An epistemological framework to appreciate the limits of predatory publishing

Konstantinos G. Papageorgiou, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Demetrios E. Lekkas


The concept of “predatory” publishing, despite many studies of the phenomenon, continues to be unclear. This paper visualizes this topic through an epistemological perspective, claiming that these limitations emerge from an impressionism of idealization, the entrapment of cause and effect induced by a journalology-based perspective, and entrenched fantasized extraction, imagination and divination of what constitutes the truth, in essence, a path never followed by an epistēmōn. Reality, proof, verification, recorded observations and their interpretations have been pivoted to fit the theoretical flavor of the day, an entity one day being predatory, the next not. Perhaps ephemeral judgements of predatory have been built on boundless disregard for common sense. Yet, these have led to scientists’ apotheosis, almost oblivious of the intangibility of “valid”, or the infinitesimal continuum of “predatory”. Perhaps their fault-ridden authoritarian argumentative disabilities is at fault.

Full Text:



Al-Khatib, A., Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2019). Is biomedical research protected from predatory reviewers? Science and Engineering Ethics 25(1): 293–321.

Beall, J. (2016). Predatory journals: Ban predators from the scientific record. Nature 534: 326.

Cabells (2019). Cabells Predatory Report Criteria v 1.1. (March 20, 2019; last accessed: August 24, 2022)

Dony, C., Raskinet, M., Renaville, F., Simon, S., Thirion, P. (2020). How reliable and useful is Cabell's Blacklist? A data-driven analysis. LIBER Quarterly 30(1): 1–38.

Grudniewicz, A., Moher, D., Cobey, K.D., Bryson, G.L., Cukier, S., Allen, K., Ardern, C., Balcom, L., Barros, T., Berger, M., Ciro, J.B., Cugusi, L., Donaldson, M.R., Egger, M., Graham, I.D., Hodgkinson, M., Khan, K.M., Mabizela, M., Manca, A., Milzow, K., Mouton, J., Muchenje, M., Olijhoek, T., Ommaya, A., Patwardhan, B., Poff, D., Proulx, L., Rodger, M., Severin, A., Strinzel, M., Sylos-Labini, M., Tamblyn, R., van Niekerk, M., Wicherts, J.M., Lalu, M.M. (2019). Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. Nature 576(7786): 210–212.

Merton, R.K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science 159(3810): 56–63.

Papageorgiou, K.G., Lekkas, D.E. (2018). On the methodology of the analytic method: Historical account, epistemological suggestions, stages. Epistēmēs Metron Logos 1: 70–89.

Papageorgiou, K.G., Lekkas, D.E. (2020a). Towards the model of contributory expert generalists. Arhe 27(33): 123–143.

Papageorgiou, K.G., Lekkas, D.E. (2020b). Verification in theory and in the sciences. Epistēmēs Metron Logos 3: 25–48.

Papageorgiou, K. G., & Lekkas, D. E. (2021). Epistēmē VS science. Arhe, 2021(35), 279–312.

Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2013). Predatory publishing: a quantitative assessment, the Predatory Score. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 7(Special Issue 1): 21–34.

Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2021). Citations and gamed metrics: academic integrity lost. Academic Questions 34(1): 96–99.

Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2022). Academic librarians and their role in disseminating accurate knowledge and information about the gray zone in predatory publishing. New Review of Academic Librarianship (in press)

Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Dobránszki, J., Tsigaris, P., Al-Khatib, A. (2019b). Predatory and exploitative behaviour in academic publishing: An assessment. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45(6): 102071.

Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Dunleavy, D.J., Moradzadeh, M., Eykens, J. (2021). A credit-like rating system to determine the legitimacy of journals and publishers. Scientometrics 126(10): 8589–8616.

Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Tsigaris, P. (2018). What value do whitelists and blacklists have in academia? The Journal of Academic Librarianship 44(6): 781–792.

Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Tsigaris, P. (2020). Issues with criteria to evaluate blacklists: An epidemiological approach. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 46(1): 102070.

Tsigaris, P., Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2021). Why blacklists are not reliable: A theoretical framework. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 47: 102266.

Yamada, Y., Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2022) A psychological perspective towards understanding the objective and subjective gray zones in predatory publishing. Quality & Quantity (in press)



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2022 Konstantinos G. Papageorgiou, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Demetrios E. Lekkas

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Science & Philosophy - Journal of Epistemology, Science and Philosophy. ISSN 2282-7757; eISSN  2282-7765.