Journal Of Bioinformatics And Systems Biology Predatory

My Take On Journal Of Bioinformatics And Systems Biology Predatory Status

I ran into this journal about two years ago when a colleague suggested I submit a manuscript there. The name sounded legitimate at first glance — proper capitalization, domain that looked standard for the field. But something about the publication speed they were promising, combined with the vague editorial board listing, set off my alarm bells. I did some digging and here is what I found. Based on my investigation, this journal displays several markers commonly associated with predatory publishing. Let me walk through the specific indicators I checked and why they matter. First, I looked at their indexing claims. They state being indexed in multiple databases but when I cross-referenced those claims against the actual journal lists maintained by PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, the matches were either questionable or nonexistent. Legitimate journals in bioinformatics and systems biology typically have transparent indexing records that are easy to verify. This one did not.

The editorial board was another issue. They list prominent researchers as editors, but when I checked whether those individuals actually acknowledged affiliation with the journal on their institutional profiles or published CVs, most had no record of involvement. This is a classic predatory tactic — naming respected academics without their permission to lend credibility. I also noticed their APC, or article processing charge structure, was aggressively low compared to peer-reviewed alternatives in the same space. While reasonable fees are normal, extremely cheap publication combined with guaranteed acceptance timelines is a red flag. My colleague who submitted there reported receiving an acceptance within ten days. Not ten business days. Ten calendar days. For a manuscript that underwent substantive revision.

How To Verify A Journal Yourself

I stopped relying on third-party warning lists alone because they are often outdated or miss newer entries. Here is the process I now use before submitting anywhere. I start with the Cabells Blacklists. It is a paid database but if your institution has access, it is worth checking. The coverage in computational biology journals has been thorough in my experience. Next I check Ulrichsweb to confirm the journal has an ISSN and a legitimate publisher. Then I look up the ISSN on the NLM Catalog to see if it is being considered for MEDLINE. That is a meaningful filter because the National Library of Medicine does basic vetting.

I also search the journal name alongside terms like "predatory" or "warning" on forums and academic social networks. Community knowledge from researchers who have actually dealt with these journals is often faster and more honest than any database. Finally, I email two or three of the listed editorial board members directly. A real editor will respond professionally. Someone whose name was used without permission will either ignore you or give a vague response that avoids confirming their role.

A Specific Problem I Encountered

Here is a detail that does not come up in most guides like this. After I decided not to submit to this journal, I realized my institution's research repository had already been scraping metadata from their website for a compliance report. Their records listed a recent special issue that I could not verify through any academic database. I had to write a clarification to our library services team explaining that those publications did not exist in any recognized index and should not count toward departmental review metrics. It took about two weeks of back-and-forth to get it corrected. The workaround was simple but annoying. I requested a formal audit of every journal we had submitted to over the previous three years through our institutional repository API. It flagged six other questionable journals beyond the one I already suspected. That saved my department from potentially counting non-existent publications during an accreditation review.

What To Submit To Instead

If you are working in bioinformatics or systems biology and need a legitimate venue, the choices are well established. BMC Bioinformatics, PLOS Computational Biology, Bioinformatics (Oxford), and the Journal of Computational Biology are all legitimate with proper peer review processes. They have real acceptance rates, real editorial oversight, and real indexing. If cost is a concern, many of these journals offer APC waivers for researchers from low-income countries, and some are fully diamond open access with no fees at all. The key tradeoff is that real peer review takes time. Expect three to six months for initial decisions rather than the ten-day turnaround that predatory journals advertise. I have learned to prefer the longer timeline. A paper that survives legitimate review is defensible. A paper that appears in a predatory journal is not, and the reputational risk extends to your entire lab group, not just yourself.

I do not claim to have inside knowledge of every journal in this space. My assessment is based on observable indicators and direct verification steps. If you are evaluating a journal and want a second opinion, check its ISSN against the NLM catalog and run the editorial board names through a literature search. Those two steps alone will catch most predatory operations before you invest your work in them.