Introduction

Open access [OA] scholarly publishing has grown rapidly over the last decade and has succeeded in consolidating its position as a valid vehicle for the publication of journal articles and the dissemination of research findings (Laakso et al., 2011; Salager-Meyer, 2012). At its most basic, OA journal publishing refers to the free and unrestricted online access to full-text articles published in academic journals. Unfortunately, alongside the increase in numbers of OA journals, academic publishing has also seen the emergence of predatory publishers — that is, those ‘which publish counterfeit journals to exploit the open-access model in which the author pays’ (Beall, 2012, p. 179). These journals not only impact the OA movement and confidence in peer-reviewing (Beall, 2012; Bohannon, 2013; Bartholomew, 2014), but also put the credibility of rigorous research at risk, while fomenting confusion among unsuspecting novices seeking a target journal for their work. OA can claim to offer authors and their research ‘vast and measurable new visibility, readership, and impact’ (Budapest Open Access Initiative, 2002, n.p.). Clearly, free unlimited access to journals enhances the visibility of an article — thus, raising its impact and increasing citation counts (in some cases by as much as 250%, according to Harnad, 2008). The deleterious influence of predatory practices casts a shadow of doubt over the OA model and impinges on the reputation of certain journals, particularly those accessed or published exclusively online; young, small or peripheral journals (that is, published by developing or peripheral countries and outside the scope of mainstream publishing houses, as defined by Salager-Meyer, 2015); or those that are not (or not yet) abstracted or indexed in reputable databases and lists. Fear of plagiarism, concerns pertaining to copyright and digital archiving, scepticism about the maintenance of research quality and integrity, fear of the absence of the controls resulting from peer review (hence, poor quality control), or the claim that the very existence of scholarly journals is threatened — these are all reasons that work against the OA model (Salager-Meyer, 2012).