If RG can remove these predatory journals, it will help scholars from developing countries to know how to choose where to publish their papers. Although it may be tasking for RG to achieve this, but it is not impossible.

Removing the journals that RG experts do not recommend us to publish is a helpful idea. This is especially relevant to researchers like me in developing countries where there are few journals. In November, I asked a local editor if I may submit a paper, and the response was that I should send my paper in November 2016.  This leaves me in a vulnerable position unless I know what journals to AVOID AT ANY COST! Thanks.

If RG can remove these predatory journals, it will help scholars from developing countries to know how to choose where to publish their papers. Although it may be tasking for RG to achieve this, but it is not impossible.

Dear Emeka and all, I have just thought of something.  Do you think that RG gets some benefit from the (open access) journals that are in it?  We would see them and get some articles from them, and send our papers there.  What do you think?  I know that RG allows us to ask such questions.  There was even a question about "What is this RG score nonsense?"  RG has some tolerance and some humor that I truly appreciate!  (Please let me know what you really think.  I do not expect RG to be offended at this harmless question.  Thanks to all, including RG.)

Shen C, Björk BC. 'Predatory' open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med. 2015 Oct 1;13:230. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2. http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/548/art%253A10.1186%252Fs12916-015-0469-2.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fbmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com%2Farticle%2F10.1186%2Fs12916-015-0469-2&token2=exp=1452111078~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F548%2Fart%25253A10.1186%25252Fs12916-015-0469-2.pdf*~hmac=c3923a5012c26b08f449c382cc8e37b3fc2b999e62727939aa3703ae024e9519

I'm sorry, here is the article...

Shen C, Björk BC. 'Predatory' open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med. 2015 Oct 1;13:230. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2.

Dear Martin, Thanks for the paper.  I have read the abstract.  So it's mainly in Asia and Africa. Our education ministry banned certain journals to show us what to avoid.  I try to avoid them, but I have friends working in varsities who still publish in them.  I would not mind if RG removed them.

http://www.sps.utm.my/download/bahan%202014/Publishers%20not%20recognised%20by%20MOHE.pdf

i think that some suspicious invitations to submit papers with the possibility of a rapid review and the request of a publication fee coming from journals which are not present in some well established sites such as EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science must be avoided independently from Beall's list. When I receive invitation from these journals, usually I don't answer. My opinion is that on RG it is auspicious to have a service able to adrress young reaserchers to choose the most suitable journal for their submissions.

Dear Enzo, you are right. It is very necessary to have services that can help young researchers to know how to choose good journals. Some years back, I fell victim of publishing my first ever paper in a journal that did not even review my paper but still collected £200 from me. I still feel cheated to date because that paper is not readable or citable. This is why I feel that those journals should be identified and avoided, so that others from developing countries (that are targeted by these predatory publishers) will not be victimised.

BEALL LIST

Go through this list it will help to identify predatory journals

Yes, but there are journals or publishers that Beall's list will definite omit. Remember that these predatory journals emerge on monthly basis. They also change names, especially when they discover that people may have discovered their unethical practices.  

I respect Mr Beal and his  List  is a good starting point for recognizing predatory journals.  

IMHO, RG and similar networks should not remove predatory journals only based on this list as there are also critics and controversies (please see 2nd link form NATURE).

As academics we should carefully evaluate the scholarly credibility of both the publisher and the journal

Top 8 indicators of questionable publishers:

1. The journal asks for a submission fee instead of a publication fee or tries to keep the copyright to authors’ work.

2. The editorial board is very small or “coming soon.”

3. A single publisher releases an overwhelmingly large suite of new journals all at one time.

4. The journal says an issue will be available at a certain time, but the issue never appears.

5. The website is not professional in quality.

6. The journal title notes a national or international affiliation that does not match its editorial board or location.

7. There are fundamental errors in the titles and abstracts.

8. The content of the journal varies from the title and stated scope.

Source:

https://www.aje.com/en/author-resources/articles/8-ways-identify-questionable-open-access-journal

https://www.aje.com/en/author-resources/articles/8-ways-identify-questionable-open-access-journal

http://www.nature.com/news/backlash-after-frontiers-journals-added-to-list-of-questionable-publishers-1.18639

As per my view, all other journals those are not listed in SCOPS, Web science and Thomson routers should be removed form the RG

Let me recommend the following thread that 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

The question arises: can "predators journals" have good articles?

I don't think they should remove it from their parents because in a way they helping them from not being predatory journal but an acceptable journal. Thanks

Yes it should be

Hello,  I do follow Jeffrey Beall's Blog [ See link below ] and where ever possible I do raise awareness of Predatory Publishers in the answers I give on RG.

I have two thoughts.

1) RG may suffer some reputational damage if Predatory Publishers start using RG in their marketing and if it is perceived as polluted by Predatory Journals. For that reason it might choose to block the most obvious offenders.  

2) As predatory publishers emerge at an almost exponential rate it is better to include education about them in the researcher training or  information literacy training. This is the best way to help then protect their reputation and avoid PP's. 

Best Wishes

Matt

http://scholarlyoa.com/

following Q have direct connection with this issue.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_we_allow_Google_scholar_index_and_similar_dubious_institutions_as_research_index_impact_factor?_tpcectx=qa_overview_asked&_trid=TM9Gb0k77q2KUjrvtznbsgNj_