their services at http://www.eureka-science.com/testimonials.php . You may contact Eureka Science at [email protected]

Note: Availing Graphics Enhancement Services does not guarantee acceptance of the manuscript for publication. The final acceptance/decision on the manuscript is taken by the EiC.

Illustrations must be provided according to the following guideline:

Illustrations should be embedded in the text file, and must be numbered consecutively in the order of their appearance. Each figure should include only a single illustration which should be cropped to minimize the amount of space occupied by the illustration.

If a figure is in separate parts, all parts of the figure must be provided in a single composite illustration file.

Photographs should be provided with a scale bar if appropriate, as well as high-resolution component files.

All the numbers, symbols and letters in figures should be consistent and clear throughout and large enough to remain readable when the size is reduced for publication.

It must be ensured to cite each figure in the text in sequence.

Line Art image type is normally an image based on lines and text. It does not contain tonal or shaded areas. The preferred file format should be TIFF or EPS, with the color mode being Monochrome 1-bit or RGB, in a resolution of 900-1200 dpi.

Halftone image type is a continuous tone photograph containing no text. It should have the preferred file format TIFF, with color mode being RGB or Grayscale, in a resolution of 300 dpi.

Combination image type is an image containing halftone , text or line art elements. It should have the preferred file format TIFF, with color mode being RGB or Grayscale, in a resolution of 500-900 dpi.

Illustrations may be submitted in the following file formats:

Illustrator

EPS (preferred format for diagrams)

PDF (also especially suitable for diagrams)

PNG (preferred format for photos or images)

Microsoft Word (version 5 and above; figures must be a single page)

PowerPoint (figures must be a single page)

JPEG (conversion should be done using the original file)

CDX (ChemDraw)

TGF (ISISDraw)

Bentham Science does not process figures submitted in GIF format.

For TIFF or EPS figures with considerably large file size restricting the file size in online submissions is advisable. Authors may therefore convert to JPEG format before submission as this results in significantly reduced file size and upload time, while retaining acceptable quality. JPEG is a ‘lossy’ format. However, in order to maintain acceptable image quality, it is recommended that JPEG files are saved at High or Maximum quality.

Zipit or Stuffit tools should not be used to compress files prior to submission as the resulting compression through these tools is always negligible.

Please refrain from supplying:

Graphics embedded in word processor (spreadsheet, presentation) document.

Optimized files optimized for screen use (like GIF, BMP, PICT, WPG) because of the low resolution.

Files with too low a resolution.

Graphics that are disproportionately large for the content.

There are many software packages, many of them freeware or shareware, capable of converting to and from different graphics formats, including PNG.

General tools for image conversion include Graphic Converter on the Macintosh, Paint Shop Pro, for Windows, and ImageMagick, available on Macintosh, Windows and UNIX platforms

Bitmap images (e.g. screenshots) should not be converted to EPS as they result in a much larger file size than the equivalent JPEG, TIFF, PNG or BMP, and poor quality. EPS should only be used for images produced by vector-drawing applications such as Adobe Illustrator or CorelDraw. Most vector-drawing applications can be saved in, or exported as, EPS format. If the images were originally prepared in an Office application, such as Word or PowerPoint, original Office files should be directly uploaded to the site, instead of being converted to JPEG or another format of low quality.

The cost for color figures/plates/illustrations is US $660 per article for up to 3 colour pages and subsequently US $260 per page for any additional colour pages.

Color figures should be supplied in CMYK and not RGB colors.

Note for authors To maintain publication quality, figures submitted in colour will be published in colour only.

Chemical structures must be prepared in ChemDraw/CDX and provided as separate file.

[As according to the ACS style sheet]

Data Tables should be submitted in Microsoft Word table format.

Each table should include a title/caption being explanatory in itself with respect to the details discussed in the table. Detailed legends may then follow.

Table number in bold font i.e . Table 1 , should follow a title. The title should be in small case with the first letter in caps. A full stop should be placed at the end of the title.

Tables should be embedded in the text exactly according to their appropriate placement in the submitted manuscript.

Columns and rows of data should be made visibly distinct by ensuring that the borders of each cell are displayed as black lines.

Tables should be numbered in Arabic numerals sequentially in order of their citation in the body of the text.

If a reference is cited in both the table and text, please insert a lettered footnote in the table to refer to the numbered reference in the text.

Tabular data provided as additional files can be submitted as an Excel spreadsheet.

It is adequate to present data in Tables to avoid unnecessary repetition and reduce the length of the text.

The citation of each table in the text must be ensured.

Symbols and nonstandard abbreviations should be explained in the end of the text.

All references should be numbered sequentially [in square brackets] in the table and listed in the same numerical order in the reference section.

Bentham Science Publishers requires that all individuals listed as authors must have made a substantial contribution to the design, performance, analysis, or reporting of the work. The role of authors is judged on the basis of ICMJE and COPE guidelines.

All contributing authors are required to sign a copyright letter, mentioning complete details, including full name, affiliation, email address, ORCID ID and their role in the article. After successful electronic submission of a manuscript, a system-generated acknowledgements will be sent to all authors on their provided email addresses.

The corresponding author must have the approval of all other listed authors for the submission and publication of all versions of the manuscript.

Authors are strongly recommended to use their ORCID ID when submitting an article for consideration. Alternatively, they can acquire an ORCID ID via the submission process. For more information about ORCID IDs, visit here.

At the time of initial submission, the finalized list of authors in the correct sequence should be provided, which will not be changed once the publication process starts.

In exceptional cases, requests for the addition/deletion of an author may be considered by the publisher subject to a) written approval from all co-authors and b) a strong justification (which may or may not be accepted by the Publisher).

Here is some advice from COPE on authorship issues. Bentham strives to follow these guidelines.

Advice on how to spot authorship problems

Corresponding author requests addition of extra author before publication

Corresponding author requests removal of the author before publication

Request for addition of extra author after publication

Request for removal of author after publication

Bentham Science Publishers recognizes that authors use a variety of tools for preparing articles related to their scientific works, ranging from simple ones to very sophisticated ones.

According to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines, "AI tools cannot meet the requirements for authorship as they cannot take responsibility for the submitted work. As non-legal entities, they cannot assert the presence or absence of conflicts of interest nor manage copyright and license agreements" .

The pertinence of such tools may vary and evolve with public opinion, due to which the use of AI-powered language tools has led to a significant debate. These tools may generate useful results, but they can also lead to errors or misleading results; therefore, it is important to know which tools were used for evaluating and interpreting a particular scientific work.

Considering the above we require that:

• The authors to report any significant use of such tools in their works, such as instruments and software along with text-to-text generative AI consistent with subject standards for methodology.
• All co-authors should sign a declaration that they take full responsibility for all of its contents, regardless of how the contents were generated. Inappropriate language, plagiarized and biased contents, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, or misleading content generated by AI language tools and the relevant results reported in scientific works are the full and shared responsibility of all the authors, including co-authors.
• AI language tools should not be listed as an author; instead, authors should follow clause (1) above.

Activities such as the acquisition of funding, general supervision of a research group or general administrative support, writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, and proofreading alone do not qualify any contributor for authorship. Such contributors may be acknowledged individually or together as a group in the acknowledgement section. Further details for writing acknowledgements are available here. Persons not meeting authorship criteria can be acknowledged in the acknowledgement section of the article rather than being enlisted as authors.

All contributing authors should contribute substantially to the article and sign the copyright letter. Bentham Science Publishers discourages authorship based solely on position (e.g., a research supervisor or a departmental head). We use COPE guidelines for identifying any suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship.

Authors should seek professional assistance for the correction of grammatical, scientific, and typographical errors before submission of the revised version of the article for publication.

You may use the professional editing services of our nominated English Language editing organizations TopEdit or Eureka Science .

Please note that we accept a language certificate, only from one of the above two language editing organizations.

Authors will receive page proofs of their accepted paper before publications. To avoid delays in publication, proofs should be checked immediately for typographical errors and returned within 48 hours . Major changes are not acceptable at the proof stage.

The corresponding author will be solely responsible for ensuring that the revised version of the manuscript incorporating all the submitted corrections receives the approval of all the co-authors of the manuscript.

For published research articles, reviews and mini-reviews, the publication charges are US $190 .

For thematic issues, authors will be entitled to a 20% discount on the listed page charges.

For this journal, an optional fast publication fee-based service called QUICK TRACK is available to authors for their submitted manuscripts.

QUICK TRACK allows online publication within 2 weeks of receipt of the final approved galley proofs from the authors. Similarly, the manuscript can be published in the next forthcoming PRINT issue of the journal. The total publication time, from date of first receipt of manuscript to its online publication is 12 weeks, subject to its acceptance by the referees and modification (if any) by the authors within one week.

The author will be initially charged a small fee on receipt of the agreement form for Quick Track publication to partially cover the initial costs incurred for expedited processing of the submitted manuscript. Later, the full Quick Track publication fee ( US $765 per article charges) will be payable in advance, after acceptance of the manuscript, before online publication of the article. However, if the article is rejected at the peer-review stage, then the US $765 per article charges will not be charged.

Please note that whether the author opts for the QUICK TRACK facility or not, standard reviewing practices will be followed, which will not in any way affect the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript by the reviewers.

Authors who have availed QUICK TRACK services in a BSP journal will be entitled for an exclusive 30% discount if they again wish to avail the same services in any Bentham journal.

For more information, please contact the Editorial Office by e-mail at [email protected] .

Bentham Science offers a 50% discount off the Quick Track Publication Fee for manuscripts of all corresponding authors who reside in countries which are categorized as low-income economies by the World Bank. To see if you qualify to the discount, please refer to the complete list of these countries click here .

Bentham Science offers three major services related to its publications:

• Subscription services (to subscribers, institutes, libraries, customers, etc.): Involving access to published content based on certain charges for corporates, academic institutes, and individuals.
• Editorial/Author Pre-publication services (to editors, authors, etc.): Quick track processing, language editing, etc.
• Editorial/Author Post-publication Promotional Services (to authors, institutions and organizations): Open Access Plus, Animated Abstracts, Sharing PDF on KUDOS, reprints, etc.

Since these services are optional in nature and are offered for specific services rendered, hence refunds are not allowed against the availed and charged services, except under special cases.

Bentham Science also offers authors the choice of “Open Access Plus (Gold Open Access)” publication of articles at a fee of US $1075 per article.

The Article Processing Charges (APC) for articles published within thematic issues is US $588 .

This paid service allows authors to disseminate their work to a much wider audience in compliance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode ). Under this license, authors are asked to indicate whether they wish to pay for the service in order to make their article more widely available on an “Open Access Plus (Gold Open Access)” basis. Where an author does not opt-in for this paid service, the article will be published under the standard subscription-based mode.

Authors who select the “Quick Track” publication option and also wish to have their article made available on an “Open Access Plus (Gold Open Access)” basis will be entitled to a 50% discount on the “Open Access Plus (Gold Open Access)” publication fee.

Free of Charge: Articles submitted between January 01 st to August 31 st , 2019 will be published as Open Access.

For more information please contact us at e-mail: [email protected]

Bentham Science offers a 50% discount off the Open Access Plus (Gold Open Access) Fee for manuscripts of all corresponding authors who reside in countries which are categorized as low-income economies by the World Bank. To see if you qualify to the discount, please refer to the complete list of these countries click here .

Printed reprints and e-prints may be ordered from the Publisher prior to publication of the article. First named authors may also order a personal online subscription of the journal at 50% off the normal subscription rate by contacting the subscription department at e-mail: [email protected] .

Extend the scope and visibility of your research by creating an animated abstract. Bentham Science has collaborated with Focus Medica, one of the world’s largest publishers of expert animated atlases and videos in medicine and science.

An animated abstract will help summarise the essential discoveries/ key findings of your published research or review article. Each professionally produced full-coloured animated abstract in video format (length 3 – 5 minutes) is accompanied by an English spoken or foreign language commentary. The animated abstract will be published online along with the published article.

The payment for an animated abstract will be US $1320 . Initially, an advance amount of US $800 will be payable to the Publisher to start work on the Animated Abstract, while the balance of US $520 will be payable on completion of the Animated Abstract.

Authors who opt for the “Animated Abstract” option and also wish to have their article made available on an “Open Access Plus (Gold Open Access)” basis will be entitled to a 50% discount only on the Animated Abstract fee and, in addition, pay the normal Open Access Plus (Gold Open Access) fee.

Authors will be asked whether they wish to opt-in for this paid animated abstract service, and if not, the article will be published as normal. Animated abstracts are available as open access (free viewing) for maximum visibility and awareness to readers at anytime, anywhere. The animated abstracts are licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

For a sample of an animated abstract please access here www.benthamscience.com/pages/animated-abstract-video

Bentham Science offers discounts to those corresponding authors who are based in low-income countries*.

The authors who wish to avail this offer should request for a discount at the time of submission of their manuscripts to Bentham Science.

Bentham Science offers 50% discount on the Open Access Plus (Gold Open Access) Fee and Quick Track Fee for manuscripts of the corresponding authors based in countries categorized as low-income economies by World Bank (list given below).

For any query or suggestion, please contact us on [email protected] .

• Afghanistan
• Central African Republic
• Congo, Rep.
• Guinea-Bissau
• Marshall Islands
• Sierra Leone
• Yemen, Rep.
• Côte d'Ivoire

All papers submitted to Bentham Science for publication are immediately subjected to preliminary editorial scrutiny by the Editorial Staff and Editor-in-Chief in connection with their suitability. The Editor-in-Chief determines if the manuscript:

(a) falls within the scope of the journal and

(b) meets the editorial criteria of Bentham Science Publishers in terms of originality and quality.

Manuscripts that appear to be suitable are then subjected to double-blind peer review by, usually two to three, neutral eminent experts. The services of eminent international experts are sought through invitations to conduct the peer review of a submitted manuscript, keeping in view the scope of the manuscript and the expertise of the reviewers. The identities of both the reviewer and author are kept undisclosed to each other, ensuring anonymity and maintaining confidentiality throughout the entire review procedure. The anonymity of reviewers ensures an objective and unbiased assessment of the manuscript by the reviewers.

Before sending the manuscripts to reviewers, Bentham Science seeks consent from potential reviewers about their availability and willingness to review. Correspondence between the editorial office of the journal and the reviewers is kept confidential. The reviewers are expected to provide their reports in a timely fashion since a prompt review leads to the timely publication of a manuscript which is beneficial not only to the authors but to the scientific community as well.

The editorial process and peer-review workflow for each journal are taken care of by a team of Senior Editors, Editorial Board Members (EBMs) and dedicated Journal managers who have the required expertise in their specific fields.

Bentham Science Publishers carries out independent reviews of all articles. The reviewers are selected according to their expertise, from our, regularly updated, referee database.

On the basis of reviewer comments, the Editors may recommend acceptance, revision or rejection of a manuscript.

After a review of the manuscript by at least two or three independent experts, in addition to the views of the Editor, the decision is relayed to the authors, which may be categorized as:

Requires minor changes

Requires major changes

Rejected with no resubmission

If an article receives two contradictory reports, the Editor-in-Chief retains the right to request additional comments and the discretion to make the final decision without waiting for additional reports, taking into consideration the content and conclusions presented in all reports. This proactive approach ensures promptness in conveying the Editor's decision, thereby facilitating swift communication with the author.

Bentham Science requests not to have the manuscripts peer-reviewed by those experts who may have competing interest with the author(s) of a submitted manuscript. It is not possible for Editors to be aware of all competing interests; it is therefore expected that the reviewers would inform the Editor-in-Chief/Handling Editor if they notice any potential competing interest during the course of review of a manuscript. Moreover, the reviewers are expected to inform the Editors or editorial office of the journal if they have a conflict of interest in carrying out the review of a manuscript submitted by any author/contributor of the manuscript.

The authors are usually requested to resubmit the revised paper within 15 days and it will then be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation. The publishers normally allow one round of revision and, in exceptional cases, a second round of revision may be allowed. If further revision is needed, then the manuscript is rejected and the author is requested to resubmit the manuscript for fresh processing.

The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection is that of the Editor-in-Chief, depending on the quality of the revision and his assessment of the quality of the manuscript. In rare cases, manuscripts recommended for publication by the referees may be rejected in the final assessment by the Editor-in-Chief.

The time frame for revision of any article may vary from one to four weeks, depending on the nature of the revision required (minor or major). However, authors who need extra time for revision should consult the Editor-in-Chief/Handling Editor with valid reasons and the submission date of the revised manuscript may be extended if the request is genuine.

After the successful completion of the review and acceptance of the article, the articles are typeset and proofs are dispatched to authors for any corrections prior to final publication.

All peer-reviewing will be conducted via the Internet to facilitate rapid reviewing of the submitted manuscripts. Every possible effort will be made to assess the manuscripts quickly with the decision being conveyed to the authors in due course.

Plagiarism means copying or paraphrasing another writer's content, be it a text, a result or an observation, and stating it as one's own, without citing a reference to the original source. Therefore, authors should acknowledge and cite references to the work of other scientists in their manuscripts. The author should ensure that all the sources are authentic and that there is no discrepancy in the content of the manuscript.

Bentham Science is vigilant in checking and identifying the primary sources of the data within the content by using the iThenticate software to detect instances of overlapping and similarity of text in submitted manuscripts. iThenticate software verifies the content against a database of periodicals, materials on the Internet, and a comprehensive article database. The software generates a similarity report in percentage that matches the article in process and the published material. This similarity is further scrutinized for suspected plagiarism according to the publisher's Editorial Policies. The generated report comprises the overall percentage of the content reused.

The study of an author has to be original. If there are credible sources of the content referred to in the manuscript, the author needs to cite all of them. Authors are advised to use iThenticate before submitting a manuscript to ensure that there are no instances of plagiarism. Authors are required to provide proper consent from the individuals and contributions of other authors should be acknowledged.

Bentham Science has different editorial policies for authors who have more than one publication. Following those policies, the authors need to specify the sources of the submission in their recent work. For further details, please visit the following link of Editorial Policies for Concurrent Publication/Simultaneous Submission at https://benthamscience.com/pages/editorial-policies-main

Bentham Science strictly follows COPE guidelines to detect plagiarism. For clearer insight, authors may refer to the flowcharts provided by COPE by clicking here or visiting the COPE website.

To ensure the scholarly integrity of every article, Bentham Science will publish post-publication notices. The authors of the published articles, or those who have submitted the manuscripts with false information, or fabricated the supporting data or images, will be liable for sanctions, and their papers will be retracted. For further details, please visit complete guidelines at: https://www.benthamscience.com/fabricating-stating-false-information

Bentham Science is a publishing partner of Kudos. All authors who publish in this journal will receive an invitation to join the Kudos platform, an entirely free service for authors. Kudos enables authors to help broaden their audience and readers, increase their professional profile and reputation, and establish an impact for their publications. The website link is www.growkudos.com .

Kudos provides a free platform to researchers to have their publications accessible, read and cited across multiple networks and channels available to researchers for the dissemination of their work. It takes on average 15 minutes and leads to 23% higher growth in full-text downloads.

Authors are encouraged to explain their work in clear English and to attract researchers of the relevant communities, share a trackable link that you can email to your existing network of contacts, or share on social media and academic websites, and track how well the articles are performing through the summary of views, downloads, citations, and altmetrics on the Kudos dashboard.

Authors may also use the new shareable PDF (S-PDF) service. The S-PDF provides researchers with the means to write and share a high-level overview for each of their publications. Kudos thereby provides researchers, and their publishers and institutions, with a rich understanding of which channels and activities are most effective for broadening the reach and impact of published science.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) is an advisory body that ensures the highest standards of editorial practice in scholarly publishing, by providing guidance to editors and publishers in all aspects of publication ethics.

Current Drug Research Reviews is committed to upholding ethical standards in scholarly publishing. This journal is affiliated with COPE and adheres to its guidelines. To learn more about COPE guidelines, visit COPE website .

Bentham Science Publishers is pleased to offer electronic publication of accepted papers prior to scheduled publication. These peer-reviewed papers can be cited using the date of access and the unique DOI number. Any final changes in manuscripts will be made at the time of print publication and will be reflected in the final electronic version of the issue. Articles ahead of schedule may be ordered by pay-per-view at the relevant links by each article stated via the E-Pub Ahead of Schedule

Articles appearing in E-Pub Ahead-of-Schedule sections have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in this journal and posted online before scheduled publication. Articles appearing here may contain statements, opinions, and information that have errors in facts, figures, or interpretation. Accordingly, Bentham Science Publishers, the editors, authors and their respective employees are not responsible or liable for the use of any such inaccurate or misleading data, opinion or information contained of articles in the E-Pub Ahead-of-Schedule.

Generally, the editorial decisions are not reverted. However, authors who think that their manuscript was rejected due to a misunderstanding or mistake may seek an explanation for the decision. Appeals must give sound reasoning and compelling evidence against the criticism raised in the rejection letter. A difference of opinion as to the interest, novelty, or suitability of the manuscript for the journal will not be considered as an appeal. The EIC and other relevant editors will consider the appeal and the decision thereafter taken by the journal will be deemed final. Acceptance of the manuscript is not guaranteed even if the journal agrees to reconsider the manuscript, and the reconsideration process may involve previous or new reviewers or editors and substantive revision.

Authors who wish to make a complaint should refer them to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal concerned. Complaints to the Publisher may be emailed to [email protected]

• About Journal
• Editorial Board
• Current Issue
• Volumes /Issues
• Author Guidelines
• Graphical Abstracts
• Fabricating and Stating False Information
• Research Misconduct
• Post Publication Discussions and Corrections
• Publishing Ethics and Rectitude
• Increase Visibility of Your Article
• Archiving Policies
• Peer Review Workflow
• Order Your Article Before Print
• Promote Your Article
• Manuscript Transfer Facility
• Editorial Policies
• Allegations from Whistleblowers
• Forthcoming Thematic Issues
• Guest Editor Guidelines
• Editorial Management
• Ethical Guidelines for New Editors
• Reviewer Guidelines
• Abstract Ahead of Print 0
• Article(s) in Press 49
• Free Online Copy
• Most Cited Articles
• Most Accessed Articles
• Highlighted Article
• Most Popular Articles
• Editor's Choice
• Thematic Issues
• Open Access Articles
• Open Access Funding
• Library Recommendation
• Trial Requests
• Advertise With Us
• Meet the Executive Guest Editor(s)
• Brand Ambassador
• Author's Comment & Reviews
• New Journals 2023
• New Journals 2024
• Alert Subscription

Biography of

Emerging Drug Trends

• Emerging drugs, which include designer drugs and new psychoactive substances , are substances that have appeared or become more popular in the drug market in recent years.
• Emerging drugs have unpredictable health effects . They may be as powerful or more powerful than existing drugs, and may be fatal.
• Because drug markets change quickly, NIDA supports the National Drug Early Warning System (NDEWS) , which tracks emerging substances. NIDA also advances the science on emerging drugs by supporting research on their use and on their health effects.

What are emerging drugs?

Emerging drugs are mind-altering substances that have become more common in recent years. They may be sold in drug markets or at convenience stores and online. Since 2013, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has identified more than 1,000 emerging drugs worldwide. 1

These substances, which include designer drugs and new psychoactive substances , come from many sources. Some were first developed as potential treatments or research chemicals. Others originate in illicit labs and are created to mimic the effects of drugs regulated under the Controlled Substances Act . These emerging substances often produce similar effects and/or are chemically similar to illegal or prescription opioids, stimulants, benzodiazapines (“benzos”), or other existing types of drugs.

People may seek out these drugs for recreation or use them to self-medicate without medical supervision. They may also be added to other drugs without a buyer knowing it. As a result, the health effects of emerging drugs are largely unknown, potentially posing a public health threat and contributing to the overdose crisis . 2,3

NIDA monitors emerging drug trends through its Designer Drug Research Unit and through support for the National Drug Early Warning System (NDEWS) , which tracks drug-related emergency calls.

What are the effects of emerging drugs?

An emerging drug’s effects depend on the type of substance it is—for instance, if it is a new type of opioid , depressant , synthetic cannabinoid , psychedelic , or stimulant. Its effects may be unpredictable and unwanted, especially if it is an unknown ingredient in another drug. A person may not know what substance or substances they have really taken. And because these substances are new to the drug market, clinicians or researchers may not know their effects or how potent (powerful) they are until people begin to visit emergency departments or clinics with symptoms of negative health effects. 4

In addition, emerging substances are usually not included in emergency department drug tests and are not routinely included in the toxicology tests used after a fatal overdose. The delay in this data means there is also a delay in understanding how widespread use of the drug is, why and how these drugs have their effects, and how to care for people who experience negative effects of those substances.

NIDA researchers and grantees collaborate to identify how these emerging drugs work and their potential health effects, including those that have the potential to impact the overdose crisis. NIDA also supports the National Drug Early Warning System (NDEWS) to track emerging substances and their impact on drug-related emergency calls.

What are nitazenes?

Nitazenes are a class of lab-made (synthetic) opioids that may be as powerful or more powerful than fentanyl. 4   They were developed in research labs in the 1950s as potential pain relievers but never marketed. Nitazenes are most often sold as a white powder or tablets. People may not be aware that they have taken nitazenes, as they may be added to other substances, including fentanyl, heroin, and benzodiazepines. 5

Nitazenes began to re-emerge in the drug supply in 2019, after the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration banned fentanyl-related substances. 6,7 Researchers and authorities are monitoring nitazenes, including isotonitazene, protonitazene, etonitazene, N-piperidinyl etonitazene, and metonitazene. Many nitazenes are listed as Schedule 1 drugs under the Controlled Substances Act. 

Like all opioids , nitazenes can slow breathing, blood pressure, and heart rate to dangerously low levels, potentially contributing to overdose . Preliminary NIDA-supported research shows that the opioid overdose reversal medication naloxone is effective with isonitazene, metonitazene, and etonitazene, though it may require repeated doses. More research is needed to confirm these findings with additional nitazenes and in larger groups of people. Fentanyl test strips do not detect nitazenes.

What is tianeptine?

Tianeptine is an antidepressant medication that is not approved for use in the United States. NIDA-funded research suggests that most people take tianeptine in dietary supplements marketed as cognitive enhancers or nootropics, often sold in convenience stores and online. It may be blended with or taken at the same time as other nootropics (like phenibut and racetams) and is also used with substances such as kratom , kava, and gabapentin.

Tianeptine is not an opioid but at high doses it can have opioid-like effects, such as dangerous drops in blood pressure, heart rate, or breathing rate. Research shows that other effects include problems with brain, heart, and digestive function.

Research has shown that tianeptine can cause symptoms of a substance use disorder, including tolerance—which is when you need to take more of a drug for it to have the same level of effect—and withdrawal. Withdrawal from tianeptine has been associated with pain and problems with brain, heart, and digestive function. Early evidence suggests that tianeptine-related substance use disorder can be treated with medications for opioid use disorder , such as buprenorphine. 8

What are new psychoactive substances?

“New psychoactive substances” is a term used to describe lab-made compounds created to skirt existing drug laws . The category may include medications created by pharmaceutical companies or researchers that were never meant to reach the public .

These substances belong to a number of drug classes:

• Synthetic opioids. These drugs are chemically different from existing lab-made opioids like fentanyl . They include brorphine and U-47700. Researchers first identified brorphine in the unregulated drug supply in 2018. New synthetic opioids may slow breathing, blood pressure, and heart rate to dangerously low levels, potentially contributing to overdose. Emerging opioids can be as powerful or more powerful than fentanyl, which itself is 50 to 100 times more powerful than morphine.
• Synthetic cannabinoids , sometimes called “K2” or “Spice.” Lab-made cannabinoids are chemically similar to the cannabis plant but may have very different effects. Newer synthetic cannabinoids include ADMB-5,Br-BUTINACA and MDMB-4en-PINACA. MDMB-4en-PINACA has been associated with hallucinations, paranoia, and confusion. These substances have been found in people who died from accidental overdose. 9
• Synthetic cathinones , also known as “Bath Salts.” Lab-made cathinones are stimulants that are chemically related to, but not derived from, the khat plant. People sometimes take synthetic cathinones as a less expensive alternative to other stimulants, but cathinones have also been found as an added ingredient in other recreational drugs. Emerging cathinones include eutylone, N,N-dimethylpentylone (dipentylone), and pentylone. These substances have been found in people who died from overdose. 10
• Synthetic benzodiazapines. Benzodiazapenes are a class of lab-made depressants that include prescription medications such as diazepam (sometimes sold as Valium), alprazolam (sometimes sold as Xanax), and clonazepam (sometimes sold as Klonopin). Recent data show that new versions of recreationally manufactured bezodiazapines include bromazolam, disalkylgidazepam, and flubromazepam. 11

How does NIDA support research into emerging drugs?

NIDA supports research tracking the emergence of new drugs into the unregulated drug supply, including via the National Drug Early Warning System (NDEWS) , collaboration with other researchers, partners around the world, and social media. The Institute studies or supports research on changes in the lab-made drug supply and how these emerging substances work in the brain, as well as their health effects and potential as therapeutic treatments.

NIDA also researches ways to prevent substance use and misuse , and studies whether and how harm reduction methods may prevent, reverse, or reduce rates of overdose.

Latest from NIDA

Law enforcement seizures of psilocybin mushrooms rose dramatically between 2017-2022

Can science keep up with designer drugs?

Xylazine appears to worsen the life-threatening effects of opioids in rats

Find more resources on emerging drugs.

• See recent data on Overdose Rates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 
• Stay up to date on new and emerging substances at the National Drug Early Warning System website
• Early warning advisory on new psychoactive substances. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Accessed April 15, 2024. https://www.unodc.org/LSS/Page/NPS
• Singh VM, Browne T, Montgomery J. The emerging role of toxic adulterants in street drugs in the US illicit opioid crisis . Public Health Rep . 2020;135(1):6-10. doi:10.1177/0033354919887741
• Gladden RM, Chavez-Gray V, O'Donnell J, Goldberger BA. Notes from the field: overdose deaths involving eutylone (psychoactive bath salts) - United States, 2020 . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep . 2022;71(32):1032-1034. Published 2022 Aug 12. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7132a3
• Pergolizzi J Jr, Raffa R, LeQuang JAK, Breve F, Varrassi G. Old drugs and new challenges: A narrative review of nitazenes . Cureus . 2023;15(6):e40736. Published 2023 Jun 21. doi:10.7759/cureus.40736
• Ujváry I, Christie R, Evans-Brown M, et al. DARK classics in chemical neuroscience: Etonitazene and related benzimidazoles . ACS Chem Neurosci . 2021;12(7):1072-1092. doi:10.1021/acschemneuro.1c00037
• Benzimidazole opioids, other name: nitazenes. Drug Enforcement Agency. Issued January 2024. Accessed April 15, 2024. https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drug_chem_info/benzimidazole-opioids.pdf
• Papsun DM, Krotulski AJ, Logan BK. Proliferation of novel synthetic opioids in postmortem investigations after core-structure scheduling for fentanyl-related substances . Am J Forensic Med Pathol . 2022;43(4):315-327. doi:10.1097/PAF.0000000000000787
• Trowbridge P, Walley AY. Use of buprenorphine-naloxone in the treatment of tianeptine use disorder . J Addict Med . 2019;13(4):331-333. doi:10.1097/ADM.0000000000000490
• Simon G, Kuzma M, Mayer M, Petrus K, Tóth D. Fatal overdose with the cannabinoid receptor agonists MDMB-4en-PINACA and 4F-ABUTINACA: A case report and review of the literature . Toxics . 2023;11(8):673. Published 2023 Aug 5. doi:10.3390/toxics11080673
• Ehlers PF, Deitche A, Wise LM, et al. Notes from the field: Seizures, hyperthermia, and myocardial injury in three young adults who consumed bromazolam disguised as alprazolam - Chicago, Illinois, February 2023 . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep . 2024;72(5253):1392-1393. Published 2024 Jan 5. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm725253a5