I have used this list but I also use common sense: if the journal/publisher is not included yet but offers to publish a paper in 7 days since receiving it, then I ignore it.

I did not know all these. Anyway I do not publish in a journal that asks page charges. This solve the problem altogether!

Dear @Michael, I have used the Beall's list of predatory journals just few days ago in order to give publishing suggestion to young RG colleague! Actually, he had a question about which Journal to choose for publishing.

I have used this list but I also use common sense: if the journal/publisher is not included yet but offers to publish a paper in 7 days since receiving it, then I ignore it.

Yes, dear Michael. When considering an Open Access publication, I consult Beall's List of Predatory Open Access publishers part of my publication process.

Dear Micheal,,, i personally preferred the Beally list of predatory before publication, as my 2/3 articles werealready published in predatory journals which i know later when i saw the list....so its a big lost on my part ,,,because they are not useful for me as a part of promotion or genuineness or worldwide view ,,,whatever may be.

so recommend to see the list before publication ,,best part is free journals and journals indexed in pubmed ,scopus and good indexing ,,you must follow...

I wouldn't publish in an open access journal for financial and other reasons, so: NA.

@Dhiraj, we should be careful in this greedy world of science to publish at the right place, I agree. Anyway, there can be valuable contributions in those journals deserving merit. So, ask your advisors to look deep into your papers and not into the journal's merit.

@Tiia, Costas and Demtris, there is just another problem, i.e. referencing articles from predatory OA publishers. As Dhiraj pointed out yesterday, many seem to stay way from citing predators. What's your view on this part of the publication process?

As I search for articles to cite from Scopus and some academic publishers' databases, I usually even don't read any articles published in predatory journals.

As a native (no implied slight on non-native speakers), it is often easier to pick up on language, expression and construction issues that occur in lower quality research, and especially the 'calls for papers' of predatory publishers.  Only the other day, I received a journal notification from an experienced faculty member. It was overly vague (something like the international journal of advances in science and technology), had poor grammar, was addressed to no one in particular (Dear Professor, Dear Dr. etc), had a liberal use of superlatives (your high expertise, highly valued, prestigious journal etc.), and referenced various impact factors (high of course) which I had never heard of (although they were also bogus set ups, very like established organizations) .... Sure enough, it was in Beall's. 

I think you can publish where you like, cite who you like, but if you aim at quality & reliability, then reviewers, authors & faculty have to take more care to look at the sources that are used. We often dismiss something we don't know about as dubious but a simple Google search will often fill in missing information (who is this, what is that) & help to evaluate sources.

I am generally against any system that becomes 'exclusive', in that it excludes people on the grounds of non specific standards & assumptions of quality (different variations in English for example).  I think people should begin to differentiate between those journals in the Open Access category (which are often reputable), and those who are simply 'Pay to Publish' (I am unsure about the claim that they are always predatory).  Now that it has gained momentum, perhaps there is the need for OA to compile and run a register of certified OA journals.  It is fairly easy to establish fair criteria and an application/monitoring system. That way, people would not be having to worry if someone was predatory, they could simply go to a central listing.

I think that all kinds of publications should be accepted as far as it contains serious research.

@Nicholas, great post and you've taken the words out of my mouth. This is another question I was about to ask: Why don't we set up a complementary Beall's List with OA journals with which peers have made professional experiences of high quality?

@Mauro, yes, Scopus is not immune against predators and neither is RG. There is an Impact Factor 1.32 for the 'International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications' (link below, where they don't even claim any impact) without referring to the journal's URL. It's published by SAI (The Science and Information Organization), a publisher found on Beall's newest list on potential, possible and probable predators: http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ . Current volume count is 6 (years?), so it could have an impact factor, but their own indexing information doesn't mention ISI or SCOPUS (again, see below).  Where does this IF 1.32 come from, I wonder.

Therefore, advisors should help advisees not only produce high quality content but also guide them to find the right publication platforms. 

http://thesai.org/Publications/IJACSA

@ Michael: I think that any list would need some input from the OA movement. This would give a consensus of criteria,  quality etc. As we can see already from the posts, the is difference of opinion as to what is 'valid', what is predatory, what should be accepted as a valid publishing platform.  To develop a robust & fair judgement would probably entail analysis of available systems of classification & the development of categories. Not so sure it is as simple as putting a list together based on peer experiences,  but nevertheless a good idea.

I knew about Beall's List of Predatory OA Publishers, but i have not verified, as i dont publish anywhere else thesedays other than in RG.

The gold open-access model has given rise to a great many new online publishers. Many of these publishers are corrupt and exist only to make money off the author processing charges that are billed to authors upon acceptance of their scientific manuscripts.

There are two lists below. The first includes questionable, scholarly open-access publishers. Each of these publishers has a portfolio that ranges from just a few to hundreds of individual journal titles.

The second list includes individual journals that do not publish under the platform of any publisher — they are essentially independent, questionable journals

http://lisnews.org/taxonomy/term/49?page=1

Any work which is helpful to the mankind is sufficient to publish in any journal. I don't think publishing in predatory journals  mean the work is of no use. still I can see many articles mentioned as predatory journals by Jeffery beall has cited in top journals. Even top researcher has published papers in the journals mentioned in this list. 

Even Taylor and Francis, PLoS one etc used to charge authors for publishing.. Why those doesn't fall under these category?

Oman:  I think it is a natural action to make 'evaluative' judgements - it is what we do as humans and helps us order our thoughts and perceptions. But, whilst 'like & dislike' are natural reactions, when we compare their expression in social media (e.g. Facebook) to a more professional setting, then we can see that if there is nothing substantiating the judgement (rationalised criteria, evidence etc.), then our likes & dislikes become somewhat superficial and are not fit for purpose.  That said - I personally dislike the approach where we criticise or disregard any opinion or judgement, simply because it is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt - I think that we should not expect everything to be given to us on a plate because unless we apply our own knowledge and context (& test this in dialogue), we are simply accepting things at face value.  Going with un-fleshed ideas helps generate debate, so perhaps we use 'like & dislike' too readily. In regards to this question, I think there are sufficient measures and expectations that could be used to construct a fair and reasonable classification  :-)

P.S.:  In regards to my affiliation, I am simply a (not so) humble PhD student at UoL, not a Professor - (based on the comments I have provided, this should provide some people with enough evidence to disregard the more critical opinions I have offered ...)  ;-)

I usual stick to the open access Journals such as the OA articles of Wiley etc.

The use of these references of predatory journals are good, but one should also not judge the book by it's cover only. I've found one or two reasonable papers in these Journals, but at tremendous  time cost, working through the junk.

Google is an open access predatory being.  What are your stands on it?

Attached one link on Some more information on Open-access (OA) literature

Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.

OA removes price barriers (subscriptions, licensing fees, pay-per-view fees) and permission barriers (most copyright and licensing restrictions). The PLoS shorthand definition —"free availability and unrestricted use"— succinctly captures both elements.

There is some flexibility about which permission barriers to remove. For example, some OA providers permit commercial re-use and some do not. Some permit derivative works and some do not. But all of the major public definitions of OA agree that merely removing price barriers, or limiting permissible uses to "fair use" ("fair dealing" in the UK), is not enough

http://doaj.org/

Dear @Kevin, regarding your question, "because predatory publishers perform a fake or non-existent peer review, they have polluted the global scientific record with pseudo-science, a record that Google Scholar dutifully and perhaps blindly includes in its central index. Most predatory journals are included in Google Scholar."

http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/11/04/google-scholar-is-filled-with-junk-science/

Ljubomir: Google Scholar, university databases, Wikipedia, Google .... these are just tools which bring things to light.  The responsibility is on the user to evaluate and judge the merits of each return.  Likewise, some (groundlessly) state that OA is a lesser platform in terms of rigor & reliability, but I think that anyone who needs their data/information to be scrupulously pre-tested, packaged and 'safe' may be hiding the fact that they do not make enough of their own evaluations, and are worried about being caught out restating something that they took blindly at face value ... 

I think there are enough cases of flawed 'peer-reviewed' literature that has gone through the net of illustrious journals, so we can't always rely on the tools we use to access information.  We just have to be more attentive to our own practices  ;-)

Dear @Nicholas, I do agree that " The responsibility is on the user to evaluate and judge the merits of each return." I had the intention to give an answer to @Kevin. Personally, I do have Google Scholar account!

this regard please refer my article  title" Facts about journal publishing in open access policy" 

it may be a helpful  it freely accessible 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3978960/

Dear @Michael and friends, please, do visit this thread which is related to this one.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_would_happen_if_WE_ALL_consult_Bealls_list_of_predatory_journals_and_refrain_from_the_possible_probable_or_potential_predators?_tpcectx=profile_questions

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,

"8. Rapid publication is promised" ... D'oh - and here was I hoping that having to wait for a year was finally a thing of the past!

I liked Beall's list, but lots of the things to look out for seem like common sense. It does seem as if there is a 'mandate' about how things should appear, the type of language to use, the 'standards' that need to be met, but. hey. that's being part of a community for you  ;-)

Many are not happy with the cessation of Beall's list. So we have to work out for ourselves, which journals are useful and appropriate. But - isn't this a task we will always be responsible for? Institutions will be facing more difficulties, I suppose. Many of them just relied on the list when assessing academic merits of faculty. 

Michael - you would be surprised how many sub-standard publications are produced, even by institutions that you would expect to be diligent in avoiding them. Nobody wants to be seen as a sub-standard scholar & surely their institutions countries don't want that sort of reputation, so you can only assume that it is ignorance or apathy to blame.

Thirteen ways to spot a ‘predatory journal’ (and why we shouldn’t call them that)!

We found that not all criteria were unique to so-called “predatory journals” and that some were equally attributed to both types of journals. 

Based on our findings, we propose a list of 13 easy-to-assess “red flags” that researchers should look for. Taken collectively, we hope that they may help researchers sniff out a potentially illegitimate publishing entity. We specifically describe what to look for when assessing each criterion...

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/thirteen-ways-to-spot-a-predatory-journal-and-why-we-shouldnt-call-them-that