Its surely a good move to curb predatory journals for the well being of academia. However, its not gonna be that straightforward as they have their own mechanism. Perhaps the best way is to be aware and stay far away from these predatory journals and we could alert one another of such cases.

Hello Dr. Malini, rightly agree with you here,  it sure was a good move to curb predatory journals in research, but as u mentioned the mechanism used cannot be termed universally acceptable, a more systematic and multi-disciplinary approach would have been more valid to the cause also with better and stronger algorithms  developing a tool for the same also looks promising for this cause. The number of predatory journals are on the rise and keep a tab on them has become really difficult. Some of these journal websites and looks are so original it becomes difficult to make out if they really are genuine or fake. But yes being aware and staying away is the only feasible solution that we have now. Thank you for your inputs.

Regards

I strongly urge researchers from all sectors and regions to put forth their knowledge and opinions on this topic, predatory journals are parasitic and is feeding on young researchers and degrading the quality of research by accepting and publishing any garbage if the price is paid. 

Hope to see more active participation from all.

Regards.

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,

Hello Prof Paul G. Ellis, thank you for sharing this article, it was a good read, also, it will surely be helpful for many here, thank you for sharing to link to this write up as well.

Good day

Regards

Hello all,

Found this article online, thought would share it here.

In January 2017, those visiting Jeffrey Beall's (http://scholarlyoa.com/) list of predatory online journals—called Scholarly Open Access—were disappointed to note: “This service is no longer available.” Searching the site on Google, while the original link to the page remained at the top, revealed a list of web pages and blogs reporting the closure of the service. Speculation about why the list was withdrawn continues. The official line from the University of Colorado—Beall's employer—was that the withdrawal was voluntary and that Beall would be focusing his scholarly activities elsewhere. However, other websites report that threats of legal action may have forced the decision.

For anyone who does not know, Beall's list was a website where information on the growth of online predatory journals, publishers and conference organisers was listed. It provided an easy checklist against the flood of uninvited emails from unknown publishers who send us “Greetings” and refer to us as “Esteemed” while outlining the purported benefits of sending them your manuscript. The benefits usually include quick and cheap open access publishing of your manuscript…if you are lucky. In some cases you will never see an article published but you will have parted with your money. I have addressed the problems associated with predatory publishers in a podcast (Watson, 2016a,b) and in past editorials in Nursing Open (Watson, 2015a,b,c, 2016a,b, 2017). Likewise, the Journal of Advanced Nursing has been very active in promoting good practice in open access publishing (Clark & Thompson, 2016; Darbyshire, McKenna, Lee, & East, 2016; Pickler et al., 2015).

At the fringes of the predatory publisher movement there is outright fraud and criminal activity. Otherwise, I imagine the bulk of these predators have seen a route to a “fast buck” by undercutting the established open access publishers who are very expensive. However, the problem with predatory publishers lies in their cheapness and speed which both obviate good peer review and editing as shown in at least one notable case (Mazières & Kohler, 2005). Beall's list was a “blacklist” of journals to be avoided. The nearest we have to an alternative is the DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) which provides a “green tick” to those journals—such as Nursing Open—which have met some minimal criteria.

Admittedly, Beall's list was subjective and his methodology was not transparent. Nevertheless, in my experience of using it, he was rarely wrong. Occasionally I was surprised to see some journals included, and some journals were removed from the list on appeal. But these were never journals in the top echelons and they were, presumably, included in the list for good reason. If journals were removed from time to time and appeal was possible, it is hard to see how anyone could seriously challenge the existence and content of Beall's list. He may have made mistakes, but he challenged and changed bad behaviour and that has to have benefited authors and publishers. In my view, a valuable service has died and gone; will some Phoenix “arise from the ashes?”

Good day!

Regards

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nop2.78/full