Dealing with the grey zone of publishing or… how I will never be an editorial board member of MDPI Publications.

The “predatory publisher” category raises more questions than answers. Just like “academic fraud”, it tends to validate a black & white world in which rules and norms are clear-cut and universally shared through time, disciplines and countries. There is now an extensive literature presenting lists, criteria and even automatic detection for such publishers or their journals, most of it being written without questioning the label “predatory”¹. More interestingly, there are a few papers describing the point of view of authors publishing in such vilified outputs, showing both the deceptions performed by the publisher and the good faith of most authors².

Such results could be downplayed on the grounds of the authors’ peripheral position or the low power of the studies. On the opposite, everyday stories show that separating the wheat from the chaff is rather complex because a huge and diverse “grey zone” exists, even for scholars well versed in the arcane of publishing. This post aims to describe such an example by making the story personal rather than abstract, using testimonies, personal opinions and statements. In this world, the choice to review, write or edit for a given journal or publisher remains tricky, based on existing alternatives, personal ethics and situated decisions

“You are invited”: a not-so-classical email

It’s become an almost daily ritual: an invitation to present at a conference, to submit a paper to a journal, or even to join an editorial committee, sent by people you don’t know, with a vague personalisation of the message through your name and the reproduction of the title of an article you’ve written, with no relevance to the issuing conference or journal. On August, 9th 2023, I received one of these messages, entitled: “[Publications] (ISSN 2304-6775) Invitation to Serve as an Editorial Board Member”. It caught my attention for three reasons: firstly, it’s the time of year with the lowest e-mail volume; secondly, there was an apparent MDPI account in the copy of the mailing; and thirdly, I know this journal, some of its articles I found relevant or enlighting, and others cite some of my work (which is not a sign of quality but could explain this invitation). So let’s read it again:

We would like to invite you to join the Editorial Board of Publications (ISSN 2304-6775, https://www.mdpi.com/journal/publications). Publications is open access and peer-reviewed, covering all aspects of scholarly publishing and communication. You can find the proposed scope of the journal here: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/publications/about/.
Publications is abstracted and indexed by Scopus, ESCI, DOAJ. 

This presentation is not typical of « predatory » emails that begin by flattering the recipient of the message, emphasising the importance of their work and what they can contribute to the journal, and at the same time inviting them to join the editorial board and submit a manuscript.

Editorial Board Members will be responsible for final decisions on  manuscripts in their field of expertise and may be invited to review manuscripts. The initial term lasts for 2 years, and entails:
• Pre-screening and making decisions on new submissions related to your  research interests;
• Providing input or feedback regarding journal policies;
• Helping to promote the journal among your peers or at conferences;
• Attending Board Meetings to suggest journal development strategies;
• Reviewing manuscripts.
• Helping to attract suitable expert authors.

The job description for editorial board members is typical of a journal owned by a commercial publisher: in a nutshell, you run the journal, you promote it without being the decision-maker on its policies and, of course, without compensation except in what many colleagues name a prestige economy.((For example, Tennant, Jonathan P., et al. “Ten hot topics around scholarly publishing.” Publications 7.2 (2019): 34.https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020034))

Some consider this an intolerable exploitation of the scientific community, and petitions have regularly called for people to refuse to accept these positions, the most famous remaining The Cost of Knowledge. Others are comfortable with it, believing, for example, that the division between the scientific work carried out by the committee members and the publisher’s production and distribution tasks is a good compromise³

If you accept our invitation, please provide your contact information and a list of keywords reflecting your expertise, in accordance with the entry examples at https://www.mdpi.com/journal/publications/editors/. If possible, please also send, for our records, a CV or an official website with your biographical data (including a list of your publications). If this is of interest, but comes at an inopportune time, you may have a recommendation for a senior expert to serve as an Editorial Board member. If you have any questions, suggestions or recommendations, please let us know.

This detailed procedure is another hint to add in the direction of a genuine invitation for a position in the committee of a standard commercial publisher journal, which is rarely considered as a “grey zone” output. Nevertheless, there is another surprising piece of information about the ‘benefits’ attached to the position of editorial board member. I don’t know if it is a standard practice in APC-based journals⁴. Yet this three-line paragraph looks extremely problematic to me for three cumulative reasons. Once again, others could consider it completely benign, due to shared ethics and practices, which would prevent everything that follows.

Additionally, you are welcome to publish with the journal—this will be free of charge once accepted for publication. The term for the Editorial Board membership lasts for two years and can be renewed.

Firstly, it encourages members of the editorial committee to publish in their journal, which puts them in a conflict of interest, even if they do not manage the fate of their manuscript. Secondly, this incentive is redoubled in monetary terms, since APCs are waved, an ‘APC ring’⁵ between an editorial board member and authors who can not or do not wish to pay an APC that invites them in the byline, is favored. Finally, this policy for editorial board members is not public, unlike the ‘discounting’ policy for timely reviewers detailed on the MDPI Publications website.

This paragraph alone could have made me cringe and refuse the invitation. But it also comes from a journal and a publisher who is piling up the greyish stories.

MDPI: From independence to “grey policies”

Once upon a time, a

Norwegian interview: https://www.khrono.no/truer-med-a-flykte-fra-tidsskrift-etter-at-redaktoren-ble-kastet/794389

Reviewer experience at MDPI : https://deevybee.blogspot.com/2024/08/guest-post-my-experience-as-reviewer.html

Who is responsible for greyness?

When I have discussed with colleagues these and other issues around MDPI practices, I find that credible researchers tell me that there are some excellent journals published by MDPI. It seems unfortunate that, in seeking rapid growth via the mechanism of Special Issues, the publisher has risked its reputation by giving editorial responsibility to numerous guest editors without adequate oversight, and encouraged quantity over quality.((https://deevybee.blogspot.com/2024/09/now-you-see-it-now-you-dont-strange.html))

1. On the geopolitical consequences of that position, see Taşkın, Zehra, Franciszek Krawczyk, and Emanuel Kulczycki. “Are papers published in predatory journals worthless? A geopolitical dimension revealed by content-based analysis of citations.” Quantitative Science Studies 4.1 (2023): 44-67, https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00242 [↩]
2. Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Chérifa, Lucas Pergola, and Hugo Castaneda. “Profiles, motives and experiences of authors publishing in predatory journals: OMICS as a case study.” (2023) [↩]
3. This is a theoretical division, actual tasks performed are another story see on the Diamond journals case, Dufour, Quentin, David Pontille, and Didier Torny. “Supporting Diamond Open Access journals.” Nordic Journal of Library and Information Studies 4.2 (2023): 35-55., 10.7146/njlis.v4i2.140344 [↩]
4. To my knowledge there is no data on these policies towards editors, except on the question of paid editorial board members, especially in biomedicine [↩]
5. Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A. “The Conceptual ‘APC Ring’: Is There a Risk of APC-Driven Guest Authorship, and Is a Change in the Culture of the APC Needed?.” Journal of Scholarly Publishing 55.3 (2024): 404-425.https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2023-0060 [↩]

---

---