RE: How predatory journals leak into PubMed

  • Lauren Topper, PubMed Central Journal Review Program Coordinator, U.S. National Library of Medicine
  • Other Contributors:
    • Jennifer Marill, Chief, Technical Services Division, U.S. National Library of Medicine
    • Christopher Kelly, Program Specialist, PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine
    • Kathryn Funk, Program Manager, PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine
10 December 2018

We read with interest the Analysis article entitled, “How predatory journals leak into PubMed”, published in CMAJ in September 2018 by Manca and colleagues (1). We would like to thank the authors for their interest in PubMed and PubMed Central (PMC) and provide clarification on what journals have been selected by NLM for inclusion in these databases.
The premise of the article by Manca et al. is based on two of their previous studies, in which they suggest that a high number of “predatory” journals are accepted for PubMed and PMC, and that NLM should “raise the bar for journal inclusion”.
However, Manca and colleagues have mistakenly characterized these journals as being included in PubMed and PMC by conflating the appearance of one or more individual journal articles, which are included in PMC to support the public access policies of research funders (2,3), with the inclusion of articles from an accepted journal. A journal is considered 'accepted' and added to PubMed only if it has been formally assessed and recommended for indexing in MEDLINE or archiving in PMC.
Moreover, the authors make several incorrect statements about PubMed and NLM policies, most notably regarding journal selection criteria for PMC. In fact, journals that apply to be in PMC undergo a rigorous assessment of scientific and editorial quality (4), and the same assessment considerations are used to reevaluate previously accepted journals (5). In addition, NLM reviews publishers of PMC and MEDLINE journals for ongoing conformance with publishing guidelines and best practices (6).
NLM is committed to the integrity of its literature databases and continues to develop its selection processes in response to changes in the scholarly publishing environment.

References
1. Manca, A, Moher, D, Cugusi, L, Dvir, Z, and Deriu, F. How predatory journals leak into PubMed. CMAJ. 2018; 190: E1042-45
2. How papers get into PMC. Bethesda (MD): National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine. (updated 2015 Jan 7). Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/submission-methods/ (accessed November 7, 2018).
3. Funders and PMC. Bethesda (MD): National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine. (updated 2018 Sept 12). Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/public-access/ (accessed November 7, 2018).
4. Journal Selection for PMC. Bethesda (MD): National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine. (updated 2018 June 19). Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/pub/journalselect/ (accessed November 8, 2018).
5. PMC policies: Scientific, editorial, and technical standards: Reevaluation. Bethesda (MD): National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine. (updated 2018 Sept 11). Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/guidelines/#standards (accessed November 8, 2018).
6. Marill, J. Journal Selection at the National Library of Medicine: a new process for challenging times. Technicalities. 2016; 36: 2-5. Available: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/staffpubs/lo/TECH_V36_N4_JulAug16_Marill.pdf

Competing Interests: The authors are employed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM), the producer of the MEDLINE database, PubMed, and PubMed Central. This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
See article »