Oski - Beall's list mainly focuses on and list what they perceive to be predatory journals in general. They do not highlight specific articles within them. It works on the premise that all the articles within the journals have not been through a rigorous or traditional journal process. That's not to say that all the articles will be of poor quality - but the chances are much higher than within journals that are not on the list. 

Dear Oski,

I fully agree with Dean.

Just take the example of Tropical Plant Research http://www.tropicalplantresearch.com/

The name of this journal is in Beall's list.

This does not mean that all published papers are of poor quality.

I know of a research scholar who has published a quality paper in this journal. As per regulations research scholars should enclose at least one published paper along with their thesis. It so happens that they do not have enough time prior to submission to get their papers published in a good journal and in such cases they go for any periodical where papers are published fast.

With best wishes,

Subir.

Hi Oski,

Beall is a librarian and out of his experience he had found that many of the open access journals publishing are fake and working for money. He has enumerated a big list of predatory journals which as above views say as  bad journals percieved by Beall. I do refer this list if I get any invitation to publish any paper.

Thanks

Yes Jaime, you are correct. It says comments are closed.

This is truly alarming, as Beall's list is an invaluable source for determining which journals are likely to have issues of integrity. I wonder if he has been threatened by one of the richer publishers, such as Frontiers? Hopefully people have saved the list and it will be made available via the internet

A quick search around found this: https://forbetterscience.com/2016/09/14/beall-listed-frontiers-empire-strikes-back/

I am sad to see this. I found the list very useful. For now it is possible to access the cached version of the page from 12th January. I will save the list and hope it will come online again soon.

You can still view the lists in the internet archive e.g. http://web.archive.org/web/20161222020349/https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

wow this is suprising indeed 

wow this is suprising indeed , Thank you oski for bringing up this issue

Leonid Schneider is claiming widely on Twitter that Frederick Fenter of Frontiers may be involved or responsible. Leonid Schneider has provided no evidence to support his claims. Mehdi Dadkhah, who is a professional hacking specialist, claims that the content is still there, but just not visible to the public. One editor-in-chief of a journal that was listed on one of Beall's lists applied to have their journal removed from Beall's lists on January 8, 2017. This was their 4th year of appeal. Until then, Beall had aggressively maintained the journal on his lists, without any explanation. Then, very surprisingly, he removed the journal from his list on January 8, 2017. So, something very unhealthy is taking place. I also have it from a source close to these issues that Elsevier's Scopus was using Beall's lists as an exclusionary principle, and that those lists were reverted back to an older version, I believe, son after the Beall blog blacked out. I am now trying to get evidence of this because, if true, this implies that Beall has been directly involved with Elsevier, i.e., a serious undisclosed conflict of interest. BY the way Oski Illiandri, are you a real person or one of these dangerous fictitious characters that are permeating ResearchGate? Your profile photo of a brain brings to mind a famous pseudonymous blogger, Neuroskeptic, and your name, affiliation, publications, level of English and interests do not match very well. Let's hope that you are not a Beall-related informer in disguise.

Jaime - a conspiracy theory perhaps - and a criticism of Beall's list for some time now. Mind you - in the the theme of conspiracy - just who can you trust? Can we trust Oski? Might you be a double/triple agent yourself? In todays current climate of trump, Brexit etc - what is real?

Once - there was a simpler time. You sent your manuscript to a journal that was, hopefully, looking to progress progress research and science for the 'common good' and  inform the academic community - but was that just another form of academic 'smoke and mirrors'? Did they/ do they have their own form of being predatory i.e. monopolising institutional access? 

Complex webs have been weaved - and they will continue to be weaved!!

The entire website content has been removed, ostensibly due to external pressure. Jeffrey Beall himself is still active at his academic institution.

Yes! Surprising the entire website content removed which was accessible till 9th January 2017. Don't know the exact reason, but as per the Nature News dated 18th January 2017, " Beall made a “personal decision” to close down his blog, and that Beall is still employed on the university’s faculty. In a statement, the university added that Beall would no longer maintain or publish his research on open-access journals and predatory publishers."

Hhhhmmmmm Yodi and Kundan - 'the plot thickens'. Has Beall been threatened by his institution to close down the site as it is 'bad publicity' for them - or has a deal been struck with the predatory journals to try and 'take the heat off them' - so that they can become even more predatory? 

Would someone please make the latest list version available here or elsewhere as an excel file or tab-formatted list? I have asked for a link to download the list months ago, got no replies, and now this. A pity that such useful resources can be wiped off public view like this. Cheers!

I agree with Andrew Gilbey · 

Hope anyone could help us solving this doubt. Thanks in advance.  https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_the_DOAJ_removed_journals_list_provide_a_truly_set_of_predatory_journals

I don't know what has happened with Bell's list, but some friends from Denver told me  He always had to be with personal security, so his life was risky because of his list. What can do highest predatory editorials to don't loose money? Like anybody, may be  had to choose between live safe or maintain his list. Simply.

Please Read this article to know why Beall's list disappeared.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/01/17/librarians-list-predatory-journals-reportedly-removed-due-threats-and-politics#.WH6oVNajFH8.mailto.

Please cut and paste the url in your browser to retrieve the article.

Thanks,

Aditi Bandyopadhyay, Ph. D, MLS

Please Read this article to know why Beall's list disappeared.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/01/17/librarians-list-predatory-journals-reportedly-removed-due-threats-and-politics#.WH6oVNajFH8.mailto.

Please cut and paste the url in your browser to retrieve the article.

Thanks,

Aditi Bandyopadhyay, Ph. D, MLS

I see no articles in Beall's list predatory journals? Anybody knows why? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/I_see_no_articles_in_Bealls_list_predatory_journals_Anybody_knows_why#view=588b774493553b09225259ca [accessed Jan 27, 2017].

Hi,

In the following link you'll find why the list is not available anymore:

http://www.editage.com/insights/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-and-journals-no-longer-available

I think it is a loss for the scientific community. Despite many criticisms, this list was very helpful.

Regards

SM Najim

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2017/01/25/publishers-jeffrey-beall/#.WJMyAPCGO00

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

The Editage article is symptomatic of the disease plaguing open access publishing: convenient partnerships and hidden conflicts of interest. Editage has been a long supporter of Beall and promoter of his ideas and lists:

http://www.editage.com/insights/content_search/Beall

That fake tear article by Editage is simply to distract the reader.

You can find it via the good old wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20161202192038/https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/

Ultimately though academia needs to start doing its own Internet-era quality control. It is far too easy to create a junk journal or conference and there are too many universities out there that are not checking outputs and just counting them.

There is no reason that cheap Internet publishing should not create a boom in open access publishing and put the other kind of predators, expensive commercial publishers, out of business – but we will not get there until the junk starts to thin out significantly.

People interested in an update on predatory journals, following the cessation of Beall's List updates and it's removal, might like to refer to an article in today's Times Higher Education (6 April 2017, pp. 42 & 43), reporting work by Larissa Shamseer and David Moher (link below but access may be restricted to subscribers).

Their study resulted in a list of 13 warning signs:

1. The scope of interest includes non-biomedical subjects alongside biomedical topics, or multiple, wide-ranging and unrelated fields of study are combined

2. The website contains spelling and grammar errors

3, Images are distorted/fuzzy, intended to look like something they are not, or are unauthorised

4.The home page language targets authors rather than readers

5, The Index Copernicus Value is promoted on the website

6.  Description of the manuscript handling process is lacking

7.   Manuscripts are requested to be submitted via email

8.   Rapid publication is promised

9.   There is no retraction policy

10.   Information on whether and how journal content will be digitally preserved Is absent

11. The article processing/publication charge is very low (eg,