The storm around Beall’s List: a review of issues raised by Beall’s critics over his criteria of identifying predatory journals and publishers

The issue of substandard, or the predatory journals as they are popularly known, flooding the internet has been one of the biggest challenges to quality and ethical scholarship in modern world. One of the most renowned watchdogs of predatory publishers was Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado-Denver, who came up with a blacklist of predatory OA publishers and journals. For several years since the publishing of the Beall’s list, there has been increasing concerns about the criteria that Beall used to develop his lists, with some scholars dismissing his lists as inaccurate, misleading and dangerous to academics. A review of literature of studies conducted concerning the predatory journals indicates that there is limited literature on systematic examination of the issues raised by Beall’s critics over these lists of predatory journals and publishers. To address this gap, this study sets out to answer this question: What are the major concerns of the critics of Beall’s list of predatory journals and publishers? Using a descriptive design that exploited qualitative approach, the researcher analysed 30 purposefully sampled publications. The findings indicate that four key issues are often raised by Beall’s critics: methodological flaws; Beall's bias against OA; discrimination against developing economies; and Beall’s lists of predatory publishers as an onslaught to academic freedom.Keywords: Beall’s list, critics, predatory, journals, publisher

Cabells Scholarly Analytics: A Go-To Source on Journal Quality (Review)

Cabells Scholarly Analytics (https://www2.cabells.com/journals ) is reviewed. Cabells is a publisher of the white list of publishing opportunities, and the black list of predatory journals and publishers, following the ceasing of Beall\u27s List of Predatory Publishing

Incidence of predatory journals in computer science literature

Purpose One of the main tasks of a researcher is to properly communicate the results he obtained. The choice of the journal in which to publish the work is therefore very important. However, not all journals have suitable characteristics for a correct dissemination of scientific knowledge. Some publishers turn out to be unreliable and, against a payment, they publish whatever researchers propose. The authors call "predatory journals" these untrustworthy journals. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the incidence of predatory journals in computer science literature and present a tool that was developed for this purpose. Design/methodology/approach The authors focused their attention on editors, universities and publishers that are involved in this kind of publishing process. The starting point of their research is the list of scholarly open-access publishers and open-access stand-alone journals created by Jeffrey Beall. Specifically, they analysed the presence of predatory journals in the search results obtained from Google Scholar in the engineering and computer science fields. They also studied the change over time of such incidence in the articles published between 2011 and 2015. Findings The analysis shows that the phenomenon of predatory journals somehow decreased in 2015, probably due to a greater awareness of the risks related to the reputation of the authors. Originality/value We focused on computer science field, using a specific sample of queries. We developed a software to automatically make queries to the search engine, and to detect predatory journals, using Beall's list

List of predatory journals and publishers

The predatory publications are a big challenge, especially in developing countries including Nepal. Predatory publishing not only harms or degrades academic reputations but also wastes time, money, resources, and efforts (Shrestha et al., 2020). Predatory publications pose a danger that could undermine the quality, integrity, and reliability of published scientific research works. Predatory publications also harm the reputation of the universities and research organizations which are connected with these publications. Universities and research organizations should educate researchers, especially juniors, about the existence of predatory journals, the dangers they pose, and ways to avoid them (Shrestha, 2020). The problem of potential open access predatory or fake publications is an important issue that must be actively discussed at national, regional and world level within academic communities (Shrestha et al., 2018b). Predatory publications must be avoided or excluded while evaluating CV or biodata of researchers for job promotion and releasing the research grants. The authors should be careful about predatory or fake journals/publishers for communicating their scientific works (Shrestha et al., 2018a). The researchers should be aware of the quality of journals while publishing their research results (Shrestha et al., 2020). There is an international initiative called “Think. Check. Submit.” (http://thinkchecksubmit.org) that helps the researchers to identify trusted journals for publication. It contains a simple checklist researchers can use to assess the credentials of a journal or publisher. Authors should look at the journal website some of the articles published in the journals to assess their quality; this quick review may be all that is needed to identify predatory journals (Forero et al., 2018).The below list of predatory journals and publishers is copied from https://predatoryjournals.com/ (Anonymous, 2020a) and https://beallslist.net/ (Anonymous, 2020b). The purpose of this article is to create awareness about the predatory publications

Risk of publication in worthless journals

oai:nepjol:article/22217Implementing research and publishing results is a crucial for a professional development, scientific communication and collaboration of any academicians, scholars, and researchers in science around the world. The timely dissemination of knowledge and scientific information in the global scientific community helps the development of science and worldwide recognition. The researchers working on scientific community cannot appreciate the value of evidence generated without publishing their work in right and quality journals. Therefore, authors should be careful about predatory or fake journals/publishers for communicating their scientific works. The objective of this study is to raise awareness on predatory or fake publishers/journals and of their dishonest publishing practices. In general, the predatory journal publishes without peer review and true editorial board, often publish mediocre or even worthless papers on charging high publication cost, citing fake and non-existing impact factors and mostly focused on private business motives. On the other hand, publishing in a high impact quality journals undoubtedly enhances the future career prospects, communication ability of authors and deliver concise research messages in the scientific field. Researcher of various disciplines and academic experience should aware with the lists of predatory journals/publishers which are available on Beall’s list in internet before publishing any research articles. Therefore, publishing in predatory/fake journals not only spoil or degrade academic reputations but also waste the time, resources and research message too

Hype or real threat : the extent of predatory journals in student bibliographies

Predatory publishing has risen with the development of open access publishing. This study examines how many potential predatory journals were used by Brandon University students by analyzing their bibliographies. In total, 245 bibliographies including 2,359 citations were analyzed. Of the 1,485 citations to journals in these citations, five were found to cite journals on Beall’s List of Predatory Journals and Publishers. The probable sources of these journals in the students’ bibliographies were examined.Peer reviewedpredatory publishingopen access publishingacademic librariesbibliographic analysisPublished Online. Full text is available in IRBU and from the publisher. Publisher full text is available to BU community members via the DOI. Off-campus users must ensure that they are logged into the proxy server for access

What Those Responsible for Open Infrastructure in Scholarly Communication Can Do about Possibly Predatory Practices

This chapter presents a three-phase analysis of 521 journals that use the open source publishing platform Open Journal Systems (OJS) while appearing on Beall’s list of predatory publishers and journals and/or inCabells Predatory Reports, both which purport to identify journals that charge authors article processing fees (APC) to publish in the pretense of a peer-reviewed journal. In 2020, 25,671 journals were actively using OJS, with 81.3 percent in the Global South, representing a great growth in global research activities. As members of the Public Knowledge Project, which develops this freely available publishing platform, the authors feel a responsibility to explore what platform developers can do to address both the real problem of duplicitous journals and the over-ascription of the “predatory” label to publishers and journals. represented by the authors of this chapter, Drawing on data from the beacon is a part of OJS, the chapter represents an assessment and intervention In the first phase, the researchers reached out to 50 publishers and 51 journals that use OJS and appear on Beall’s list offering to assist in improving their journal quality. The response from 14 publishers (28.0 percent) among publishers and two journals (3.9 percent) among standalone journals demonstrated a likely misanalysis as “predatory” along multiple dimensions from financial model to peer-review evidence. The second phase, devoted to assessing the degree to which journals using OJS are implicated in this issue, revealed that 2.0 percent of the journals using OJS are on one or both lists. The two phases point to how the identification issue is not that of Beall or Cabells International, but results from a journal tradition of asking readers to take on trust the adherence to scholarly standards. Amid the increase in research and open access to it, the third phase of this study introduces PKP’s new technical strategy for verifying and communicating standards adherence to the public. Work has begun on systems involving trade organizations, such ORCiD and Crossref, for authenticating journal practices (including editorial oversight, peer review, research funding, and data management), while communication strategies include adapting and testing with students and professionals the familiar Nutrition Facts label used with packaged foods. The goal is to provide a publicly accessible industry standard for more reliably assessing journal quality

Changing the Conversation from Avoiding Predatory Journals to Finding and Evaluating the Right Journal

Objective: Predatory publishing is a trending topic in academia. Librarians all over are having conversations with faculty on how to steer clear of predatory publishers. But helping avoid predatory journals doesn’t meet the goal of having an article published. Now is the time to explore changing the conversation from predatory publishing to finding and evaluating the right journal. Methods: Last year librarians went to departmental meetings to present a cautionary tale of the predatory publisher. Outlandish emails from predatory journals were shared, along with what to look for when determining whether or not a journal publisher is legitimate. But just knowing how to steer clear of the predators did not answer the question, “Which journal should I publish in?” To help faculty answer this question, the library held two hands on workshops for faculty, staff and residents. Librarians taught participants how to determine their goals and criteria for publishing, how to compare their article to the aim and scope of a journal and make a determination on whether or not the journal was the right fit for them. As participants answered the questions on the worksheet they built a list of criteria for selecting the right journal for their article. Results: Participants were able to find and evaluate journals for their manuscripts, while still steering clear of predatory publishers. Conclusions: In the “publish or perish” era, it is important for faculty members to publish in reputable journals, but it is equally important for them to find the best journal to meet their publishing goals. Librarians can move the conversation beyond predatory journals by giving faculty the tools and skills they need to find and evaluate the right journal

The Write Stuff - Spring 2017 (Vol. 14, No. 2)

GrantScoop helps researchers find funding opportunities New NIH guidance on citing interim research products in grant applications: a note of caution Update on Beall’s list of suspected predatory journals and publishers Using double and single quotation marks Grant guidance and upcoming grant deadlines -- Unusual terms used in scientific writing and publishing: PMID and PMCIDhttps://openworks.mdanderson.org/writestuff_2017/1002/thumbnail.jp

Strategies to curb young researchers from predatory publishers

This letter addresses the current scenario of predatory publishers in the medical field and strategies to curb young researchers from predatory publishing. Today, the increasing trend and magnitude of predatory publishers have proposed a big challenge to young researchers in the medical field (1). Predatory publishers are publishers which publish papers with questionable peer review, charge enormous publication fees with unknown location of the real controlling entity (2). Jeffry Beall has updated the lists of predatory publications more recently (3). Predatory publishers are publishing bogus research which are harmful to the patient and the public and cause threat to the integrity of scientific research (4). It was evident from a recent study from India that predatory publications may have several publication houses with different names under a single roof to trap authors from different geographic locations (5). People with no research interest, persons with intention of quick publication for promotion, innocent researchers unaware of predatory unscientific practice are often victims to predatory publishers (6). More recently, World Association of Medical Editors has conveyed information about the role of Directory of open access journals (DOAJ). Beall’s list of predatory publications and think check submit criteria in distinguishing predatory from legitimate publications were appreciated throughout the globe (7). The young researchers should keep the above attributes related to predatory publishers in mind. The following strategies (individual- wise and community- wise) should be implemented to curb young researchers from predatory publishing. If the researcher had got invitation to submit an article from a predatory publisher as email, he/she should follow Beall’s list of predatory publications, think check submit criteria and Directory of open access journals (DOAJ) and PubMed indexation to authenticate the publisher. World Association of Medical Editors should initiate continuing medical education programs and workshops regarding predatory publishers throughout the globe through regional bodies such as Indian Association of Medical Journal Editors (India), Pakistan Association of Medical Editors (Pakistan) and Iranian Society of Medical Editors (Iran). The members of the above-said associations should conduct workshops and continuing medical education programs in regional areas to encourage ethical publishing in future. It will be more interesting if World Association of Medical Editors has come up with predatory publishers, detecting software installed in Medical Universities similar to plagiarism detection software to halt the flourishing of predatory publishers