TY - JOUR T1 - Defining predatory journals and responding to the threat they pose: a modified Delphi consensus process JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/19010850 SP - 19010850 AU - Samantha Cukier AU - Manoj M. Lalu AU - Gregory L. Bryson AU - Kelly D. Cobey AU - Agnes Grudniewicz AU - David Moher Y1 - 2019/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/11/02/19010850.abstract N2 - Background Posing as legitimate open access outlets, predatory journals and publishers threaten the integrity of academic publishing by not following publication best practices. Currently, there is no agreed upon definition of predatory journals, making it difficult for funders and academic institutions to generate practical guidance or policy to ensure their members do not publish in these channels.Methods We conducted a modified three-round Delphi survey of an international group of academics, funders, policy makers, journal editors, publishers and others, to generate a consensus definition of predatory journals and suggested ways the research community should respond to the problem.Results A total of 45 participants completed the survey on predatory journals and publishers. We reached consensus on 18 items out of a total of 33, to be included in a consensus definition of predatory journals and publishers. We came to consensus on educational outreach and policy initiatives on which to focus, including the development of a single checklist to detect predatory journals and publishers, and public funding to support research in this general area. We identified technological solutions to address the problem: a ‘one-stop-shop’ website to consolidate information on the topic and a ‘predatory journal research observatory’ to identify ongoing research and analysis about predatory journals/publishers.Conclusions In bringing together an international group of diverse stakeholders, we were able to use a modified Delphi process to inform the development of a definition of predatory journals and publishers. This definition will help institutions, funders and other stakeholders generate practical guidance on avoiding predatory journals and publishers.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe Predatory Summit received funding from the President’s fund, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); Institute of Health Services and Policy Research, CIHR; Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis, CIHR; National Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC); Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant no. 174281); Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC); Office of Vice President of Research, University of Ottawa. David Moher is supported by a University Research Chair (University of Ottawa). Manoj Lalu is supported by The Ottawa Hospital Anesthesia Alternate Funds Association. Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data are available upon request. https://osf.io/z6v7f/ https://osf.io/ysw3g/ https://osf.io/46hwb/ https://osf.io/thsgw/ https://osf.io/vmura/ https://osf.io/sry9w/ https://osf.io/d5463/ ER -