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,

Dear Paul

Think Scholarly open access not work now so I saved all documents follow this link of my question , on it all archive of Beall's :

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

Regards 

Dear Saeed,

We seem to be thinking along the same lines (as in the past).

My original search stopped when I reached Akbar Ali's answer, so I didn't reach yours.

However, the 2nd link above has just worked when I retried it a moment ago, though it may still stop working at some point.

Some people might want to make a copy, into e.g. a PDF, before that happens?

Regards

The blog has been closed and is now archived.

Matt,

Thanks for your answer.

When you write " is now archived" are you referring to anywhere additional to the location listed in the (pseudo)Question above that started this thread, please?

Regards - PGE

PS - I think we were all aware that the original blog had been closed (hence the numerous recent/related questions across ResearchGate).

Dear Professor Ellis 

Thanks for making more easily accessible the archived copy of Beall's List to research community.

What Professor Beall did is nothing short of awesome. Now, if he has been prevented or if he has stopped to provide his remarkable services to research community, somebody else should take over Professor Beall's job, which will obviously help research community.

Dear Dr Ali,

At first I was inclined to agree with you, but having now looked into the matter of Beall's List in a bit more detail [links below] I prefer to reserve judgement, for the present.*

Quite apart from the issue of anyone republishing the list itself (and possibly opening themselves up to legal action), even the reliability of Beall's List has been questioned by seemingly credible sources. In particular, see the section in the Wikipedia entry [1st link below] headed “Counter-criticism”, where it’s reported that some US university librarians (of what I take to be comparable status) argue that Beall has been too quick to accuse many on his list, without adequate evidence.

On the other hand, if you examine http://www.scholarlyoa.net/ [3rd link], it appears to be a badly-written and in places quite hysterical (even libelous) attempt to blacken Mr Beall’s reputation. By its ad hominem approach, this website betrays its own credibility in failing to adhere to scholarly standards itself.

For the present, therefore, I intend to stay out of further involvement until the whole issue has been clarified.

Regards - PGE

*   I should add that I’ve written this freely and without having been approached by either side, but purely on the basis of evidence available via nothing more than routine Google searches.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Beall

http://www.scholarlyoa.net/004-04-15-15.htm

http://www.scholarlyoa.net/

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,

This is an archive copy of the latest edition of Beall’s list before it went dark. As scholarly publishing moves quickly, this static list will lose relevancy over time. Check out this check-list to help make future decision making easier. http://thinkchecksubmit.org/ ...

https://clinicallibrarian.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers/

 Signpost:

The Times Higher Education has articles on Beall, his list,and predatory publishing in it's June 22nd 2017 edition, and in its edition of Aug 10th 2017.

An up-to-date list seems currently to be freely available at https://beallslist.weebly.com/, but possibly from a different source

There are many resources about Beall's list under our project!

https://www.researchgate.net/project/ETHICAL-AND-PREDATORY-PUBLISHING

Researchers interested in this topic might want to take a look at the lead article in The Economist magazine's Science & Technology section. June 23-29th edition, pp. 71-72. (This week's edition at time of posting)

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/06/23/some-science-journals-that-claim-to-peer-review-papers-do-not-do-so

It reviews work going beyond Beall by Bo-Christer Bjork (Helsinki School of Economics), and others, particularly in terms of which genuinely do peer-review, and those faking it.

People interested in an update on predatory journals, might like to refer to a half-page article in this week's edition of Nature "on the list" (18 Oct 2018, vol 562, p.308), discussing the desirability of transparent criteria in lists of academic journals to use or avoid, prompted in part by China's recent concern over use of predatory journals by it's own researchers.

Interesting report on how an expose' of a business school's dependence on predatory journals backfired for the author:

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/scholar-behind-predatory-journals-expose-says-study-backfired

The triviality of predatory journals is highlighted, indirectly, today, in a discussion titled “Offline: The future of scientific knowledge” by Richard Horton, Editor of The Lancet (a leading medical journal).

https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2818%2933039-3

While reviewing Alex Csiszar’s new book, The Scientific Journal: Authorship and the Politics of Knowledge in the Nineteenth Century (2018), Horton discusses (in a way that I think highlights the epistemological defects of predatory journals) the purpose of academic journals, in light of the European Commission's Plan S, which is to accelerate progress to Open Access.

“Alex Csiszar provides thoughtful parallels and possibilities by studying the evolution of journals at a time of expanded democracy, industrialisation, and war. But two decades editing this journal have taught me two principles.

First, a journal only deserves to survive if it stands for something more than simply being a repository for research papers. What is the journal’s view of the world and the subject it serves? What is its philosophy, perspective, and personality? What is its attitude? What is its argument?

Second, to justify sustainability a journal must add some kind of value back to science—value beyond peer review, versatile online publication, and volume, all of which could be delivered by one massive platform managed by a consortium of research funders. Quality, for example.”

Clearly, typical predatory journals will have negligible interest in these values.