Comparar métodos

	Revistas y editoriales depredadoras	Proceso de Revisión por Pares
Campo	Ética de la publicación	Ética de la publicación
Familia	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Año de origen	2010	1665
Autor original	Jeffrey Beall (University of Colorado Denver); international research community	Scientific publishing community; formalized by journals and COPE
Tipo	Framework	Process
Fuente seminal	Beall, J. (2010). Predatory Open-Access Scholarly Publishers. The Charleston Advisor, 11(4), 10–17.	Committee on Publication Ethics (2023). COPE Guidelines: Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. COPE.
Alias	Predatory Publishing, Fake Journals, Pay-to-Publish Schemes	Peer Reviewing, Manuscript Evaluation, Scholarly Review
Relacionados	4	4
Resumen	Predatory journals are fake academic publishers that exploit the open-access model by charging authors publication fees without providing peer review, editorial oversight, or quality control. Coined by librarian Jeffrey Beall in 2010, the term describes publishers that prioritize profit over scientific integrity, accepting nearly all submissions (regardless of quality), using deceptive marketing (claiming high impact factors, faking indexing, using names similar to established journals), and often hosting work that would not survive peer review. Publishing in predatory journals damages an author's credibility and wastes research dissemination efforts.	Peer review is the process by which manuscripts are evaluated by experts in the same field before publication in academic journals. Reviewers assess the manuscript's scientific merit, methodology, clarity, and contribution to the field. Established in 1665 with the first scientific journal (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society), peer review remains the gold standard for quality control in academic publishing. Despite ongoing criticism and proposals for alternatives, peer review continues to filter low-quality and unethical work, though it is imperfect and sometimes slow.