Predatory Open Access in Rehabilitation

Published:January 20, 2017DOI:


      Increasingly scholars and researchers are being solicited by predatory open access journals seeking manuscript submissions and abusing the author-pays model by charging authors with publishing fees without any or proper peer review. Such questionable editorial practices are threatening the reputation and credibility of scholarly publishing. To date, no investigation has been conducted on this phenomenon in the field of rehabilitation. This study attempts to identify specific predatory journals operating in this field to quantify the phenomenon and its geographic distribution. Beall's List has been used to this end which, although not perfect, is a comprehensive and up-to-date report of predatory publishers. Of the 1113 publishers on the list, 59 journals were identified, for a total of 5610 published articles. The median number of articles published by each journal was 21, and the median amount of article processing charges was $499. Only 1 out of 59 journals was included in the Directory of Open Access Journals, whereas 7 (12%) were indexed by PubMed. Most of the publishers were based in India (36%) followed by the United States (25%) and Pakistan (5%), and 25% were without a verifiable address. The data indicate that the threat of predatory publishing in rehabilitation is real. Physiatrists, physiotherapists, researchers, and academics operating in this field are advised to use the tools available to recognize predatory practices before considering publishing in open access journals.


      List of abbreviations:

      APC (article processing charge), DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Beall J.
        Predatory publishers are corrupting open access.
        Nature. 2012; 489: 179
        • Bohannon J.
        Who's afraid of peer review?.
        Science. 2013; 342: 60-65
        • Vinny P.W.
        • Vishnu V.Y.
        • Lal V.
        Trends in scientific publishing: dark clouds loom large.
        J Neurol Sci. 2016; 363: 119-120
        • Bartholomew R.E.
        Science for sale: the rise of predatory journals.
        J R Soc Med. 2014; 107: 384-385
      1. Shamseer L, Moher D, Maduekwe O, et al. Comparison of characteristics potential predatory journals with subscription and open access journals. A cross sectional study. In: The inaugural REWARD/EQUATOR Conference; 2015 Sep 28-30; Edinburgh (UK). 2015.

      2. Directory of Open Access Journals.
        (Available at:)
        • Shen C.
        • Björk B.C.
        ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics.
        BMC Med. 2015; 13: 230
      3. Scholarly Open Access.
        (Available at:) (Accessed October 5, 2016)
        • Beall J.
        Medical publishing triage - chronicling predatory open access publishers.
        Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2013; 2: 47-49
        • Moher D.
        • Srivastava A.
        You are invited to submit….
        BMC Med. 2015; 13: 180
        • Bhad R.
        • Hazari N.
        Predatory journals in psychiatry: a note of caution.
        Asian J Psychiatr. 2015; 16: 67-68
        • Beall J.
        Predatory journals: ban predators from the scientific record.
        Nature. 2016; 534: 326
        • Manca A.
        • Cugusi L.
        • Dragone D.
        • Deriu F.
        Predatory journals: prevention better than cure?.
        J Neurol Sci. 2016; 370: 161
      4. Scholarly Open Access. List of standalone journals.
        (Available at:) (Accessed October 5, 2016)
      5. Currency Converter.
        (Available at:)
      6. SCImago Journal & Country Rank.
        (Available at:) (Accessed October 12, 2016)
        • Van Noorden R.
        Open-access website gets tough.
        Nature. 2014; 512: 17
        • Ezinwa Nwagwu W.
        • Ojemeni O.
        Penetration of Nigerian predatory biomedical open access journals 2007-2012: a bibiliometric study.
        Learned Publishing. 2015; 28: 23-34
        • Solomon D.J.
        • Björk B.C.
        A study of open access journals using article processing charges.
        J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec. 2012; 63: 1485-1495
        • Morrison H.
        • Salhab J.
        • Calvé-Genest A.
        • Horava T.
        Open access article processing charges: DOAJ survey May 2014.
        Publications. 2015; 3: 1-16
        • Maddy A.J.
        • Tosti A.
        Predatory journals in dermatology.
        Br J Dermatol. 2016 Sep 17.; ([Epub ahead of print])
        • Butler D.
        Investigating journals: the dark side of publishing.
        Nature. 2013; 495: 433-435

      Linked Article

      • Predatory Publishing in Rehabilitation
        Archives of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationVol. 98Issue 5
        • Preview
          Medical publishing met the Internet in the late 1990s.1 We all know what happened. The Internet prevailed over the paper model and its success, at heart, was based on its promise of faster dissemination, improved access, greater transparency, and a more level playing field. It is time to look at how things have turned out.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF