• DOI:10.1177/1350507619878820
• Corpus ID: 210443245

Predatory publishing in management research: A call for open peer review

@article{Dobusch2019PredatoryPI,
  title={Predatory publishing in management research: A call for open peer review},
  author={Leonhard Dobusch and Maximilian Heimst{\"a}dt},
  journal={Management Learning},
  year={2019},
  volume={50},
  pages={607 - 619}
}

• Leonhard Dobusch, Maximilian Heimstädt
• Published 22 October 2019
• Business
• Management Learning

Predatory journals have emerged as an unintended consequence of the Open Access paradigm. Predatory journals only supposedly or very superficially conduct peer review and accept manuscripts within days to skim off publication fees. In this provocation piece, we first explain how predatory journals exploit deficiencies of the traditional peer review process in times of Open Access publishing. We then explain two ways in which predatory journals may harm the management discipline: as an infrastructure for the dissemination of pseudo-science and as a vehicle to portray management research as pseudo-scientific. Analyzing data from a journal blacklist, we show that without the ability to validate their claims to conduct peer review, most of the 639 predatory management journals are quite difficult to demarcate from serious journals. To address this problem, we propose open peer review as a new governance mechanism for management journals. By making parts of their peer review process more transparent and inclusive, reputable journals can differentiate themselves from predatory journals and additionally contribute to a more developmental reviewing culture. Eventually, we discuss ways in which editors, reviewers, and authors can advocate reform of peer review.