“i’d Like to Think I’d be Able to Spot one”: How Journalists Navigate Predatory Journals

Abstract

Predatory journals—or journals that prioritize profits over editorial and publication best practices—are becoming more common, raising concerns about the integrity of the scholarly record. Such journals also pose a threat for the integrity of science journalism, as journalists may unwillingly report on low-quality or even highly flawed studies published in these venues. This study sheds light on how journalists navigate this challenging publishing landscape through a qualitative analysis of interviews with 23 health, science, and environmental journalists from Europe and North America about their perceptions of predatory journals and strategies for ensuring the journals they report on are trustworthy. We find that journalists have relatively limited awareness and/or concern about predatory journals. Much of this attitude is due to confidence in their established practices for avoiding problematic research, which largely centre on perceptions of journal prestige, reputation, and familiarity, as well as writing quality and professionalism. Most express limited awareness of how their trust heuristics may discourage them from reporting on smaller, newer, and open access journals, especially those based in the Global South. We discuss implications for the accuracy and diversity of the science news that reaches the public.