This link is trustable and daily updated: 

http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/01/02/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2015/#more-4719

You'll also find some of the criteria you listed, but else...

Yes, this is the best source.

Here http://scholarlyoa.com/other-pages/hijacked-journals/

http://scholarlyoa.com/other-pages/hijacked-journals/

Think  we can all agree on Beall's list.

Hi,

The list provided by Ms. Vukic seems reliable.  It could be a good idea to check the publishers' sites when there is a doubt about  any journal.

This very interesting question is not so easy to answer, and need therefore an entire Study. Therefore, I will briefly try to show just my point of view. To begin with... Mr.Jeffrey Beall says

(on his website: http://scholarlyoa.com/about/):

I work as a librarian at Auraria Library, University of Colorado Denver, in Denver, Colorado. An academic librarian for over 24 years, I have published extensively in the areas of metadata, full-text searching, and information retrieval. etz. ...

What is important here to see is: metadata, full-text searching, information retrieval.

Today more then 70% of all research Worldwide and studies take place over Google. How did it happen? About 5-7 Years ago Google AdWords was at the end.

The whole concept was at the end. And "mainly" therefore because of too much "undeclared" junk was on websites worldwide (and also because of other important reasons which I can not explain here). So, it had to be invented a "new" standard for VERIFIED web-openaccess information. First, Google has made a deal with Wikipedia. Secondly, then almost all today relevant Libraries of our civilization have been involved in the development of that new common standard (The libraries have retained their internal standards and use them internally).

The Linked Data Concept was born (W3C SWEO Community, Google, Wikipedija, DBpedija, Freebase, Open Calais, Geo Names and many, many others).

http://www.w3.org/wiki/SweoIG/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkingOpenData

Despite the negative connotation, I realy think today we need that (s...), and our future and the successful management of our societies depends of "relative-transparent" BigData management and that new, "long-term" standards.

Finally (because I have to keep working;) Roughly speaking: each study which is not on Wikipedia and DBPedia, and others... does not exist (70%) in practice!

Thus, Beall’s List could serve to educate us all, that we have to publish, everything also paralell on Wikipedia, DBPedia ... (what scientifically can be very useful!)

All this is just only my subjective opinion, which might be quite wrong!

I'd love to hear good contra arguments (also on my blog, unfortunately only in German language): wegawave.info

Best Regards,

G.P.

With a race on among the academics to be published ....one often forgets to do a reality check and there's always this chance to fall into the trap of predatory journals. Its indeed a very relevant Question and Mr. Goran Pavlov has given many insights into the root of the issue. One thing I would definitely like to add is go for Journals which belong to Research Institutes of repute, attached to State Educational Universities and Institutes and of course the background check of relatively new Publishers.....Beall's List not to be forgotten

Beall's list provides a good start (see link below in other post), but from my own experience the best way to get some idea of which journals might be legitimate is to review existing papers published in the journal.

*In doing so I have seen dozens of published articles (you can find many of them uploaded right here on Researchgate!) showing unscientific methods & erroneous data which was collected and reported by authors with absolutely no training or understanding of what they were doing. IOW: Complete misinformation and a sign that if any peer review or editing of the paper took place during submission, it was also done by someone with absolutely no training or experience in the field or area covered by the paper.

Alas, as of January 2017, Beall's list is no more. According to published reports (see links below), Jeffrey Beall was forced to shut down and unpublish his lists due to intense pressure from his employer (University of Colorado Boulder). UCB wanted the lists shut down because the university administration was under intense pressure from the allegedly predatory journals to shut down the lists and/or fire Jeffrey Beall.

References:

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2017/01/16/what-happened-to-jeffrey-bealls-list-of-allegedly-predatory-publishers/

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2017/06/15/we-now-know-why-jeffrey-beall-removed-list-of-allegedly-predatory-publishers/

https://web.archive.org/web/20170615124437//http://www.biochemia-medica.com/2017/2/273

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/01/18/librarians-list-predatory-journals-reportedly-removed-due-threats-and-politics

No worries, while it is true that Beall's original list was removed, many other people and organizations have kept it alive, and added to it over the past year. A quick search will turn up many examples including this one: http://beallslist.weebly.com/

Dear RG members,

May you please help me to understand about the validity of 'Research Journal of Environmental Sciences' ?

Please follow this link to read complete

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_Research_Journal_of_Environmental_Sciences_a_valid_journal?view=5a190546f7b67e0aa91f79f7

This website: http://scholarlyoa.com is no longer useful.

Is there any up to date list?

Hi fellows and academicians, I hope everyone is doing great. I wanted to know if these two journals are fake or genuine... thanking you in advance

1- Growing Science; http://growingscience.com/msl/msl.html

2- British British Journal of Marketing Studies

Thank you

Open access journals provide many benefits for both authors and readers. But like any type of business, there are open access journals that operate for the right reasons and a few that are simply trying to make money without any scholarship involved.

These “predatory” journals don’t just take your money, they also take away your control over your scholarship. Once they have “published” your paper, it may be impossible to submit it to a true journal. In addition, so-called “vanity presses” that accept every article without a rigorous peer review process may misinform readers performing online research and undermine public trust in the peer review system itself.

So if it is important to avoid predatory companies masquerading as scholarly journals, how do you spot those journals? Here are a few warning signs. These points are only potential indicators of a journal or publisher being dishonest.

Some legitimate journals may meet a few of these points, particularly when they have just been launched. However, if you are thinking of submitting to or citing an article from a journal that meets a number of criteria on this list, we recommend doing more research about the journal first. Here are 8 top indicators of questionable publishers.

1. The journal asks for a submission fee instead of a publication fee or tries to keep the copyright to authors’ work.

The majority of open access journals are supported by contributions from authors. Having authors pay a fee allows for the published material to be free to readers. This cost should come in the form of a publication fee that is paid only when an article is accepted for publication, and the amount of the fee should be stated clearly on the website.

Some dishonest or predatory journals require a submission fee (or “handling fee”), payable whether or not the manuscript is accepted. At times, this fee can be $700 (US) or more, and may not be mentioned before submission.

Likewise, open access journals should let authors maintain the copyright, with the work ultimately released under a Creative Commons license. Journals that demand to keep the copyright while claiming to be open access should be treated with extreme caution.

2. The editorial board is very small or “coming soon.”

The strength of a journal is reflected in the members of its editorial board. When good scientists are involved in running a journal, the peer review process is strong and thorough. The journal also receives stronger papers. Unfortunately, some disreputable journals are launched without finding any highly regarded scientists in the field to serve on the editorial board.

If the journal is in your area of research, you should recognize some of the names on the editorial board. If you do not, search for publications from the board members and see if they are publishing good research in good journals.

Never submit to or rely on research from a journal that has no editorial board or editor-in-chief – you have no idea who is reviewing the work and deciding if it will be accepted! Choosing editors is one of the first steps in launching a new journal, so if a journal does not have editors, it is probably just trying to collect money in exchange for posting any manuscript online.

3. A single publisher releases an overwhelmingly large suite of new journals all at one time.

Dishonest publishers often expand their selection of “journals” to try to catch any possible author, and the journals typically begin with the same set of words (e.g., “The New Journal of…”). If the publisher you are considering is offering hundreds of new journals, it is unlikely that the publisher can actually find appropriate editors to support each journal. Launching that many new journals also frequently leads to the “editorial board coming soon” issue described above.

4. The journal says an issue will be available at a certain time, but the issue never appears.

A good journal will receive enough content to publish an issue when scheduled. If the journal you are investigating says its next issue was due six months ago, but no papers have been published, be wary.

5. The website is not professional in quality.

Many journals make revenue with advertisements from scholarly societies, biotechnology firms, and manuscript service companies. However, beware of journals that post advertisements from rental car agencies or florists, as this is a sign that the journal is not deeply tied to the scholarly world. In addition, if the language on the website is highly flawed (more than just the occasional typo), or if no contact information is available, it may be best to move on.

6. The journal title notes a national or international affiliation that does not match its editorial board or location.

Use of the term ‘American’ or ‘British’ is somewhat misleading if the journal is published in another country. Typically, journals with ‘American’ or ‘British’ in the title are associated with top societies based in those nations.

Claiming ‘International’ status in the title without the appropriate distribution of editorial functions across the globe may denote a false claim as well. Sometimes a journal adds one of these terms to seem more established than it really is. As with all of our points, the inclusion of these terms is not necessarily a problem, but it is worth investigating further.

7. There are fundamental errors in the titles and abstracts.

An occasional typo is not a big issue; everyone makes mistakes. However, a fundamental error in the title and throughout a paper may indicate that the reviewers and editors were not truly familiar with the topic. An example would be repeated mention of “Vibrio cholera” in place of the correct species name “Vibrio cholerae” (cholera is the name of the disease, not the bacterium). When looking through the articles from a journal that interests you, keep an eye out for repeated basic errors.

8. The content of the journal varies from the title and stated scope.

If a mechanical engineering journal is publishing articles on the treatment of pediatric cancers, chances are there is little or no editorial management of the content.  Journals in one discipline will have expertise in reviewing the scholarship of that discipline.  Interdisciplinary articles should at least have some relevance to the stated focus of the journal.  Journals that expect to be “Multidisciplinary” will reflect that in the range of subjects represented by their editorial board.

Taken together, these diverse indicators should make it easier for both authors and readers to identify credible online open access journals.

Thank you, Christof Küstner

I receive requests for manuscripts from such journals almost daily, and I imagine that is a common experience for other members of this group, as well.

I noticed that a vast number of the journals on the list have names that begin with "International Journal of..."

Is there a widely accepted definition of a predatory journal?

check the editorial team, the peer review, the adress, and the Publisher. visit predatoryjournals.com

That site is very out of date.