A continued lack of clarity persists because academics, policymakers, and other interested
parties are unable to clearly define what is a “predatory” journal or publisher, and
a potentially wide gray zone exists there. In this perspective, we argue that journals
should be evaluated on a continuum, and not just in two shades, black and white. Since
evaluations about what might constitute “predatory” are made by humans, the psychological
decision-making system that determines them may induce biases. Considering such human
psychological characteristics might shed light on the deterministic criteria that
have been used, and continue to be used, to classify a journal or publisher as “predatory”,
and perhaps, bring additional clarity to this discussion. Better methods of journal
evaluation can be obtained when the factors that polarize journal evaluations are
identified. As one example, we need to move away from simply using whitelists and
blacklists and educate individual researchers about how to evaluate journals. This
paper serves as an educational tool by providing more clarity about the “gray” publishing
zone, and argues that currently available qualitative and quantitative systems should
be fused to deterministically appreciate the zonation of white, gray and black journals,
so as to possibly reduce or eliminate the influence of cognitive or “perception” bias
from the “predatory” publishing debate.