 | This is anessay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Vanity publishing andpredatory publishing are two models which allow publication without any of the normal processes of editorial orpeer review.
In vanity publishing, the author usually pays for the publication of the material, which is usually these days delivered viaprint on demand, incurring little to no cost to the publishing house. Vanity presses often have no selection criteria and provide none of the normal services of a publishing house, such as legal review, proofreading, copy editing or fact checking. There is a list of vanity presses and self-publishing houses atWikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business. The best known is probablylulu.com.
In academia, vanity publishing has also been referred to as "write-only publishing". There may be no charge to the author, and the publisher may make their money by selling copies at high prices solely to libraries of record (large university libraries, the Library of Congress etc). Publishers called out for this practice includeLambert Academic Publishing,IGI Global[1][2][3] andEdwin Mellen Press. These books may publish fringe thought and may be used toinflate the reputation of otherwise mundane authors.
Predatory open access publishers charge high transaction fees to authors and publish based on payment, not credible peer review. This came to prominence in part through the work ofJeffrey Beall, who maintained "Beall's List" of predatory publishers and journals. Beall was silenced by legal threats from a publisher he had criticised. New models are emerging for assessing journal quality, including theDirectory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) andCabell's blacklist.
Red flags for predatory publishing include:
Keep in mind that a journal meeting one or more of those criteria does not guarantee that it is predatory, but the more criteria are met, the likelier it is. Predatory publishing is also a relatively new phenomenon, so publications established prior to the 2000s are unlikely to be predatory.
 | This section in a nutshell: Wikipedia errs on the side of caution and does not consider vanity or predatory references to be valid, unless it can be demonstrated that a particular paper or book is recognized as reliable inreliable,independent andsecondary sources. |
In the real world, it is possible that a work published in non-peer reviewed venue like a vanity press or a predatory journal represents excellent scholarship. One can write an absolutely correct and rigorous analysis of a topic that would passpeer-review and would be considered authoritative in the field by experts, but publish it elsewhere for one reason or another. For example,Grigori Perelman submitted his proof of thePoincaré conjecture toarXiv, an unreviewedpreprint repository. Perelman's proof has been examined by many mathematicians, who certified it as a correct and brilliant proof, for which he was offered the 2006Fields Medal (he declined). In this case, Perelman's papers are considered reliable sources, becauseindependent reliable sources consider them to be excellent scholarship.
Vanity presses venues can also by used by honest researchers for non-nefariousprint on demand purposes, like a reference work intended for distribution in a handful of research centres and libraries, with no commercial potential.
However, Wikipedia cannot conduct such an expert analysis of sources, and must instead rely on the analysis of other experts in the field. Even if you are personally qualified to conduct such an analysis, on Wikipedia it would be consideredoriginal research, and is not allowed. Nonetheless, some non-peer reviewed sources are known to be more likely than others to be reliable based on their reputation.
We know there is a difference in reliability of these two venues because arXiv papers are extensively cited in research and that recognized experts make extensive use of this venue, while viXra is almost universally ignored by the research community. In the words ofGerard 't Hooft:[4]
When a paper is published in viXra, it is usually a sign that it is not likely to contain acceptable results. It may, but the odds against that are considerable.
On Wikipedia, we, unlike scholars, cannot assess individual published works. We must instead rely on the reputation of the venue in which something is published. Preprints in reputable repositories likearXiv,bioRxiv,PeerJ Preprints,socArXiv and so on, are typically treated asself-published expert sources and can only be used to support basic uncontroversial claims. Vanity presses and predatory journals are, on the other hand, treated likeviXra above, for both failing to conduct proper review, and for their willingness to publishing the work of researchers who are activelyavoiding peer review. And, like with viXra above, while it is possible to have good research published in a predatory journal or vanity press, it is unlikely. In those cases Wikipedia errs on the side of caution and does not consider those references to be valid, unless it can be demonstrated that a particular paper or book is recognized as reliable inreliable, independent and secondary sources.