some said that beall s list is not an official web-page, so not all reported information are true. do you agree or disagree with this? and how you evaluate its list of journals and publishers?
I learnt to believe in what is on the list. I was just confused that one young journal was already on their list while they do not even ask for publication fees.
Indeed, I have checked several journals and even publishers listed by Beal. They really are predatory, and problematic journals!
Dear Taqi Mohammed Jwad Taher ,
Yes and no. I say yes to the fact that the Beall’s list was a great initiative to make us all aware of a phenomenon that is misleading and sometimes not that easy to detect: predatory journals (and hijacked journals as an even harder to detect phenomenon). The best site to check is:
https://beallslist.net/
(https://predatoryjournals.com/journals/ as well but not sure to what extent it is updated).
In order to check whether you are dealing with a predatory journal (or publisher, be aware that quite often not the individual journal but the publisher behind it is mentioned) looking at the Beall’s list is basically the first step. If mentioned, the checking for yourself starts, I recommend the work-flow as mentioned in:
Laine, C., & Winker, M. A. (2017). Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. Biochemia medica: Biochemia medica, 27(2), 285-291.
Article Identifying Predatory or Pseudo-Journals
I say no as well, since there is also criticism on the inclusion of certain journals and publishers in the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beall%27s_List
For example and I quote: “The list's 82% accuracy rate in the Who's Afraid of Peer Review? sting operation led Phil Davis to state that "Beall is falsely accusing nearly one in five as being a 'potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open access publisher' on appearances alone."[15] He wrote that Beall "should reconsider listing publishers on his 'predatory' list until he has evidence of wrongdoing. Being mislabeled as a 'potential, possible, or probable predatory publisher' by circumstantial evidence alone is like the sheriff of a Wild West town throwing a cowboy into jail just 'cuz he's a little funny lookin.' Civility requires due process."[15]”
[15] Davis, Phil (October 4, 2013). "Open Access "Sting" Reveals Deception, Missed Opportunities". The Scholarly Kitchen.
Personally I think that 20% being wrongfully included is somewhat high, but for example Bentham Open (https://benthamopen.com/ ) and Frontiers (https://www.frontiersin.org/ ) are the best examples of the fact that the Beall’s list is not flawless. These publishers do not belong in the list for sure.
Still I use the Beall’s list anytime I come across a for me unknown journal or publisher and let’s say in 9 out of 10 times I have to agree: there is something wrong here and the suspicion of being predatory is most likely true.
So yes most of the times a great tool in identification of a predatory journal, but one need to keep thinking for yourself and make your own judgement.
Best regards.
PS. See for a report on some aspects of the Beall’s list and how to deal with it:
Method Predatory journals and publishers: a menace to science and s...
The list of hijacked journals (an if possible even worse phenomenon than predatory) is pretty accurate: https://beallslist.net/hijacked-journals/ and for the more recent not (yet) included ones I keep up my own list:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/New_very_misleading_type_of_scam_Anyone_with_recent_examples
I learnt to believe in what is on the list. I was just confused that one young journal was already on their list while they do not even ask for publication fees.
In fact the problem with current bealls list is that no clear information about who is running the site and this can affect the credibility and there is no clear mechanism on how journals been added. I think a national list and committee will be better for long term planning..
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publisher