Jeffrey Beall closed his list of "potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access journals". Now we follow the Cabell’s Predatory Journal Blacklist https://goo.gl/Mw1PQm

Can you give an example of the journal, which is included in both Scopus and Beall’s List? Maybe the new papers of this journal no longer indexed in Scopus?..

As for the reliability of the Beall''s list and related issues, see e.g. the following materials

Article Beyond Beall’s List: Better understanding predatory publishers

https://www.nature.com/articles/544416b

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

https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/50087/title/Opinion--We-Need-a-Replacement-for-Beall-s-List/

By the way, Beall's list is now archived at https://beallslist.weebly.com/

things are really confusing and tiring ...plz, find a credible way to classify the journals... we pay money for publications!!!!!!!!!!

Serhii we have to pay for Cabell's list!

I am inquiring about JPSPA as a possible predatory journal

The original Beall's list is now updated and maintained here, no charge: https://beallslist.weebly.com/ They recommend authors decide for themselves: "We recommend that scholars read the available reviews, assessments and descriptions provided here, and then decide for themselves whether they want to submit articles, serve as editors or on editorial boards.  In a few cases, non-open access journals whose practices match those of predatory journals have been added to the list. The criteria for determining predatory journals are here."

"I will keep the list updated as much as possible, although I suspect I simply won't have time to do as thorough job as Beall. Hopefully people will point me to the new, possibly predatory journals and publishers. However, expect the list's applicability to diminish over time. That is why I strongly suggest anyone that deals with publishing academic articles to read the information available on ThinkCheckSubmit.org, which has tips about how to publish in a journal that is not predatory. I would also suggest you to read Beall's criteria for identifying a predatory publisher."

I have personally read some articles registered on Scopus -Elsevier with grammatical errors. How do you explain this?

Olabisi Adedigba, Many scientists are not native English speakers and neither are reviewers. Anyway the purpose of publishing in a journal with solid peer-review is not that the editing is great, but that the peer review and scientific editing has ensured the work has novelty and is reasonably explained.

Either predatory or simply bad journals are to be avoided, then I would still refer to Beall's or Cabell's lists before submitting any work. I would also watch out for predatory conferences.

Indexing in Scopus (Elsevier) or any in any other index does not reflect on the quality or reputation of the journal. For getting a journal indexed one needs to complete a process and provide information to the indexing agency/body/publisher/company which can be done by the people managing predatory journals too. In fact it boost their (publishers of predatory) journals if they get indexed in reputed indices. Predatory journals are the ones where the review process (if at all any) is highly comprised for the sake making money and they essentially charge you money for publishing your article. I mean there is no option of not paying and still publishing like you have one in 'Open Access' in all reputed journals published by highly reputed publishers.

In my opinion the comment of Dr. Derek Pyne is the most reasonable: " Any list of predatory journals will have both Type 1 errors (wrongly including journals) and Type II errors (wrongly leaving off predatory journals). Generally, I think the old Beall list (and its continuation on https://beallslist.weebly.com) are pretty good. However, there are going to be times when it is hard to separate predatory (dishonest) journals from simply bad journals. "

Beall's List is a dynamic document and it gets updated from time to time. Whenever Type I or/and Type II errors are detected( or brought into the notice by a right thinking researcher), the list is updated appropriately. Lately, what has been observed that the publishers change their names after they get listed in Beall's list keeping the name of the journal same. The story in a nutshell is that predatory journals are trying escape inclusion in the Beall's list as long as they can.

What do you think about Intech Open?

Even my university is recommending to use Beall's list. But the lists are not inclusive of all the fields and they are not up to date. Do we have any other options to use?

It seems goog

I believe the list is reliable. It is because bealls listed journals never make good/strong review to develop a research paper. As a result, a new researcher can never learn about the right research comments of reviewers and miss to enjoy the challenge to develop the paper. These journals are very dangerous for everyone authors, readers and even for the scholars who cite them because right situation is not reflected. Most of my colleagues, who published in bealls listed journals, told me their experience of publication that match with my experience because I have also published in such journals without knowing they are predatory.

I think every university should firstly inform masters and PhD students and other researchers about the negative aspects of these fake journals. Then the researchers will be able to enjoy publishing and learn much better.

personally i believe in good reputable journals, the list provided by Beall makes sense though i think we should not follow it blindly as the bible truth.My argument is Beall updates the list regularly so the question is this if a journal is included in Beall list in 2016 and the publisher has been in operation earlier than that does it mean all the publication prior to inclusion in the list are predatory?

Point to note IISTE was included on the list in 2016 i have been publishing with them since 2009 does it mean all publication are predatory?

Again Beall produces the list who checks Beall? who funds him, ?

My plea to universities is simple do not punish scholars and faculty by blindly following a list , you should be objective and apply prudence in making such decisions, otherwise we shall kill research and knowledge transfer.

My other argument is if a journal is on the list and subsequent bought or transfered to a publisher not on the list does it make the journal non-predatory? There is a lot of gray areas in this discussion. Those are my thoughts.

This is new: Article Kscien’s list; a new strategy to hoist predatory journals an...

from Kurdistan

Here are three websites that say they have continued the work of Beall's List in tracking predatory publications, which was discontinued due to harassment.

• https://clinicallibrarian.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers/
• https://beallslist.weebly.com/
• https://predatoryjournals.com/

If you have a publisher or a journal that you need to check, I suggest checking all three of these lists.

I think that Beal's list misses several predatory journals, especially those journals that are indexed in Scopus, Web of Science and Pubmed.

Predatory journals can be categorized into two groups:

OMICS-like journals: They wish to make a fortune of money by publishing poor-quality manuscripts at the scientific and linguistic level. Everything about these manuscripts is unreliable (methodology, results, conclusion, DOI, contribution to literature in a meaningful way).They apply the same marketing strategies

( email template sent to API-bootstrapped author/title)

Well-versed predatory journals: They are usually institutions or associations that make a fortune of money by publishing the unsolicited manuscripts. By unsolicited manuscripts, I mean articles that would not contribute to literature in a meaningful way. Examples include case reports, case studies , duplicate submissions and articles whose methodology is not robust. It is harder to identify these journals because the know how to fake an innocent look. Moreover, they have impact factors (Scopus enlists journals that have impact factors). However, in a very short time, they lose their IF and discontinue from Scopus.

The second group of predatory journals are difficult-to-identify. You should double check with experts and senior researchers whenever there is any doubt.

Shimelis Kebede Hundie Henrik Rasmus Andersen Marina Apollonovna Avaliani Bernard MESSAH Omboi John T Cathey

Ba Essam It is a bit difficult to understand what you say about the second group of journals. A journal that behave as you describe will not have many citations and eventually lose impact factor and registration in the index.

From: Dr. Tewodros Alemneh

Thank you very much for your Question.

First of all, let me state that the predatory list was compiled by Jeffry Beall. Jeffrey Beall was librarian at University of Colorado. He famously known for his criticism of open access publishing and the creation of the list of predatory journals. Please read more about Jeffrey Beall on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Beall

To respond to your question, let me start by inviting you to read about Academic Journals at: http://www.academicjournals.org/about_us. Kindly pay specific attention to the section on “Inclusion in Jeffrey Beall’s List”. In this section, we transparently and clearly provide information about the inclusion of Academic Journals in the list and raised questions about the criteria, sincerity and true intentions of Jeffry Beall. Kindly note that the Jeffrey Beall’s list is published in his personal blog and does not have any institutional backing. Therefore, the list is the opinion of an individual and not an institution. The personal opinion of Jeffrey Beall.

Several other commentators, institutions and publishers have also raised questions about the list. One common question that kept re-occurring was, “why is the list targeting only open access publishers?” Except for a very few open access publishers like PLOS and BMC, it seems that every other open access publisher was included in the list. Additionally, even fewer were removed from the list after initial inclusion.

While the list is the personal opinion of Jeffrey Beall, an article authored by Jeffrey Beall provides us with an insight into his thinking and perhaps the rationale for the list. Please take some time to read the article by Jeffrey Beall. The article is also attached

Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open Access

http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525

The Jeffrey Beall’s list is questionable at the least and seems to target open access publishers like Academic Journals. While there was some wisdom to the intentions of the list, the lack of clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion from the list were however, questionable. The criteria listed were vague and unscientific. More importantly, the wholesome inclusion of reputable publishers like MDPI, Clute Institute, Hindawi, Academic Journals, etc without verification was worrisome. Please read more about criticism of Jeffrey Beall’s criteria for inclusion in the list https://www.scholarlyoa.net/beall_criteria.htm. Additionally, Jeffrey Beall shut down his blog (http://scholarlyoa.com/) and the list without any warning. Thus, raising even more questions.

Below are some commentaries about the Jeffrey Beall’s list

(1) Princeton University Blog - Anti-OA and the Rhetoric of Reaction

https://blogs.princeton.edu/librarian/2013/12/anti-oa-and-the-rhetoric-of-reaction/

(2) Parting Company with Jeffrey Beall

http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/16/parting-company-with-jeffrey-beall/

Parting Company with Jeffrey Beall

scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org

Although Jeffrey Beall has done us all a good service by coming up with his list of predatory publishers, his arguments against open access publishing have become shrill and reveal that he is expressing a political viewpoint that obscures the

(3) Cameo Replies to Beall's List of Howlers

http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1087-.html

(4) Beall’s Litter

http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1500

Beall’s Litter - Michael Eisen

www.michaeleisen.org

Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado Denver, has come to some fame in science publication circles for highlighting the growing number of “predatory” open access publishers and curating a list of them. His work has provided a useful service to people seeking to navigate the sometimes confusing array of new journals – many legitimate, many scammers – that have popped ...

(5) Beall’s Bile

http://www.thedigitalshift.com/2013/12/roy-tennant-digital-libraries/bealls-bile/

(6) Below is an email from The Clute Institute regarding the Jeffrey Beall’s list

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM: Clute Institute Staff [mailto:[email protected]]

SENT: 02 October 2014 12:11 AM

TO: Clute Institute Staff

SUBJECT: Beall's Predatory List of Open Access Pubishers

Dear Researcher,

A few authors have expressed concern regarding The Clute Institute being listed on Jeffrey Beall’s“Potential, Possible, Or Probable Predatory Scholarly Open Access Publishers” blog posting. If I may impose on your time, I would like to explain why this blog does not matter.

This list is maintained by a librarian and consists of over 500 so-called “Potential, Possible, Or Probable Predatory Scholarly Open Access Publishers” and over 300 independent “open access” journals published by other organizations. Some librarians consider open access publishers to be a threat to their profession because there is less need for a library or librarian if academic journals are available free on the Internet. At one point, this so-called “Beall’s List” blog even stated that publishers would be removed from the list if they agreed to stop publishing “open access”. The common denominator among the thousands of journals represented here is that they are “open access”; there are no subscription-based journal publishers or journals listed.

Jeffrey Beall has been instrumental in identifying potentially predatory publishers on his blog. However, the numerous limitations of Jeffrey Beall’s List need to be considered. Many researchers have pointed out flaws in Jeffrey Beall’s methodology and ideology. Here are a few examples:

Professor Michael Eison at the University of California at Berkeley and co-founder of the Public Library of Science discusses extensively the negative views Jeffrey Beall has about open access journals.

http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1500/

[9] A blog hosted by Professor Wayne Bivens-Tatum, a Philosophy & Religion Librarian at Princeton University,

considers the Jeffrey Beall's activities as “criminal and felonious”.

http://blogs.princeton.edu/librarian/2013/12/anti-oa-and-the-rhetoric-of-reaction/

[10] A blog hosted by the Society for Scholarly Publishing further discredits Jeffrey Beall.

http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/16/parting-company-with-jeffrey-beall/

Some of the accused publishers have spoken out (including The Clute Institute) in regards to Jeffrey Beall’s allegations, including some who have charged Jeffrey Beall with bribery:

http://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/534

http://mustangjournals.com/The_Mustang_Story.pdf

http://www.cluteinstitute.com/about/faqs/

http://editorjccr.wordpress.com/2012/12/

For more information about the inevitability of open access journals, please see the article written by Dean David W. Lewis of Indiana University / Purdue University Indianapolis, USA and published in the journal _College & Research Libraries. Much has been written about the advent of open access journals.

It’s important to remember that Jeffrey Beall refers to his blog as a list of “potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers”. He is not saying that any of these publishers are guilty – only that they _may_ be guilty.

Regards,

Ron

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ronald C. Clute, Ph.D., Director

The Clute Institute

6901 S. Pierce St., Suite 239

Littleton, CO 80128 USA

www.CluteInstitute.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My this below article may give you more clarification about predatory publication. Have a look it.

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

I faced similar problem previously.

But, I have also seen journals which are indexed in DOAJ, Scopus, EconLit, etc but listed under predatory journals by Beall's list.

I think paper which are indexed in Scopus, for example, or published by other journals may not be predatory. Beall's list not perfect, there is fluctuation from year to year , some journals which are under predatory list may become not predatory this year. It is not Consistent from year to year. Beall's classified also as probably, expected or possible predatory. you can read more bout this issue. But you can use a guide.

Who will evaluate whether the Beall's list is reliable or not? Is this list can be considered reliable. How reliable is his evaluation?

Beall's list is subjective and tend to put his critics to open access journals. Even some SSCI journals with IF are listed.

Because if it is subjective, many researchers or research faculty members will not publish their researches anymore in journals listed in Beall's list although these journals are indexed in Thomson Reuters, Scopus, Current Contents, etc. That's very sad.

I now edit an open-access journal which had appeared on the Beall List. I always use two qualified referees for each submission, drawn from a list of academics at reputable private and public universities in North America and Europe (for example, University of North Carolina, University of California-Los Angeles, Simon Fraser University). Our acceptance rate, since I have assumed the role of editor, is approximately 4%. I believe the journal was listed owing to its publisher, which began operations only six years ago. Perhaps this journal is an exception, but since Mr. Beall had no expertise in its discipline, he may have included it on grounds other than its academic rigor.

IS INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RECENT TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING LISTED IN SCOPUS OR IS IT PREDATORY JOURNALS

N.Chitra Devi Nagarajan ,The journal you mentioned "International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering" is on the list of journals registeret and indexed by SCOPUS. It is not registered with ISI and it doesn't have an impact factor.

The journal seems to claim it is free to publish with them (Read down in FAQ), which suggest it is not a predatory journals.

Dear Shimelis Kebede Hundie ,

As said by so many others already the Beall's list is/was good to increase the awareness of the phenomenon “predatory”. I personally always check the list when I stumble on a journal (or publisher) I don’t know.

However there are indications that the list is not flawless (and an estimate has been made that possibly upto 20% of the included journals/publishers are wrongly added to the list) see link for more details. Therefor as said by others as well: always use your own judgement on whether you agree with the inclusion of a particular journal (or complete publisher) in Beall’s list.

For those interested the following document represents some findings and thoughts on the reliability of the list and argues for more consideration to researchers that became somehow linked to this matter:

Method Predatory journals and publishers: a menace to science and s...

Best regards.

One of my Research Scholar a PG student submitted her paper in "International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering" and it has taken almost 7 months after modification on reviewer comments and submission of result.

But when she submitted in her Thesis came to no that this is coming under Predatory Journal list.

how they can do it? What is the authenticity of this journal.

journal is not even paid journal. Available on Scopus Index portal also.

If anybody can suggest us how to deal with this pls update.

Indeed very sorry to learn about your student's case, Dr. Rathee. The safest bet is, publish in journals published by reputed publishers and do not rely on fly-by-night publishers.

Dear Naveen Rathee ,

The journal Ïnternational journal of recent technology and engineering" is indexed in the latest list of Scopus indexed journals and is not as suggested by some here elsewhere on RG mentioned in the recent list of discontinued journals in Scopus (see attached files). So their indexing is true (since 2018). The story is:

The publisher behind this journal is “Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering and Sciences Publication” and is mentioned in Beall’s list as a (potential) predatory publisher:

https://beallslist.weebly.com/

Although this list is certainly not flawless (see also my earlier reply in this discussion) there are some red flags:

-They are very unclear about the costs (mentioning almost everywhere it is for free and on another place mentioning that the publishing house asks for an APC)

-The APC (normally known as article processing charge) is here called Annual Process Charge… No publishing fee from the journal but indirect a fee through the publishing house is a strange construction to say the least

-As far as I can judge a false claim to be related to DOAJ and DOI/CrossRef in anyway (papers have no assigned DOI)

However the positive signs are:

-Three of their journals indexed in Scopus is a good sign

-A quick look at some papers seems to indicate that since 2018 newly published papers are “indexed” and searchable in google scholar provided by their own website (with a delay though)

-An UGC approval for (at least) three of their journals and according to others is also included in the new UGC-Care list

So in conclusion it is hard to say. Predatory? I think not (certainly not this particular journal as based on their Scopus indexing and approval by UCG which can count as a sort of white list for journals). I do think that this publisher have to make steps (still). They need to get a DOAJ membership, arrange proper assignment of DOI to each paper, a proper archive and fee waiver policy and so on. Their Scopus indexing is a good step forward.

So I would say that we deal here with a (upcoming or potential) publication in a Scopus indexed journal with UGC approval. So this is a genuin attempt to publish a paper according to the proper (international) standards.

Best regards.

PS. See also the highly related discussions here on RG:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_these_journals_indexed_by_Scopus_IJEAT_IJRTE_and_IJITEE

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_reliable_is_the_Bealls_List_of_predatory_journals

Beall no longer maintains his list, although its is archived in multiple sources. It is difficult to know how accurate, even how objective, that list was; of the numerous criticisms of it, his inclusion of an inordinate proportion of online access journals and 'publication fee' (as opposed to submission fee) has been extensively discussed and debated, as well as his exclusion of some journals published by Elsevier and others that, according to his critics, displayed high variance in quality (all outside of my expertise.) Regardless of objectivity, however, the fact remains that - at least in the fields with which I'm familiar - established journals by major publishers retain a significant visibility/prestige advantage over many of their open access competitiors, which should (and is) taken into account by authors. For some interesting discussions of Beall and his list, see: http://citesandinsights.info/civ14i4.pdf; https://www.universityworldnews.com; https://jeffreybeall.com; https://debunkingdenialism.com/2017/06/15/we-now-know-why-jeffrey-beall-removed-list-of-allegedly-predatory-publishers/. Some efforts have been made to continue Beall's work - see for example https://predatoryjournals.com/journals/ and https://guides.library.yale.edu/c.php?g=296124&p=1973764

Is a journal by publisher Canadian Center for Science and Education in original Beall list predatory?

There are very scientifically rigorous journals but they are considered predators in Beall's list. On this background, I doubt its authenticity!

It is better to consider journals listed uner the Beall's list of predatory Publishers and journals before submission of a manuscript to avoid publication with predatory journals which is not reliable.

Bealls list is no longer exit. He removed the original list. But its better to take guidance form the list. You can also check

https://guides.library.yale.edu/c.php?g=296124&p=1973764

and

https://predatoryjournals.com/journals/

The quality of review can be of great help too.

I agree with idea that predatory list mentioned by different portal sometimes useless and confusing ...rather it can misguide the authors ...