When “Peer-reviewed” Isn’t: An Experiment on Predatory Journal Recognition and Credibility Heuristics
Predatory journals threaten research integrity by imitating the signals of legitimate publishing, yet little empirical work examines whether readers can reliably detect them or identify the cues driving credibility judgments. This ongoing experimental study investigates how individuals evaluate scientific research when journal-level signals vary in legitimacy, holding research content constant while manipulating journal labels. Participants assess perceived credibility, trust, and intended use of the research, alongside confidence in their evaluations and the heuristics when making judgments.
Across participants, journal labels shape credibility assessments, with respondents relying on surface-level cues such as journal reputation, citations, and author credentials. The study is being expanded to include members of the general public, higher education, and journalists, enabling comparison across audiences that play central roles in consuming, teaching, and communicating research. Together, this work aims to inform research-literacy interventions and improve how scientific credibility is evaluated in expanding predatory publishing.
