Dear Hanan Hashem ,

Great attempt to address the matter (and subsequent identification) of predatory journals and publishers.

Keep in mind that this subject has been discussed in multiple questions and discussions here on Researchgate, see for example:

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

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

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_we_can_be_awake_of_fake-predatory_Journals

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

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

Your starting point of the discussion seems to be rather straightforward: Check the Beall’s list and avoid. However the matter is way more complicated. Without any intention to ‘blame’ you for anything but I spotted that some of your own publications are published by a publisher behind the corresponding journals which are mentioned in the Beall’s list:

For example your paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333040157_Improving_Salt_Tolerance_of_Zea_Mays_L_Plants_by_Presoaking_Their_Grains_in_Glycine_Betaine

Is published (nowadays) by the publisher AENSI (American-Eurasian Network for Scientific Information) which is mentioned the Beall’s list:

https://beallslist.weebly.com/

Your paper in the Australian Journal of Crop Science:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329336935_Nitric_oxide_enhances_the_adaptive_responses_of_lupine_plants_against_heavy-metal_stress

Is published by the publisher Southern Cross Publishing Group which is mentioned in the Beall’s list.

So purely based on the Beall’s criteria (again no personal attack intended!) all those papers are ‘worthless’. However take for example the Australian Journal of Crop Science, this journal is indexed in Scopus (since already 2009). Another journal of this publisher is “Plant Omics” which is covered by BIOSIS previews of Clarivate. In other words the inclusion of this publisher in the Beall’s list could be questioned.

Your paper in the Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences published by AENSI looks to me as a more than decent study and judged on the substantial number of citations it gathered so far it is appreciated by the scientific community. In other words is the fact that a publisher (and a journal published by this publisher) is mentioned in the Beall’s list enough to ‘judge’ about an individual paper or the journal? I don’t think so.

So yes the Beall’s list is a starting point to create awareness that something might be going on in relation to a particular journal or its publisher. But then the thinking (and judging) for yourself starts. I found that Jeffrey Beall is/was right in many cases but certainly not in all cases.

So more positive indicators like proper indexing (in PubMed, Scopus and/or JCR of Clarivate ((E)SCI)), membership of DOAJ, linked to a trustworthy society or university etc. are equally if not more important.

If interested I wrote a little report on how to use the Beall’s list and why one should have proper consideration with researchers that are linked to (some of) the alleged predatory journals.

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

My point is that we have to be careful not to approach the discussion about predatory or not too 'narrow ' and avoid that it is solely to be assessed by the judgement of basically one person (Jeffrey Beall).

Best regards.