When nonsense gets published: How predatory journals exploit India’s academics

“Dr Biscuit McChocolate Saucerson” doesn’t exist. Neither does his supposed groundbreaking discovery that “chocolate chip cookies induce limb growth.” Yet, when 27 journals were tested with this fabricated research, 23 accepted it.

In a revealing investigation, a group of independent researchers from Northeast India uncovered the widespread presence of predatory publishing within India’s academic system. Combining experimental submission of bogus papers, digital ethnography, and institutional audits, the findings shared with this newspaper exposes how early-career scholars are being exploited by journals that prioritize profit over quality.

According to the researchers, 85% of the journals accepted clearly fake papers—often within days and with minimal or no peer review—provided the authors paid a fee.

“We wanted to mirror what a confused, under-pressure PhD scholar might experience,” the researchers explained. They submitted manuscripts filled with “absurd pseudoscience,” “jargon-heavy nonsense,” and even X-rays of fictional characters (including one labeled as “Thomas Jasper Cat Sr.” — a nod to Tom from Tom and Jerry).

To evaluate the journals, the team developed a 10-point assessment tool called the Bullsh*t Acceptance Rating Scale (BARS), which rated:
· Peer review quality (0–4 points): Immediate acceptance of nonsense received the lowest score (4 points).
· Impact factor legitimacy (0–3 points): Journals citing fake metrics such as the “Cosmos Impact Factor” were flagged.
· Website professionalism (0–3 points): Scores considered everything from stock images and typos to academic design standards.

The sample included 20 journals drawn from lists recommended by 30 Indian universities, plus 7 that solicited submissions via unsolicited emails—common in Indian academic circles. Among the 27 journals tested, 23 were classified as either “Total Scam” or “Predatory Trash” (the study’s own terms).

Only 3 journals—the AIMS Molecular Science, Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine, and The Indian Journal of Nutrition and Dietetics—met the study’s standards for legitimacy.

Specifically, the journals and their verdicts were:
The International Journal of Science, Technology and Society and the International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology (IJISRT) were rated as “Predatory Trash.”

The International Journal of Engineering and Science, International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Journal of Multidisciplinary Educational Research, Journal of Life Sciences Research and Reviews, Journal of Pharmaceutica1 Research & Reports, South Asian Research Journal of Biology and Applied Sciences, International Journal of Modern Engineering Research, International Journal of Scientific Research & Engineering Trends, International Organization of Scientific Research, Insights of Herbal Medicine, International Clinical and Medical Case Reports Journal, Indian Journal of Social Science and Literature (IJSSL), International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management, International Journal of Science & Engineering Development Research, Journal of Drug Delivery and Therapeutics, International Journal of Modern Science and Research Technology, International Journal of Ayurveda and Pharmaceutical Chemistry, and the International Journal For Innovative Research In Multidisciplinary Field were all classified as “Total Scam.”

The Journal of Clinical Surgery and Anesthesia, Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology & Science, and MK Science Set also received the “Predatory Trash” verdict.

The Asian Journal of Science and Technology was marked as “Sketchy,” since the reviewers failed to notice an X-ray submitted with the paper.

Alarmingly, 20 of these journals appeared on “suggested” lists used by 30 Indian universities. Seven had contacted the researchers unsolicited after a fake preprint was posted online.

The researchers highlight a concerning example: “The paper claiming cookies grow limbs was accepted by the International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research—a journal suggested by six Indian universities,” they noted.

Structural issues within academia further compound the problem. An audit of the universities found that most require faculty members to publish at least two papers per year for promotion, without regard to journal quality. Similarly, many PhD students must publish to graduate, again with no emphasis on the legitimacy of the journals.

Two-thirds of these institutions provide no training or ethical guidance on identifying predatory journals. Few refer researchers to trusted resources such as the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) or the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

An industry of exploitation
Predatory journals often promise fast publication—3 to 7 days—and charge relatively low fees (Rs 1,000–Rs 25,000), making them attractive to young scholars who cannot afford the steep fees (Rs 1.5 lakh to Rs 10 lakh) of legitimate open-access journals. Many accept papers without revisions or upfront payment, rejecting submissions only if authors later refuse to pay.

In contrast, reputable journals demand thorough peer review, higher fees, and typically take 6 to 12 months or more for publication.

These predatory journals exploit institutional policies that prioritize quantity over quality. The audit showed that promotions and graduations hinge largely on raw publication counts, with little attention paid to journal credibility.

A junior faculty member interviewed by the researchers summarized the mindset: “Better three cheap papers than one good one.”

The study also highlights policy missteps. In 2017, the University Grants Commission (UGC) included numerous predatory journals on its “approved” list, inadvertently legitimizing them. Though the list has since been revised, the impact remains.

“The UGC’s stamp of approval gave predators cover. Once included, they marketed themselves as credible,” the researchers explained, referencing Devraj (2017).

In one case, a paper titled “Cryptophotosynthesis in Antarctic Ice Caves,” filled with jargon and fabricated content, was accepted by multiple journals, while only the most obviously nonsensical submissions like the X-ray of the Tom cat were rejected.

“This selective skepticism is strategic,” the study argues. “By rejecting utter gibberish but accepting pseudoscience that sounds technical, predatory journals maintain a façade of legitimacy.”

Through digital ethnography of Indian academic WhatsApp and Facebook groups, the researchers found that predatory journals are openly promoted, with publication in such venues normalized—even expected—in many circles.

“Incentives are broken. Institutions reward compliance, not credibility,” the researchers write. “Universities require five publications for tenure but don’t care where they’re published.”

Global impact
Although focused on India, the study points to wider global consequences. It cites a 2021 case where a predatory journal published a fake study linking 5G technology to COVID-19. Though later retracted, the paper was cited in 30 legitimate studies.

“In India, vaccine hesitancy surged after a predatory outlet published debunked claims linking COVID vaccines to infertility,” the researchers note.

Proposed reform
The authors recommend urgent changes including: Third-party audits of journal lists by bodies such as COPE and DOAJ; Shifting university policies from quantity to quality of publications;  Government subsidies to lower open-access fees in legitimate journals; and Mandatory training on publication literacy within academic curricula.

Most importantly, they call for a cultural shift: “We need to mentor researchers to see publication as a responsibility, not just a requirement. Right now, the system trains them to game metrics rather than contribute knowledge.”

MT