What prompted you to write this editorial and why are predatory journals such a persistent problem in physiotherapy research? 

As both an early-career academic and a practising clinician, I regularly receive unsolicited invitations from journals to submit manuscripts, often in exchange for publication fees. 

While I can recognise predatory journals, not all researchers and clinicians have this knowledge or consistently apply it when deciding where to submit their work. 

This editorial arose from concern that journals identified as ‘predatory’ are increasingly contaminating the scientific literature with unreliable studies. 

These journals have undergone rapid expansion and their digital rebranding, ease of use and aggressive solicitation strategies allow them to persist and adapt quickly—even as awareness and countermeasures grow. 

As a result, they continue to threaten the integrity of the evidence on which clinicians, policymakers and educators rely. 

How do predatory journals affect the quality of evidence that clinicians rely on, especially when their studies slip into systematic reviews? 

Predatory journals compromise the quality of evidence by publishing studies without meaningful peer review. 

They are often characterised by poor methodology, inadequate reporting or even fabricated data. 

Some of these studies are subsequently cited or included in systematic reviews and clinical guidelines, where they can distort pooled estimates and, in some cases, alter conclusions that inform clinical and policy decision-making. 

What practical steps can physiotherapists take to recognise and avoid predatory publishing invitations? 

Treat unsolicited, highly complimentary invitations to submit manuscripts or join editorial boards with caution, particularly when they promise rapid peer review and guaranteed acceptance in exchange for publication fees. 

To avoid predatory publishers, clinicians and researchers can use established tools and resources such as: 

• Beall’s List
• Journal Evaluation Tool
• Cabells Journalytics and Predatory Reports
• Think. Check. Submit.
• Compass to Publish. 

These tools help clinicians assess journal credibility before submitting or citing papers. 

Incorporating these checks into routine practice helps physiotherapists to avoid inadvertently supporting predatory studies or using their publications to guide patient care. 

Of the strategies you propose to combat predatory journals, which do you see as most achievable in the short term? 

The most achievable short-term strategy is to educate the research community and raise awareness, ensuring that researchers, clinicians, students and policymakers understand what predatory journals are, how they operate and why they are harmful. 

Alongside education, two additional strategies are relatively feasible: explicitly decisionflagging ‘potentially unreliable sources’ in systematic reviews and encouraging journals to check and, where possible, remove references to studies published in predatory outlets. 

These steps increase transparency in relation to evidence quality and gradually reduce the visibility and citation of predatory publications without requiring immediate large-scale regulatory reform. 

How should the research community support early-career authors who may unknowingly publish in predatory journals? 

The research community should avoid stigmatising early-career authors who have unknowingly published in predatory journals and instead focus on proactive mentoring and training in journal selection and research integrity. 

Academic supervisors, graduate programs and professional and academic societies can provide guidance on how to evaluate journals, interpret unsolicited invitations and use tools such as those listed in the editorial. 

What changes would you like to see in the next decade to strengthen research integrity and reduce the influence of predatory publishers? 

I believe that research integrity can be strengthened by making predatory journals more difficult to use and less attractive to researchers. 

This requires action at the levels of individual behaviour, evidence synthesis and research infrastructure. 

Researchers, clinicians and institutions should be trained and encouraged to avoid predatory journals. 

Systematic reviews and clinical guidelines should exclude studies published in predatory journals or at least clearly label them as potentially unreliable. 

Databases and legitimate journals can contribute by filtering out predatory articles and checking reference lists for citations from predatory journals. 

If all, or even part, of these strategies are implemented, it is likely that the visibility and impact of predatory journals will be drastically reduced over the next decade. 

>>Lucas HCC Santos is a physiotherapist with a master’s degree in health sciences. He works at São Camilo Hospital and as a clinical supervisor at Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, Brazil. His research focuses on postural control, balance, gait and fall risk in Parkinson’s disease, with additional interests in epidemiology and research methodology. He contributes to global evidence-based initiatives, including the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factors Study, the Cochrane Collaboration and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database.