As a researcher, we appreciate any information that provides light on predatory publications. At the same time, evaluating whether a publication is predatory is a time-consuming procedure that necessitates a thorough examination based on a variety of factors. A predatory journal or publisher has no widely accepted definition. Is there a set of validated parameters for judging scientific journal?
Is it possible that a contentious individual blog called "Beall's list" be used as a only parameter for judging a scientific research journal?
Dear Noora Shrestha ,
One correction the Beall’s list continued (https://beallslist.net/) after Jeffrey Beall stopped, last update March 7th 2021 see changelog https://beallslist.net/changelog/ Indeed I see numerous examples that the use of (or suggest that) checking the Beall’s list (https://beallslist.net/) is enough to ‘judge’ whether a journal (or entire publisher) is predatory or not.
It must be said that the Beall’s list is quite often right. See for example:
Article When it comes to predatory journals, is Scopus doing a good ...
One of the findings was that 2/3 of the journals mentioned in the Beall’s list (and where indexed in Scopus) are now a few years later discontinued in Scopus. This might lead to the conclusion that Scopus ‘agree’ with the judgement of the Beall’s list based on their own evaluation system and the Beall’s list was right.
On the other hand, 1/3 is/was still listed. Is Scopus failing to see that these titles need to be discontinued as well or is/was the Beall’s list wrong? I personally think a little bit of both. Personally, I use the Beall’s list as a first indication to see whether there is ‘something going on’ with that particular journal or publisher. But the Beall’s list is not flawless, because for example:
-It has been demonstrated that 18% of publishers, identified by Beall as predatory, rejected a fake paper suggesting that the Beall’s is wrong in nearly one in five https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/10/04/open-access-sting-reveals-deception-missed-opportunities/
-It is a weak point of the Beall’s list that delisting is virtually impossible while there is most likely a substantial portion of journals listed that used to be borderline and, in the meantime, improved their whole operation in the right direction
-There are clear examples of publishers and journals that should not be listed in the Beall’s list (like Frontiers) as indicated in this paper:
Article Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross-country differences
So, you are right by stating “evaluating whether a publication is predatory is a time-consuming procedure that necessitates a thorough examination based on a variety of factors” and the Beall’s list can be a useful tool for a first indication, but after that the ‘real’ evaluation starts. See for example:
Article The Predatory Journal: Victimizer or Victim?
Article Identifying Predatory or Pseudo-Journals
for ways and steps one can/should follow.
Best regards.
Thre may be more than one version of Beal's List on the web, so be sure you are looking at one that is updated.
I would be cautious of a journal listed on Beal's, particularly if they charge high publishing fees. But Beal's may not be the final authority in all cases.
You can also use the Journal Packing Density (JPD) for the for evaluating scientific journals.
Please go through the
Article Journal packing density of library and information science r...
Article Journal Packing Density across Subject Disciplines among BRI...
Article Journal Packing Density of Subject Disciplines at the Contin...
Article Journal Packing Density across Subject Disciplines at the Gl...
An average JPD of the research journals at the global level is 101.84 research articles per journal per volume. Chemistry, Physics & Astronomy and Multidisciplinary journals are the three leading subject disciplines to have the maximum JPD viz., 266.66, 253.92 and 242.53 research articles per journal per volume. JPD of research journals published in the sciences is higher than the JPD of research journals published in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Business, Management and Accounting, Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities are three subject disciplines having lowest JPD viz., 44.26, 35.68 and 32.66 research articles per journal per volume, respectively. China, Ireland and Netherlands recorded the highest average JPD in the research journals published from these counties, viz. 213.39, 178.44 and 135.31 research articles per journal per volume, respectively.
Unfortunately, Beall´s List cannot be the only parameter. In the past, Beall´s List was criticized for various reasons. Please, see our article https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1299 for more information. In the article, we summarized these critics as well as the weaknesses of different control methods.
Most of the scientific journals are now high profit margin commercial operations and I think that Beall's list is just the list of newbies trying to get access at this highly competitive market. Check the age and the content of the journal, the submission process, how they are organizing peer review, the publication time, how their site is organized, how your research will be displayed after publication and of course, the publication fees. A big "no" when you don't see doi's assigned to journal articles. JIF/CiteScore can go up and down. It does not hurt to check first their email response time/communication skills. Good luck.
Of course, no. Like many others, the List is just a tool of commercial competition. One publishers accuse some others to be 'predatory' with a principle aim to retain their share of the profitable market. The conflict is also (at least partly) political: Western publishers and so-called 'independent experts' try to suppress the competitors from the developing countries.
- Badges
- Science topic