Greetings,

I am doing research on publication ethics. Here is some info I can share on the issue:

Jeffrey Beall coined the expression ‘predatory open access publishing’ in 2010 (Butler, 2013). He compiled a blacklist on his blog entitled Scholarly Open Access of what he considered to be predatory journals, which grew to list 1,155 publishers in 2014.

The term ‘pseudo-journals’ has also been proposed (McGlynn, 2013).

The number of publication volumes released by predatory journals has grown from 53,000 in 2010 to 420,000 articles in 2014, published by around 8,000 active journals (Shen & Björk, 2015).

In 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (an independent agency of the United States government) filed a lawsuit against the OMICS Group, iMedPub, ConferenceSeries, and Srinubabu Gedela, stating that they were “deceiving academics and researchers about the nature of its publications and hiding publication fees ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars” (Federal Trade Commission, 2016).

Personally, I prefer to offer my services as a reviewers or as an editor (as a volunteer of course) to journals that are Open Access to researchers all over the world, completely free of charge.

I would advise reading this by the way:

Colquhoun, D. (September 5, 2011). Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science. Retrieved on October 30, 2017 from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science

This is also very enlightening:

https://www.enago.com/academy/fake-peer-review-leads-to-massive-retractions/

References

Butler, D. (2013). Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing. Nature, 495(7442), 433–435. doi:10.1038/495433a

McGlynn, T. (2013). The evolution of pseudojournals. Dominguez Hills, CA: Small Pond Science. Retrieved on October 30, 2017 from http://smallpondscience.com/2013/02/14/the-evolution-of-pseudojournals

Shen, C., & Björk, B.-C. (2015). ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13:230. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2

Federal Trade Commission (August 26, 2016). FTC Charges Academic Journal Publisher OMICS Group Deceived Researchers. Retrieved on October 30, 2017 from https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/08/ftc-charges-academic-journal-publisher-omics-group-deceived

Here is a useful blog on plagiarism and scientific misconduct:

http://plagiat.htw-berlin.de/software-en/test2013/

https://copy-shake-paste.blogspot.tw/2017/09/news-from-world-of-academic-integrity.html

I for one still rely on personal experience and conversations with my peers. I have indeed received invites from less serious publishers - they also play their game here at RG. They will not succeed.

@MichaelPatriksson: Could you please elaborate which kind of game do you mean?

@KlaasvanDijk: The sites you mentioned are static copies of the Beall's list, and one would naturally like to find some sort of a follow-up project which is regularly updated.

One such site is beallslist.weebly.com; the site I discuss in this question is another possible candidate but so far I was not able to find on it any details as to how often it is updated, so I asked this question trying inter alia to figure out how often do the updates occur.

Greetings,

I am doing research on publication ethics. Here is some info I can share on the issue:

Jeffrey Beall coined the expression ‘predatory open access publishing’ in 2010 (Butler, 2013). He compiled a blacklist on his blog entitled Scholarly Open Access of what he considered to be predatory journals, which grew to list 1,155 publishers in 2014.

The term ‘pseudo-journals’ has also been proposed (McGlynn, 2013).

The number of publication volumes released by predatory journals has grown from 53,000 in 2010 to 420,000 articles in 2014, published by around 8,000 active journals (Shen & Björk, 2015).

In 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (an independent agency of the United States government) filed a lawsuit against the OMICS Group, iMedPub, ConferenceSeries, and Srinubabu Gedela, stating that they were “deceiving academics and researchers about the nature of its publications and hiding publication fees ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars” (Federal Trade Commission, 2016).

Personally, I prefer to offer my services as a reviewers or as an editor (as a volunteer of course) to journals that are Open Access to researchers all over the world, completely free of charge.

I would advise reading this by the way:

Colquhoun, D. (September 5, 2011). Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science. Retrieved on October 30, 2017 from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science

This is also very enlightening:

https://www.enago.com/academy/fake-peer-review-leads-to-massive-retractions/

References

Butler, D. (2013). Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing. Nature, 495(7442), 433–435. doi:10.1038/495433a

McGlynn, T. (2013). The evolution of pseudojournals. Dominguez Hills, CA: Small Pond Science. Retrieved on October 30, 2017 from http://smallpondscience.com/2013/02/14/the-evolution-of-pseudojournals

Shen, C., & Björk, B.-C. (2015). ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13:230. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2

Federal Trade Commission (August 26, 2016). FTC Charges Academic Journal Publisher OMICS Group Deceived Researchers. Retrieved on October 30, 2017 from https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/08/ftc-charges-academic-journal-publisher-omics-group-deceived

Here is a useful blog on plagiarism and scientific misconduct:

http://plagiat.htw-berlin.de/software-en/test2013/

https://copy-shake-paste.blogspot.tw/2017/09/news-from-world-of-academic-integrity.html

Some more info:

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/07/25/cabells-new-predatory-journal-blacklist-review/

Cabells launched a blacklist of "deceptive" journals on June 17, 2017, using 65 criteria. "Forget the guesswork, get the data" (https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/15775/269309)

It is a pity that it is accessible only by subscription, because it solves many problems: it has a team reviewing a journal's appeal if it contests being added to the list. A journal can be removed from the list if it shows good faith and improvement. Cabells made some smart moves: it lists only deceptive journal, that is journals, not publishers. I personally find it very unfair and unacceptable to do some kind of "collective punishment". Moreover, it is also very damaging to blacklist journals that are not intentionally deceptive. Most journals, at the start, have little to no budget and need time to grow and to learn how to publish a good issue. Merely low-quality journals certainly don't deserve to be broken, taking away their chance to improve and flowrish. Finally, the list includes all type of journals, not just open access. After all, most of the so-called scientific journals have been plagued with scandals of plagiarism, fake data, fake positive peer-review , and so on (for example, in 2017, Springer retracted 107 articles previously accepted with what happened to be fake peer reviews). Just because something was published in a prestigious closed-access journal doesn’t mean that it’s true or excellent.

nice information to avoid black list Journals

Dear @Artur, thanks for bringing new resource on predatory journals. Yes, it is dynamic and up to date, thanking to continuous contributions via GitHUB.

" The site runs on GitHub and anyone can use the affordances of that platform to make contributions, suggestions, edits, or add journals and publishers to the list. In addition to the existing lists, it is hoped that we can add more data about both journals and publishers in order to maintain a fair case for boycotting them. Lists will be available for easy export through this platform. It is hoped that this collaborative approach will give some ownership of the list to the scholarly community that is meant to be served by it..."

https://predatoryjournals.com/contribute/

A waste of time. Find the best journals in your areas of interest and forget about the other journals.

UGC, India identified journals in every subject. The publication in these journals are only considered for academic contribution by teachers. But recent study indicated that 88% of these journals are predatory.

Earlier in one of study it is found around 1000 journals listed in Directory of Open Access Journals are predatory from India. Then DOAJ changed its norms to include journals in directory.

In few cases the faculty are submitting articles written by others as if they are authors by changing name and making it photocopy for submission.. The universities neither have desire nor system to verify whether that particular academic is author or not?

What nomenclature can b given to such fake submissions?

Thanks Vishnu ji. UGC in India made it mandatory to scrutinise every thesis using plagiarism software. Unfortunately, many universities dont follow this norm. Can we say such univs are afraid of their PhD outputs?

Even UGC had given necessary software at free of cost.

Can we conclude that these univs are not contributing for quality?

Vishnuji and other researchers

Good topic for discussion. Derek Pyne , is correctly mentioned about the journals which are not indexed even after several years of their existence. In this case they are not able to cope with the criteria of indexing databases. Publishing a good quality journal and its sustainability is not at all easy task.

Some of my observations are as follows.

It is noticed that newly recruited teachers and Ph.D. students are not aware of Predatory journals. It is a role of all libraries to increase the awareness about such journals and publications. In many countries librarians are doing this job as librarians are trained to purchase quality publications. But unfortunately, this topic remain untouched especially librarians from developing countries.

Library schools especially in India needs to add "publication ethics" as a topic in their curricula. A large number of training programmes and workshops should be arranged to increase the awareness.

Many researchers are not aware of "indexed journal". Lots of predatory journals mentions several fake agencies as "indexing agencies" as well as fake impact factor numbers.

Shubhada

it is a known fact that libraries are neglected lot in educational institutions. Same time the skill, desire to improve themselves by librarians is decreasing. Basically an urgent need to change the education system in India. Politicians decide the fate of education in India.

Many private institutions have becomes centres for money making and who can stop them.

Nothing is independent and everything is interrelated.

Still libraries can play a great role but staff have to b committed.

I advise each researcher to check the journal in this site before submitting his manuscript.

You do have many resources about predatory publishers and journals, as well as many cases at COPE! link follows!

https://publicationethics.org/search/site/predatory%20publishing

Dear @Ljubomir, Thank you for the link.

Honestly added FYI:

a 'cross-reference' to this thread was made most recently by Murad Almekhlafi [Answer # 027 ] in:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/You_believe_this_man_Jeffrey_Beall_and_what_about_his_list_of_Predatory_Journals_and_Publishers?

Very interesting discussion...I advise to focus on well-known publishers to avoid predatory journals. Also, check websites of scopus and web of science to be sure about indexing

Than you very much dear Dr. Artur Sergyeyev for your valuable information on predatory journals related link.

A “predatory journal” is a supposed academic journal that charges authors for publication (rather than using a peer review or editorial review process to select articles). There is no real career value in getting published in a predatory journal. There are organizations that track reputable journals and expose ones that are viewed as predatory.

It is not just publishing by taking money. OA journals do that. Predatory include fake, prominent editors names are used without their consent, never published in real etc. We can read earlier statements for more details.

Dear @Beemnet, you are continuing to practice massive plagiarism by using Quora resource.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-predatory-journal

Betsy Riley is the author!!! You are not!!!

" A “predatory journal” is a supposed academic journal that charges authors for publication (rather than using a peer review or editorial review process to select articles). There is no real career value in getting published in a predatory journal. There are organizations that track reputable journals and expose ones that are viewed as predatory."

Dear @Vishnu, I have given 7 comments in the row about plagiarism of @Beemnet. He copies from Quora mostly. RG officials MUST do something in order to prevent the plagiarism. Visit my contribution page to see these facts about plagiarism!!!

Yes, I appreciate what the new websites are doing. They are expanding and also listing Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory journals.

Predatory journals are a serious concern to all academic activities. However, their identification and marginalization becomes difficult because of the several misconceptions that exist in minds of researchers. I would list some of these in the following:

1. 'Predatory' journals publish 'anything' without a review on payment of some charges - while this is true, the counter belief that 'established' and 'reputed' journals do not publish for the sake of money is not always as correct as we believe since many of them specifically ask authors not to worry about novelty and advancement in knowledge in the submitted manuscript. As a consequence, manuscripts rejected by reviewers on justifiable academic grounds also get published because a hefty charge is collected by the journal for publication. In this light, such journals also come close to a 'predatory' journal.

2. Journals published by established publishers are of good quality- this common belief is not true. The publishing 'giants' are taking over as many journals as they can so that they can offer a big 'package' to libraries and collect huge amounts (often undisclosed) as subscription charges. Such 'packages' include numerous journals that are not 'good, or may even be bad and, therefore, are rarely referred to by the library users.

3. Belief that 'indexed' journals are good and those not indexed are not good is also not as correct as we believe. Conventionally we recognize 'indexing' by a few agencies only as authentic. However, it is not to be forgotten that most of them are commercial enterprises owned by some of the publication 'giants'. Being included in these indexing services, therefore, is not purely on merit. Consequently, while many bad journals get included, good journals remain out of their database for reasons other than quality.

4. Not subscribing to poor journals by libraries may help curb 'predatory' journals is also not correct, partly because of the above noted system of 'package' of journals available for subscription, but more because the predatory journals (as also those charging huge 'open-access' charges) do not thrive on subscription by libraries but on payment by authors and readers.

Prospective authors must remain conscious of journals that would 'guarantee' publication within a short time on payment of certain charges without a well-define editorial and peer-review policies and must avoid such outlets for dissemination of their research findings. Such journals are often fictitious and publication in them may mean denial of any credit. They must first find out the quality of articles generally published in a journal, rather than go simply by its 'impact factor', publisher name and its being indexed. Another important consideration should be if the journal is expected to reach a wider readership in the domain of the study.

I personally would not like to publish in a journal where authors are required to pay some charges for publishing their work. I believe that the hard work carried out by authors should be available to anyone interested in knowing about the advance. Research publication should be a social responsibility of academic institutions, learned societies, and academies. Commercial houses have to have their commercial interests but publication of journals should not become a hugely profit making industry.

Pre-print archives need to be actively used and promoted by serious academics since they provide 'eternal' free access to new research work to anyone interested. Wider usages of this system would certainly curb the menace of 'predatory' journals and the excessive charges being collected by the many other 'established' journals.

Several of my earlier articles (available on Researchgate) have discussed these issues.

Let me be back to the original question. Dear @Artur, do you know who is behind this web site? I can not find relevant info.

They have twitter account. No impact and relations there.

https://twitter.com/stoppredatoryj

It's a step in the right direction. We need to know all the predatory journals in an extensive format. I need to familiarize with the site. Thanks for sharing

Dear @Ljubomir, thanks. The fact that the identity of the web site authors is not known is one of the reasons I asked the question in the first place.

Healthy discussion on the topic... Vishnu Kumar , Laxman Rao, Subhash Chandra and Derek Pyne et. all raised the issues and suggest solutions. very interesting topic.

Dear Ljubomir, dear Arthur and anybody interested....

Ljubomir asked [Re No. 040, above ]

"Let me be back to the original question. Dear @Artur, do you know who is behind this web site? I can not find relevant info.

They have twitter account. No impact and relations there.

https://twitter.com/stoppredatoryj

" (End of quote)

On the related Twitter account there again is a link to

" predatoryjournals.com ".

Since I am not on Twitter yet, I searched for

WHO IS?: " predatoryjournals.com "

i) https://www.whois.com/whois/predatoryjournals.com

Domain Information

Domain: predatoryjournals.com Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC Registration Date: 2017-01-21 Expiration Date: 2019-01-21

Updated Date: 2018-01-22

Status: clientDeleteProhibited clientRenewProhibited clientTransferProhibited clientUpdateProhibited

Name Servers: boyd.ns.cloudflare.com maria.ns.cloudflare.com

Registrant Contact

Name: Registration Private

Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC Street: DomainsByProxy.com 14455 N. Hayden Road

City: Scottsdale State: Arizona Postal Code: 85260 Country: US

Phone: +1.4806242599 Fax: +1.4806242598 Email: 📷@domainsbyproxy.com

Administration Data Technical Data, RAW DATA (all the same) can be found there too .

ii) Isn't it interesting that earlier this year I had a series of severe SPAMMING from TEMPORARY accounts, non-permanently registered Senders (e.g. at /via GoDaddy)....and I have saved some of them for demo reasons:

SPAM-E-Mail received Mi 07.03.2018 20:14 from:

The Amazing Dog Toy

Concern: [Norton AntiSpam] Keep your dog busy for hours with this toy.

When searching for the Registrant of>kcblink.com< I learned (e. g. also in the GoDADDY database) that this was affiliated with a person:

Hanna RICE, c/o GoDaddy Redemption Services,14455 N. Hayden Road, Suite 219, SCOTTSDALE AZ 85260 US_no e-mail.

The registrants of most of the multiple spam-messages (they always sent packages of 5-10 SPAM-mails within 10-12 hrs or so, every mail in that package with different fictious e-mail-sender-addresses ). then they obviously deregistered because some day later I couldn't track them again on GoDADDY).

In this case ("Registration private", see above) the registry doesn't reveal any registrants by name. I doubt that anybody asking GoDaddy who is the true registrant will not get the name(s) behind. But I haven't tried yet....

So, perhaps, to update (y)our knowledge or skills, search Google Maps for: >14455 N. Hayden Road, SCOTTSDALE AZ 85260 US

Thanks

it is very informative discussion , but still not clear to me that how to avoid these predatory journal.

@Peter Breuer: I am / was aware that there might be or is a person, or even a group of 'operators' using anonymous registration to manage virtually a site where anybody might place or add evidential or even suspected data (with regard to "predatory" journals or institutions as they were described to exist). And I apologize if my "misguided attempt" did hurt anybody or did brake any rule. What I wanted to show was that anybody with a certain interest perhaps could register anonymously at Companies like GoDaddy, start website(s), create, distribute and gather data, information, opinions....

And no one but GoDaddy.com (?) knows who is behind, therefore, at first sight no consequences in any case of 'bitter truth' (verified) or 'deliberately constructed misconduct'.... [ 'so they can't be pressured as Beall was' ].

I don't want to know WHO is behind and WHO is paying for....and am not trying to brake the secret of the operator's anonymity either. They chose anonymity and so it be...

As the 'group of operators' (of https://predatoryjournals.com, see opening website at bottom) state:

(Quote:) "If you want to contribute the name of a predatory journal or publisher, either email us, send us a tweet, or create an issue or pull request for the data files on GitHub. Be sure to include evidence of predatory behavior. We will investigate submissions to verify them, but our time is limited and more information helps us to verify more quickly." (End of Quote) and define more properly their intentions and explain also "How to contribute" at https://predatoryjournals.com/about/ it would be interesting to learn at least about the / their incremental improvement of the so called historical "Beall's List" (on Scholarly Open, which was shut down in Jan. 2017). On https://github.com/stop-predatory-journals/stop-predatory-journals.github.io ( A listing of predatory academic journals & publishers ) the last activity is indicated as "6 months ago" (presumably 10th of Jan.2018)

further information and sources:

Google search: " https://predatoryjournals " , predatoryjournals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_open-access_publishing

Again apologies if my post is/was (my posts are/were) misleading or a misguided attempt.

Researchers interested in this topic might want to take a look at the lead article in The Economist magazine's Science & Technology section. June 23-29th edition, pp. 71-72. (This week's edition at time of posting)

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/06/23/some-science-journals-that-claim-to-peer-review-papers-do-not-do-so

It reviews work going beyond Beall by Bo-Christer Bjork (Helsinki School of Economics), and others, particularly in terms of which genuinely do peer-review, and those faking it.

Some journal editors are complaining that there is politics in Beale's list of predatory journals. However, I believed that majority of journals in the list are predatory and fake ones but not all journals in the list.

Thanks

What I have observed, particularly in my country, is that most people can't distinguish between predatory journals and journals which ask for Page charges. There might be some intersection between these two sets but these are not equivalent! Beall made the mistake by listing Frontier Series as predatory. For example, ApJ demands page charges but is not predatory, at all!

Good to read:

86 thoughts on “Why did Beall’s List of potential predatory publishers go dark?”

https://retractionwatch.com/2017/01/17/bealls-list-potential-predatory-publishers-go-dark/

The updated list may be found here:

https://jefferson.libguides.com/c.php?g=250298&p=1666257

Difficult to believe. There is a recent article that heavily criticized Beal's listing of journals

Borden Mushonga , that's because of one blip--erroneous listing of Frontier Series. Embellishes my point! Even, some Scientometricians are not careful while listing predatory journals.

Interesting!

[056] @ ALL: only FYKI:

Yesterday I became aware of / came across a list called "DOLOS-list"

in ResGate thread:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Predatory_conferences_and_publishing_new_developments?

Find there some statements about "incorporation of predatory, parasitic or pseudoscientific publishers and journals" (most recently: 'Nexus Magazine'),

as well as previous information about/on:

(quote)

• Innovation Info
• Taylor & Francis and Dove Press
• (Parts of Informa)
• La Revue d'Homéopathie
• (Published by Elsevier, which is still a legitimate publisher)
• Homeopathy
• Faculty of Homeopathy
• Thieme
• Physicians for Informed Consent
• Fédération Nationale des Sociétés Médicales Homéopathiques de France
• Directory of Open Access Journals
• VDM Publishing

(With all their academic publishing subsidiaries, including Lambert Academic Publishing) (end of quote)

No personal registration (for now) necessary, no hidden text, "OPEN ACCESS... (:-))" also with regard to most of Prof. Alexandre GEORGES' personal data etc.

One / you might follow their (Prof. Alexandre GEORGES and his team's) files and listing for Predatory Journals and/or Publishers

(quote - "List of predatory, parasitic, or pseudoscientific publishers and journals" - end of quote) as mentioned at:

https://www.professeur-alexandre-georges.info/dolos-list

Disclaimer:

I am not affiliated to or financially interested in Prof. Alexandre GEORGES project..

it is very informative discussion, thank you very much all for your contributions.

Ayman Amin, you are welcome.

I have seen, other people not really convinced about the "seriosity of the DOLOS-list"....but we will see...

new list

kscien.org

Honestly - since in my answer [ 058] 3 months ago was put into perspective, now I would like to add here URL's of ResearchGate-threads to inform about elder & more recent contributions with/on the so called DOLOS-LIST:

• https://www.researchgate.net/post/Dolos_list_a_new_list_of_predatory_publishers_and_journals
• https://www.researchgate.net/post/Now_you_can_contribute_to_the_Dolos_list_and_publish_your_opinion2
• https://www.researchgate.net/post/Would_it_be_a_good_initiative_to_constitute_a_collective_of_researchers_to_publicly_and_collectively_denounce_predatory_publishing
• https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_institutions_the_key_to_eliminating_predatory_publishing_and_preserving_scientific_rigor
• https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Dolos_list_and_the_scientific_community_A_special_relationship
• https://www.researchgate.net/post/Dolos_list-Pseudoscience_Homeopathy_and_Elsevier_The_winning_trio_of_the_day
• https://www.researchgate.net/post/New_article_about_the_Dolos_list_Are_your_threats_useful
• https://www.researchgate.net/post/Dear_PhD_students_be_careful_with_scientific_publishing
• https://www.researchgate.net/post/Dubious_conference_invitations_Just_spam_or_do_these_meetings_actually_take_place

You are invited to join any of these threads if you don't do so for now. Thank you!

Fighting Predatory Journals an Predatory Publishers and Predatory Conference Organizers.

Best regards W.H.M.

Quite commonly we face with invitations from Predatory Journals, Predatory Publishers and Predatory Conference Organizers, after publishing a manuscript in a respected journal. Each time a new article is produced you can count on invitations for "valuable presentation on the World Congress of...." even if it is completely out of you expertise. The same on journal of .....

This website (https://predatoryjournals.com/journals/) is very informative and useful. I think researchers and scholars should avoid sending article submissions to them and serving on their editorial boards.

Very bad in terms of continuous updates on predatory journals, publishers...They have twitter account, and their last post was made on January 2017!!!

This is not serious resource dear Artur Sergyeyev .

Dear Ljubomir Jacić ...you're correct for the statement, but one has to have in mind that the original question was asked dec, 26th, 2017 (cf. /see also my bottom paragraph) as a side-note to our Project: "Ethical & Questionable Practices in Research and Publishing [

https://www.researchgate.net/project/ETHICAL-AND-QUESTIONABLE-PRACTICES-IN-RESEARCH-AND-PUBLISHING] . ....

Artur Sergyeyev has not left any answers since June 26th, 2018 in this thread. So perhaps the question is what to do with an ?

I do not know whether RG-support has an answer to the matter (i.e., if they have no valid offer for archiving such original Q's anmd the answer thread already,

to create a specific function icon like

"This Q/A thread has been closed but is open to read for archival READING purposes only" to inform the initial 'Questioners' to "ARCHIVE" their questions due to e.g. " outdated content".

Jiban Shrestha points to the website:

(https://predatoryjournals.com/journals/) which is a subpage of

https://predatoryjournals.com or https://predatoryjournals.com/ , respectively, which in the menue displays the subsections:

About - Contribute - Hijacked - Journals - Metrics - Publishers

Subsection "Journals" [https://predatoryjournals.com/] mentions:

"This is a list of possibly predatory journals. The kernel for this list was extracted from the archive of Beall’s list at web.archive.org. It will be updated as new information or suggested edits are submitted or found by the maintainers of this site.

This list is only for individual journals. See the other list for publishers potentially engaging in predatory practices.'

Subsection "About" [https://predatoryjournals.com/about/] mentions:

"Journals that publish work without proper peer review and which charge scholars sometimes huge fees to submit should not be allowed to share space with legitimate journals and publishers, whether open access or not. These journals and publishers cheapen intellectual work by misleading scholars, preying particularly early career researchers trying to gain an edge. The credibility of scholars duped into publishing in these journals can be seriously damaged by doing so. It is important that as a scholarly community we help to protect each other from being taken advantage of in this way.

At the bottom of that "About" section in "Contributing" is mentioned:

"The site runs on GitHub and anyone can use the affordances of that platform to make contributions, suggestions, edits, or add journals and publishers to the list. In addition to the existing lists, it is hoped that we can add more data about both journals and publishers in order to maintain a fair case for boycotting them. Lists will be available for easy export through this platform. It is hoped that this collaborative approach will give some ownership of the list to the scholarly community that is meant to be served by it.

For information on how to contribute, see the “Contribute” page (which is found at: https://predatoryjournals.com/contribute/ ) ".

For me personally it is not clear whether there is actual maintaining or are updates continually, since the only visible posts at https://predatoryjournals.com/ are dated from Jan. and Feb. 2017(!) too.

Best regards, WHM

Dear Wolfgang H. Muss , I am aware of the date of the question. It is obvious that this website is the same, as it was in time of its establishing. I am sure that dear Artur Sergyeyev knows that. Best regards to all.

I have no idea.

Dear all, dear Ljubomir Jacić ,

just to inform (since I wrote in my previous post most recently):

""I do not know whether RG-support has an answer to the matter (i.e., if they have no valid offer for archiving such original Q's and the answer thread already,

to create a specific function icon like

"This Q/A thread has been closed but is open to read for archival READING purposes only" to inform the initial 'Questioners' to "ARCHIVE" their questions due to e.g. " outdated content". ""

As of their answers to my request yesterday, ResearchGate Support does know now about that issue "Outdated Content" and they perhaps think about such an additional "function" icon.... where outdated content may be reported and archived (hopefully NOT without getting informed consent of the author), best regards to all too,

WHM.

PS: It might be helpful for a decision from the RG-managers if somebody could second my opinion here...(to be sent to [email protected]). Thank you.

Dear Ljubomir Jacić and Wolfgang H. Muss, thank you for your comments. I don't think there is a need to close the question. I have, however, updated the body of the question with the remark on the site being dormant for a long time.