Priorities in journal selection for authors, reviewers, editors, librarians and science funders

With this Forum contribution I wish to shed light on the problematic developments in scientific publishing resulting from the strong push of science funders towards gold open access (OA). This has given rise to numerous “predatory” journals, that maximise profit at the expense of scientific quality. With a bibliometric analysis in the field of ecology I demonstrate that over the period 2014–2022 the publication numbers in “predatory” OA journals have grown exponentially (+44% annually), while in all other journal types, article numbers were stagnating or even decreasing since a few years. Then I highlight how different OA publication models from society-owned journals to publisher-owned “predatory” journals, differ in the prices authors pay and how the income is split between effective costs, pure profit and money transferred back to science. To help with the recognition of the different journal types, I provide a list journals in the fields of ecology and organismal botany that are owned by academic societies, as well as a list of criteria to recognize “predatory” journals. Authors, reviewers and editors should consider carefully where they submit papers or provide volunteer service. My suggestion is to prioritize society-owned journals, while avoiding cooperation with “predatory” journals. Science funders and libraries have played a major role in the negative developments reviewed in this paper, but at the same time they have the capacity to change the course, mainly by two steps: In the short term they should link the payment of article processing charges (APCs) to strict quality criteria, while in the medium term, they should overcome the gold OA system towards a diamond OA system that would avoid the inflation of low-quality publications and remove barriers not only from readers, but also from authors, while at the same time likely reducing the overall costs