In my opinion, Beall's list is flawed and will not stop the Open Access Publishing Movement. Some of the criteria are too subjective to be considered valid. Most importantly, Beall's list does not change. Journals cited as predatory are therefore condemned to life sentence prison? His words: "The list itself will not be changed, I may, however, add notes to the list." Why? The list was ended in 2016. Colorado University removed it from their website. There should be decent ways to evaluate journals, not based on such prejudiced criteria. I hope Mr. Beall graduates with a Ph.D. first. The criteria are available. Check for yourself and say no to prejudice. Let the academic community decide where to publish. Every scientist has the right not to be biased by such a prejudiced list. Furthermore, the classification is a static one, does not offer room for improvement, only imprisonment.

According to archived information at https://beallslist.net/, Beall's list of predatory publishers numbered as many as 1,324. Labeling publishers as "potentially", "possibly", or "probably" predatory by circumstantial evidence alone cast a very wide net and could only have raised doubts about veracity from sweeping generalizations.

It's very old news. A better question is how we feel about Cabell's list of predatory journals, their criteria, and their practices regarding journals coming onto the list and not staying more than a year.

Picking journals is a real challenge for researchers (unless you are aiming at the A+ group). Heuristics can help but aren't definitive, and we need something to grab onto to help us make sense of the confusing and changing landscape of publishers. That something is obviously not Beall's list going forward, but the conversation that matters is...what is?

thanks for your reply

Despite the controversary that surrounded Beall's list before its closure and the attempts of others such as Cabell's blacklist of predatory journals, referred to by Jonathan Davis , I think that, at times, choosing an appropriate journal becomes a challenging task in view of the mayhem of journals that use various means of misleading their "victims". Some serious effort is badly needed to guide and warn researchers against exploitation and deception.

The Jeffrey Beall's list is questionable at the least and seems to target open access publishers like Academic Journals. While there was some wisdom to the intentions of the list, the lack of clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion from the list were however, questionable.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-Bealls-List-of-Predatory-Journals-and-Publishers-reliable#:~:text=The%20Jeffrey%20Beall's%20list%20is%20questionable%20at%20the%20least%20and,the%20list%20were%20however%2C%20questionable.