Before signing a publishing contract, you should check whether the publication is reputable and your rights are protected.
Quality and reputation of publishers
With the emergence of various open access publication models and new open access journals, dubious journals are also appearing on the publication market. So-called ‘predatory journals’ or ‘predatory publishers’ charge publication fees for editorial services that they do not provide or provide only to a low standard. Their business model is primarily aimed at financial gain rather than scientific quality and transparent review procedures. These dubious business practices harm not only authors, but the entire scientific publishing landscape.
How do I check the quality of a publisher?
Keep in mind that not every journal or publisher with quality issues is automatically a predatory publisher. New or smaller publications in particular sometimes do not yet have established structures, professional editorial teams or comprehensive resources. Even if there is no intentional deception involved, inadequate quality standards, a lack of peer review or insufficient transparency can still be problematic and make it difficult to navigate the landscape.
Criteria for assessing the quality of publishers can be found in the checklist Think. Check. Submit.
Checking the following sources can also provide certainty:
Fraudulent intentions
So-called paper mills are becoming increasingly problematic. These are commercial providers who, in return for payment, produce or manipulate complete scientific papers or individual components (e.g. data sets, illustrations, texts, fictitious peer reviews). Such publications often contain fabricated or grossly falsified data and significantly undermine scientific integrity.
This phenomenon has increased significantly in recent years due to technological developments. Automated text production, generative AI, image manipulation and easily accessible publication platforms make it possible to produce seemingly credible but worthless or fake works more quickly and on a larger scale. This makes it more difficult to distinguish reputable offers from dubious ones.
The following warning signs may indicate paper mills or manipulated work and point to fraudulent intentions:
Content
- Data sets appear unrealistically smooth or statistically "too perfect"
- Results are not traceable or methodology remains vague
- Contradictions between text, tables and illustrations
- Same images/diagrams appear in several articles
- Unusual or generic wording, text lacking in content
- Strikingly similar structure or choice of words across several articles
Authors and submission process
- Identical, recurring author combinations for different topics
- Unclear or unverifiable institutional affiliation
- A large number of publications in a short period of time
- Contact only via private email addresses
Journal or publisher
- Extremely short review period
- Missing or non-transparent review processes
- High publication fees without discernible editorial quality
- Aggressive invitations by email
- Journal not known in the community or not listed in well-known directories
Publishing contract and Rights Retention
Before signing a contract with a publisher, make sure you understand your rights and ensure that you do not transfer the rights to your texts to the publisher on an exclusive and unlimited basis.
Rights Retention Strategy
Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) is a mechanism that enables researchers to retain key rights of use to their scientific publications, in particular the right to republish. The strategy was developed by members of cOAlition S, an alliance of major research funding agencies, including the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF).
Why is Rights Retention important?
Many scientific publishers require authors to transfer all or part of their copyright to them as part of the publication process. Publishing contracts often grant publishers exclusive rights of use, which would later prohibit publishers from making their own work available elsewhere, such as in an institutional repository.
This is where the rights retention strategy comes in, whereby authors retain their rights to the extent that secondary publication elsewhere is possible. In most cases, this concerns the right to publish the Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) under an open licence.
How does it work?
Retroactive adjustment of the publishing contract
The publishing agreement shall be amended retroactively by excluding the AAM from the terms of the agreement or by amending, in whole or in part, the paragraphs requiring the transfer of exclusive rights.
Addendum
An addendum is attached to the publishing contract upon signing. Authors can attach a supplement to the contract that regulates the deposit of the publication in the repository or on a document server. The addendum must be countersigned by the publisher. A template for this can be created online.
Rights Retention statement upon submission
Authors draw attention to the conditions of the research funders when they first submit their manuscript. A footnote states that they wish to publish the accepted manuscript without an embargo period under a CC BY licence.
Creative Commons licenses
As author of scientific and artistic works, you can use Creative Commons licences to determine the legal conditions under which your works may be published, distributed and used. This is subject to the condition that you have not transferred the exclusive rights of use to anyone else. The licences are a global and uniform system that is available in many languages. Various symbols visualise the licences and explain the conditions that must be observed when reusing the works. They are therefore easy for users to understand, even without legal knowledge.
CC licences work like a modular system. The licence conditions can be combined with each other, resulting in a total of six different licences. Depending on the combination, open or restrictive use of the content may be permitted.
Research funders and universities recommend using the most open licence possible, such as CC BY (author must be named).