This article systematically reviews recent empirical research on the factors shaping academics' knowledge about, and motivations to publish work in, so‐called ‘predatory’ journals. Growing scholarly evidence suggests that the concept of ‘predatory’ publishing’ – used to describe deceptive journals exploiting vulnerable researchers – is inadequate for understanding the complex range of institutional and contextual factors that shape the publication decisions of individual academics. This review identifies relevant empirical studies on academics who have published in ‘predatory’ journals, and carries out a detailed comparison of 16 papers that meet the inclusion criteria. While most start from Beall's framing of ‘predatory’ publishing, their empirical findings move the debate beyond normative assumptions about academic vulnerability. They offer particular insights into the academic pressures on scholars at the periphery of a global research economy. This systematic review shows the value of a holistic approach to studying individual publishing decisions within specific institutional, economic and political contexts. Rather than assume that scholars publishing in ‘questionable’ journals are naïve, gullible or lacking in understanding, fine‐grained empirical research provides a more nuanced conceptualization of the pressures and incentives shaping their decisions. The review suggests areas for further research, especially in emerging research systems in the global South.

中文翻译：

---

使“掠夺性出版”问题化：对影响出版动机，决策和经验的因素的系统评价

本文系统地回顾了有关影响学者关于所谓“掠夺性”期刊的知识和动机的最新实证研究。越来越多的学术证据表明，“掠夺性出版”的概念（用于描述利用脆弱研究人员的欺骗性期刊）不足以理解影响各个学者发表决定的复杂制度和背景因素。这篇综述确定了在“掠夺性”期刊上发表的学者的相关经验研究，并对符合纳入标准的16篇论文进行了详细比较。尽管大多数是从Beall的“掠夺性”出版框架开始的，但他们的经验发现使辩论超出了关于学术脆弱性的规范性假设。他们提供了关于全球研究经济外围学者面临的学术压力的特别见解。这份系统的综述显示了在特定的制度，经济和政治背景下研究整体出版决策的整体方法的价值。细粒度的实证研究并没有认为在“可疑”期刊上发表论文的学者是幼稚的，容易受骗的或缺乏理解，而是提供了更为细微的概念化概念，来阐明决定其决策的压力和动机。该评论提出了需要进一步研究的领域，特别是在全球南方新兴的研究系统中。这份系统的综述显示了在特定的制度，经济和政治背景下研究整体出版决策的整体方法的价值。细粒度的实证研究并没有认为在“可疑”期刊上发表论文的学者是幼稚的，容易受骗的或缺乏理解，而是提供了更为细微的概念化概念，来阐明决定其决策的压力和动机。该评论提出了需要进一步研究的领域，特别是在全球南方的新兴研究系统中。这份系统的综述显示了在特定的制度，经济和政治背景下研究整体出版决策的整体方法的价值。细粒度的实证研究并没有认为在“可疑”期刊上发表论文的学者是幼稚的，容易受骗的或缺乏理解，而是提供了更为细微的概念化概念，来阐明决定其决策的压力和动机。该评论提出了需要进一步研究的领域，特别是在全球南方的新兴研究系统中。