Introduction
Cheap submission refers to the practice of submitting academic manuscripts, conference papers, or other scholarly works to venues or services that charge minimal or no fees for acceptance, editing, or publication. The term also encompasses low-cost services offered by third‑party agencies that provide manuscript preparation, peer‑review facilitation, and publication assistance. Cheap submission has become a notable phenomenon within the broader context of scholarly publishing, particularly in the era of open access and the proliferation of predatory journals. Understanding the mechanisms, motivations, and implications of cheap submission is essential for researchers, institutions, and policy makers concerned with research integrity and the sustainability of academic publishing.
Historical Context and Emergence
Early Publishing Models
Traditional academic publishing relied on subscription models, with journals funded by library and institutional subscriptions. Authors generally paid modest processing charges for expedited handling or open access publishing, but these fees were regulated by publishers and often justified by the cost of rigorous peer review and professional editorial services. In the late 20th century, the introduction of online platforms reduced some costs, yet the fundamental structure of author‑pay and subscription revenue remained largely unchanged.
Rise of Open Access and Predatory Journals
In the early 2000s, the open‑access movement gained momentum, promoting freely accessible research articles. However, the open‑access model also created a revenue gap that some publishers filled by instituting article processing charges (APCs). The APC model attracted opportunistic entities that established journals with minimal editorial oversight, low or nonexistent peer review, and an emphasis on rapid publication. These outlets, often referred to as predatory journals, relied heavily on cheap submission models to attract authors seeking quick visibility.
The Digital Revolution and Service Providers
With the expansion of the internet, a new sector of commercial manuscript services emerged. These agencies marketed themselves as facilitators of scholarly communication, offering editing, formatting, translation, and even alleged “review” services. Their pricing structures were intentionally low, capitalizing on the limited resources available to researchers, particularly those from low‑income countries or early‑career scholars. Over time, the boundary between legitimate editorial support and deceptive practices blurred, giving rise to a spectrum of services that claim to provide inexpensive pathways to publication.
Regulatory and Institutional Response
Academic institutions and funding bodies began to monitor the proliferation of cheap submission services. In 2013, the U.S. National Library of Medicine instituted a “DOAJ Indexing Criteria” to delineate legitimate open‑access journals. In parallel, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) developed guidelines to promote transparency in scholarly publishing. The emergence of the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) created formal mechanisms to verify ethical practices and to provide researchers with reliable resources for journal selection.
Key Concepts and Terminology
Article Processing Charges (APCs)
APCs are fees paid by authors or their institutions to cover the cost of the publishing process, including peer review, editing, typesetting, and online hosting. While APCs are legitimate in many open‑access journals, they can become problematic when combined with minimal editorial rigor, leading to cheap submission practices that compromise quality.
Predatory Publishing
Predatory publishing describes entities that exploit the author‑pay model, prioritizing profit over scholarly quality. These outlets often provide questionable peer review, minimal editorial oversight, and rapid acceptance. They may advertise aggressive marketing tactics and use inflated impact metrics to attract authors.
Editorial Transparency
Editorial transparency refers to the clear communication of journal policies, editorial board composition, peer‑review processes, and conflict‑of‑interest disclosures. Transparent practices are essential for distinguishing legitimate journals from those that employ cheap submission tactics.
Ethical Publishing Standards
International bodies such as COPE, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the Committee on Publication Ethics provide guidelines that outline best practices for authors, reviewers, and editors. Adherence to these standards is a hallmark of reputable publishing and is often absent in cheap submission services.
Mechanisms of Cheap Submission
Low or No APCs Coupled with Minimal Peer Review
One common model involves charging negligible or zero APCs while offering superficial or nonexistent peer review. Authors may receive acceptance notifications within days, with few or no substantive revisions requested. The editorial workflow is often streamlined to expedite publication, with limited editorial oversight.
Use of Algorithmic or Automated Review Processes
Some cheap submission services employ automated tools that perform basic checks for plagiarism or formatting compliance but do not engage qualified reviewers. This approach reduces labor costs while presenting an illusion of peer review.
Outsourced Editorial Boards
Cheap submission outlets may assemble editorial boards with individuals who have minimal engagement or who lack expertise in the field. In many cases, board members are listed without consent or with no active role, undermining the credibility of the journal.
Aggressive Marketing and False Promises
Marketing campaigns often highlight high impact factors, rapid publication times, and open‑access benefits. These promises may be inflated or misleading, encouraging authors to submit to questionable venues.
Third‑Party Service Providers
Commercial agencies market themselves as “publication facilitators,” offering editing, translation, and even “review” services for a fee. While some agencies provide genuine editorial support, many offer services that do not meet ethical standards, such as false peer‑review reports or fabricated endorsements.
Impacts on the Academic Community
Scientific Record Integrity
Cheap submission practices erode the trustworthiness of the scientific record. Articles published in predatory journals often lack rigorous peer review, increasing the likelihood of errors, methodological flaws, and false conclusions. These inaccuracies can propagate through subsequent research, leading to wasted resources and potential harm, especially in fields like medicine.
Reputational Damage for Authors
Authors associated with low‑quality outlets risk reputational harm. Citation metrics may be artificially inflated, yet the scholarly impact is dubious. Academic career progression, grant funding, and institutional evaluations often consider publication venues, and association with predatory journals can be detrimental.
Resource Allocation Inefficiencies
Researchers, especially early‑career scholars, may divert limited time and financial resources to cheap submission services. This diversion reduces time available for substantive research, data analysis, and high‑quality manuscript preparation. Funding agencies that allocate APCs to researchers can inadvertently support unethical outlets, diverting public funds away from reputable publishing infrastructure.
Challenges for Academic Libraries and Institutions
Libraries face difficulties in providing accurate journal lists and embargo policies. The proliferation of cheap submission outlets complicates subscription decisions and requires ongoing monitoring. Institutions must develop policies to discourage faculty from publishing in predatory journals and to support legitimate open‑access publishing avenues.
Policy and Regulatory Implications
Funding agencies increasingly mandate responsible publishing practices. For instance, the National Institutes of Health requires that researchers publish in open‑access journals that meet specific criteria. Policies that penalize publication in predatory venues must be balanced against the risk of penalizing legitimate low‑cost open‑access outlets. Regulatory frameworks need to define clear metrics for evaluating journal quality and publisher legitimacy.
Strategies to Mitigate Cheap Submission Risks
Author Education and Awareness
Universities and research institutions should implement training programs to inform scholars about identifying predatory journals, evaluating APCs, and assessing editorial standards. Workshops, seminars, and online modules can increase awareness and reduce susceptibility to cheap submission services.
Journal Listing and Verification Systems
Robust listing services such as DOAJ, OASPA, and the Think. Check. Submit. (TCS) framework provide vetted journal databases. Researchers should cross‑reference potential outlets with these resources before submission. Institutions can maintain internal databases of approved journals aligned with field-specific standards.
Institutional Policies on APC Expenditure
Many universities adopt policies restricting APC payments to journals that meet COPE or ICMJE guidelines. These policies often include a review process that evaluates journal reputation, impact metrics, and editorial board credentials. By enforcing such policies, institutions can prevent the diversion of funds to predatory outlets.
Peer Review Process Reforms
Advocacy for transparent, open peer review can expose inadequate editorial practices. Some journals publish peer‑review reports or reviewer identities, providing accountability. Institutions can encourage the adoption of these practices through policy incentives and recognition programs.
Development of Alternative Metrics
Reliance on traditional impact factors has contributed to predatory journals’ success. Emerging metrics, such as article‑level metrics, citation diversity, and altmetrics, offer nuanced insights into scholarly influence. Promoting these metrics can diminish the allure of inflated impact factors associated with cheap submission venues.
Collaboration Among Publishers, Libraries, and Funding Bodies
Collaborative efforts can improve the overall quality of scholarly publishing. Joint initiatives such as the Open Science Collaboration, the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, and cross‑institutional working groups foster data sharing and best practices. These collaborations can lead to shared blacklists, standardized vetting processes, and collective advocacy for responsible publishing.
Case Studies
Journal of Global Health Research
Established in 2015, the Journal of Global Health Research advertised zero APCs and rapid acceptance within 48 hours. An audit in 2019 revealed a lack of qualified editorial board members and no evidence of peer review. The journal was added to a public predatory list and subsequently removed from institutional repositories. This case underscores the risks of accepting articles without rigorous editorial oversight.
ScholarBridge Publication Services
ScholarBridge offered a tiered service package: basic editing, formatting, and an “expert review” for a fee. Analysis of their review reports in 2020 demonstrated that most reviews contained generic comments with no critical evaluation of methodology. The company was identified by several researchers as engaging in deceptive practices, prompting a warning from the national research integrity office.
Open Access Journal of Neuroscience
Launched in 2018, this journal implemented a transparent peer‑review process with open reviewer identities. The APC was moderate and aligned with the average cost for open‑access journals in neuroscience. The journal’s adherence to COPE guidelines and its inclusion in DOAJ led to a positive reputation, illustrating a successful low‑cost but ethical model.
Emerging Trends
Artificial Intelligence in Editorial Management
AI tools are increasingly integrated into manuscript submission systems to perform preliminary checks for plagiarism, statistical errors, and formatting compliance. While these tools can improve efficiency, they should complement, not replace, human editorial judgment. Overreliance on AI may create a veneer of rigor in cheap submission venues.
Blockchain for Publication Transparency
Blockchain technology offers a tamper‑evident ledger for recording peer‑review activities, editorial decisions, and publication metadata. Pilot projects in 2022 demonstrated that blockchain can provide immutable records of the review process, potentially mitigating fraud associated with cheap submission services.
Global Initiatives for Responsible Publishing
International collaborations, such as the International Research Community for Publication Integrity (IRCI), aim to establish universal standards for open‑access publishing. These initiatives advocate for transparent APC structures, equitable cost sharing, and the elimination of deceptive practices.
Funding Models for Sustainable Open Access
Consortia-based funding models, where libraries and institutions collectively negotiate APC waivers or discounts, are gaining traction. Such models distribute costs and reduce the financial burden on individual authors, thereby lowering the appeal of low‑cost predatory outlets.
Recommendations for Stakeholders
For Authors
- Verify journal legitimacy through recognized databases (DOAJ, OASPA).
- Assess editorial board credentials and peer‑review transparency.
- Consider institutional policies regarding APC payments.
- Maintain records of all correspondence and payment receipts.
For Institutions
- Develop and enforce clear guidelines for acceptable publication venues.
- Provide training on identifying predatory journals.
- Implement a review process for APC expenditures.
- Encourage participation in shared blacklists and vetted journal lists.
For Publishers
- Adhere to COPE and ICMJE guidelines.
- Publish transparent APC structures and editorial workflows.
- Offer open or transparent peer review options.
- Collaborate with institutional bodies to maintain credibility.
For Funding Agencies
- Mandate publication in vetted, reputable journals.
- Provide funding for APCs in legitimate open‑access outlets.
- Implement monitoring mechanisms to detect misallocation of funds.
- Support initiatives that promote transparency and accountability in publishing.
Future Outlook
The intersection of technological innovation and scholarly communication presents both opportunities and challenges. Emerging tools such as AI‑driven editorial assistants and blockchain records promise to enhance transparency and reduce the cost of rigorous peer review. However, these technologies can also be exploited to create deceptive services that mimic legitimate review processes. Sustained vigilance, collaborative policy development, and continuous education will be essential to safeguard the integrity of the academic record.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!