The Important Distinction Between Peer-Reviewed and Predatory Journals: A Bacterial Endotoxin Test Case

Publication following thorough peer review has been one the essential drivers of scientific progress. While the emergence of open access journals has spread knowledge to a wider audience, a few publishers have started to exploit the model of being specifically paid by authors. They have published so-called predatory journals that have sacrificed scientific scrutiny in favor of revenue. Papers in such journals may bear illegitimate conclusions and thus hamper scientific progress. Here, we did not only explain predatory journals in general, we also elaborated on an example and thereby demonstrated how exactly these journals may deviate from scientific standards. Namely, a manufacturer of bacterial endotoxin tests published in a potentially predatory journal and neglected relevant literature, ill-referenced other papers and made use of judgmental, non-scientific language. Apparently, said manufacturer aimed to shed doubt in recombinant DNA technology (here recombinant Factor C) for bacterial endotoxin testing and, thus, restrict its competitors' access to this market. In turn, this may prevent the development of more accurate, reliable, rapid and affordable bacterial endotoxin tests und in turn hamper progress in pharmaceutical development and manufacturing.