fbpx
Wikipedia

Beall's List

May 07, 2023

Beall's List was a prominent list of predatory open-access publishers that was maintained by University of Colorado librarian Jeffrey Beall on his blog Scholarly Open Access. The list aimed to document open-access publishers who did not perform real peer review, effectively publishing any article as long as the authors pay the open access fee. Originally started as a personal endeavor in 2008, Beall's List became a widely followed piece of work by the mid-2010s.

Its influence led some publishers on the list to threaten defamation lawsuits against Beall, as well as to lodge official complaints against Beall's work to the University of Colorado. In January 2017, Beall removed the list from his blog, scholarlyoa.com. Six months later, he published an article in the journal Biochemia Medica claiming that pressure from the University led to the blog shutdown,[1] although the University's official statement and a response by Beall's direct supervisor both disputed this account.[2]

The list was used by scientists to identify exploitative publishers and detect publisher spam.[3][4] The closure of Beall's List was cited by some as a tragedy,[5] and successors have set out to continue Beall's work.

History

Beall first became interested in predatory open-access journals (a term he coined) in 2008, when he started to receive numerous requests from dubious journals to serve on their editorial boards. He said that he "immediately became fascinated because most of the e-mails contained numerous grammatical errors."[6] Starting in 2008, he maintained a list of what he stated were "potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers".[7][8][9] In 2011, Beall's list had 18 publishers on it; by December 29, 2016, this number had grown to 923.[10]

Legal threats

In February 2013, the open-access publisher Canadian Center for Science and Education sent a letter to Beall stating that Beall's inclusion of its company on his list of questionable open-access publishers amounted to defamation. The letter also stated that if Beall did not remove the company from his list, it would subject him to "civil action".[11]

In 2013, the OMICS Publishing Group threatened to sue Beall for $1 billion for his "ridiculous, baseless, [and] impertinent" inclusion of it on his list, which "smacks of literal unprofessionalism and arrogance".[12] An unedited sentence from the letter read: "Let us at the outset warn you that this is a very perilous journey for you and you will be completely exposing yourself to serious legal implications including criminal cases lunched against you in INDIA and USA."[13] Beall responded that the letter was "poorly written and personally threatening" and expressed his opinion that the letter "is an attempt to detract from the enormity of OMICS's editorial practices".[14] OMICS' lawyers stated that damages were being pursued under section 66A of India's Information Technology Act, 2000, which makes it illegal to use a computer to publish "any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character" or to publish false information.[15] The letter stated that three years in prison was a possible penalty, although a U.S. lawyer said that the threats seemed to be a "publicity stunt" that was meant to "intimidate".[12]

Who's Afraid of Peer Review?

Main article: Who's Afraid of Peer Review?

In 2013, Science correspondent John Bohannon submitted 304 fake scientific articles to various open access journals, many of which were published by publishers on Beall's List. Among these publishers that completed the review process, 82% accepted the paper. Bohannon stated "the results show that Beall is good at spotting publishers with poor quality control". Beall stated that the results support his claim to be identifying "predatory" publishers.[16] However, the remaining 18% of publishers identified by Beall as predatory rejected the fake paper, leading science communicator Phil Davis to state "That means that Beall is falsely accusing nearly one in five".[17]

Notable publishing groups to pass this sting operation include PLoS One, Hindawi, and Frontiers Media.[16][18] Frontiers Media would later be added to Beall's list in 2015, sparking a controversy that is credited as a major reason for Beall eventually retracting his list.[3][19]

"Dr Fraud" experiment

In 2015, four researchers created a fictitious sub-par scientist named Anna O. Szust (oszust is Polish for "fraud"), and applied on her behalf for an editor position to 360 scholarly journals. Szust's qualifications were dismal for the role of an editor; she had never published a single article and had no editorial experience. The books and book chapters listed on her CV were made-up, as were the publishing houses that allegedly published the books.

One-third of the journals to which Szust applied were sampled from Beall's List. Forty of these predatory journals accepted Szust as editor without any background vetting and often within days or even hours. By comparison, she received minimal to no positive response from the "control" journals which "must meet certain standards of quality, including ethical publishing practices."[20] Among journals sampled from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), 8 of 120 accepted Szust. The DOAJ has since removed some of the affected journals in a 2016 purge. None of the 120 sampled journals listed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) offered Szust the position.

The results of the experiment were published in Nature in March 2017,[21] and widely presented in the press.[22][23][24]

Removal

On January 15, 2017, the entire content of Beall's Scholarly Open Access website was removed, along with Beall's faculty page on the University of Colorado's website.[25] The removal was first noticed on social media, with speculation on whether the removal was due to migration of the list to the stewardship of Cabell's International.[26] The company later denied any relationship, and its vice president of business development declared that Beall "was forced to shut down blog due to threats and politics".[26] The University of Colorado declared that the decision to take down the list was a personal decision from Beall.[27] Beall later wrote that he had taken down his blog because of pressure from the University of Colorado, which threatened his job security.[1]

Beall's supervisor, Shea Swauger, wrote that the university had supported Beall's work and had not threatened his academic freedom.[2] A demand by Frontiers Media to open a research misconduct case against Beall, to which the University of Colorado acquiesced, is reported as the immediate reason for Beall to take down the list. The university's investigation was closed with no findings.[3][19] In an interview in 2018, Beall stated that "my university began to attack me in several ways. They launched a research misconduct investigation against me (after seven months, the result of the investigation was that no misconduct had occurred). They also put an unqualified, mendacious supervisor over me, and he constantly attacked and harassed me. I decided I could no longer safely publish the list with my university threatening me in these ways."[28] Beall has not reactivated the list.

Successors

Since "Beall's List" closed, similar lists have been started by others,[29] including CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre, and an anonymous group at Stop Predatory Journals.[29][30] Cabell's International, a company that offers scholarly publishing analytics and other scholarly services, has also offered both a black list and a white list for subscription on their website.[31][32] Since 2021, the Norwegian Scientific Index includes the category "level X" that includes journals suspected of being predatory; its establishment was linked to expressions of concern regarding the publisher MDPI.[33][34]

Criteria for inclusion

Beall applied a diverse set of criteria before including a publisher or journal on his lists. Examples included:[35]

  • Two or more journals have duplicate editorial boards (i.e., same editorial board for more than one journal).
  • There is little or no geographical diversity among the editorial board members, especially for journals that claim to be international in scope or coverage.
  • The publisher has no policies or practices for digital preservation, meaning that if the journal ceases operations, all of the content disappears from the internet.
  • The publisher copy-proofs (locks) their PDFs, thus making it harder to check for plagiarism.
  • The name of a journal is incongruent with the journal's mission.
  • The publisher falsely claims to have its content indexed in legitimate abstracting and indexing services or claims that its content is indexed in resources that are not abstracting and indexing services.

Criticism

The list's 82% accuracy rate in the Who's Afraid of Peer Review? sting operation led Phil Davis to state that "Beall is falsely accusing nearly one in five as being a 'potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open access publisher' on appearances alone."[17] He wrote that Beall "should reconsider listing publishers on his 'predatory' list until he has evidence of wrongdoing. Being mislabeled as a 'potential, possible, or probable predatory publisher' by circumstantial evidence alone is like the sheriff of a Wild West town throwing a cowboy into jail just 'cuz he's a little funny lookin.' Civility requires due process."[17]

Joseph Esposito wrote in The Scholarly Kitchen that he had been following some of Beall's work with "growing unease",[36] and that Beall's "broader critique (really an assault) of Gold OA and those who advocate it" had "crossed the line".[36]

City University of New York librarians Monica Berger and Jill Cirasella wrote that his views were biased against open-access journals from less economically-developed countries.[37] Berger and Cirasella argued that "imperfect English or a predominantly non-Western editorial board does not make a journal predatory".[37] They stated that "the criteria he uses for his list are an excellent starting point for thinking about the hallmarks of predatory publishers and journals",[37] and suggested that "given the fuzziness between low-quality and predatory publishers, whitelisting, or listing publishers and journals that have been vetted and verified as satisfying certain standards, may be a better solution than blacklisting."[37] However, for researchers in developing countries, the list has also been described as having been particularly important, as a result of lower access to institutional support for guidance on predatory publishers.[38]

Rick Anderson, associate dean in the J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, challenged the term "predatory open access publishing" itself: "what do we mean when we say 'predatory,' and is that term even still useful?... This question has become relevant because of that common refrain heard among Beall's critics: that he only examines one kind of predation—the kind that naturally crops up in the context of author-pays OA."[39] Anderson suggested that the term "predatory" be retired in the context of scholarly publishing: "It's a nice, attention-grabbing word, but I'm not sure it's helpfully descriptive... it generates more heat than light."[39] In its place, he proposed the term "deceptive publishing".[39]

Beall's List primarily assesses the predatory journals based on their compliance with procedural standards, even though the quality of a journal can be judged on at least six different dimensions.[40] A 2020 review in BMC Medicine found that only 3% of "predatory checklists" found online met their study's criteria for being "evidence-based", Beall's List was not amongst them.[41] A 2021 study in The Journal of Academic Librarianship confirmed Beall's bias against OA journals.[42]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Beall, Jeffrey (2017). "What I learned from predatory publishers". Biochemia Medica. 27 (2): 273–279. doi:10.11613/BM.2017.029. PMC 5493177. PMID 28694718.
  2. ^ a b Swauger, Shea (December 1, 2017). "Open access, power, and privilege: A response to 'What I learned from predatory publishing'". College & Research Libraries News. 78 (11): 603–606. doi:10.5860/crln.78.11.603.
  3. ^ a b c Basken, Paul (September 12, 2017). "Why Beall's List Died — and What It Left Unresolved About Open Access". The Chronicle of Higher Education.
  4. ^ Watson, Roger (2017). "Beall's list of predatory open access journals: RIP". Nursing Open. 4 (2): 60. doi:10.1002/nop2.78. PMC 5340161. PMID 28286661. It provided an easy checklist against the flood of uninvited emails from unknown publishers…
  5. ^ Spears, Tom (January 17, 2017). "World's main list of 'predatory' science publishers vanishes with no warning". Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved January 18, 2017.
  6. ^ Butler, D. (2013). "Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing". Nature. 495 (7442): 433–435. Bibcode:2013Natur.495..433B. doi:10.1038/495433a. PMID 23538810.
  7. ^ Beall, Jeffrey. . Scholarly Open Access (last archived ed.). Archived from the original on January 12, 2017.
  8. ^ Kolata, Gina (April 7, 2013). "Scientific Articles Accepted (Personal Checks, Too)". The New York Times. Retrieved January 18, 2014.
  9. ^ Jump, Paul (August 2, 2012). "Research Intelligence – 'Predators' who lurk in plain cite". Times Higher Education. Retrieved August 29, 2015.
  10. ^ Carey, Kevin (December 29, 2016). "A Peek Inside the Strange World of Fake Academia". Upshot. The New York Times.
  11. ^ Flaherty, Colleen (February 15, 2013). "Librarians and Lawyers". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved December 8, 2014.
  12. ^ a b New, Jake (May 15, 2013). "Publisher Threatens to Sue Blogger for $1-Billion". Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 22, 2016.
  13. ^ Anderson, Rick (May 20, 2013). "High Noon – A Publisher Threatens to 'Lunch' a Criminal Case Against Librarian Critic". Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved October 24, 2016.
  14. ^ Chappell, Bill (May 15, 2013). "Publisher Threatens Librarian With $1 Billion Lawsuit". NPR. Retrieved October 2, 2016.
  15. ^ Venkataramakrishnan, Rohan (May 19, 2013). "Send Section 66A bullies home". India Today. Retrieved October 24, 2016.
  16. ^ a b Beall, Jeffrey. . Scholarly Open Access. Archived from the original on 12 October 2013. Retrieved 22 October 2013.
  17. ^ a b c Davis, Phil (October 4, 2013). "Open Access "Sting" Reveals Deception, Missed Opportunities". The Scholarly Kitchen.
  18. ^ Quinn, David; Wiesmann, Daniel. "Who's afraid of peer review". Who does peer review. Science. Retrieved November 14, 2019.
  19. ^ a b Basken, Paul (September 22, 2017). "Why Beall's blacklist of predatory journals died". University World News.
  20. ^ Sorokowski, Piotr (March 22, 2017). "Predatory journals recruit fake editor". Nature. 543 (7646): 481–483. Bibcode:2017Natur.543..481S. doi:10.1038/543481a. PMID 28332542.
  21. ^ Sorokowski, Piotr; Kulczycki, Emanuel; Sorokowska, Agnieszka; Pisanski, Katarzyna (March 23, 2017). "Predatory journals recruit fake editor". Nature. 543 (7646): 481–483. Bibcode:2017Natur.543..481S. doi:10.1038/543481a. PMID 28332542.
  22. ^ Kluger, Jeffrey. "Dozens of Scientific Journals Offered Her a Job. But She Didn't Exist". Time. Retrieved March 22, 2017.
  23. ^ Kolata, Gina (March 22, 2017). "A Scholarly Sting Operation Shines a Light on 'Predatory' Journals". The New York Times. Retrieved March 22, 2017.
  24. ^ Burdick, Alan (March 22, 2017). "A Scholarly Sting Operation Shines a Light on 'Predatory' Journals". The New Yorker. Retrieved March 22, 2017.
  25. ^ . Retraction Watch. January 17, 2017. Archived from the original on April 18, 2018. Retrieved January 18, 2017.
  26. ^ a b "Librarian's list of 'predatory' journals reportedly removed due to 'threats and politics'". Inside Higher Ed. January 18, 2017. Retrieved January 25, 2017.
  27. ^ Singh Chawla, Dalmeet (January 17, 2017). "Mystery as controversial list of predatory publishers disappears". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aal0625. Retrieved January 18, 2017.
  28. ^ "Jeffrey Beall: 'Predatory publishers threaten scientific integrity, are embarrassment to India'". The Indian Express. July 20, 2018.
  29. ^ a b "The precarious prevalence of predatory journals". Research Matters. January 28, 2018. Retrieved March 16, 2018.
  30. ^ Siegfried, Elaine (June 16, 2017). . Dermatology Times. Archived from the original on March 16, 2018. Retrieved August 16, 2018.
  31. ^ "Cabell's New Predatory Journal Blacklist: A Review". The Scholarly Kitchen. July 25, 2017. from the original on September 21, 2017. Retrieved December 7, 2017.
  32. ^ . Archived from the original on December 8, 2017. Retrieved December 7, 2017.
  33. ^ "Vi innfører nivå X for tvilsomme tidsskrifter" [We are introducing level X for dubious journals]. Khrono. May 27, 2021. Retrieved May 27, 2021.
  34. ^ "Plasserer tretten vitenskapelige tidsskrift på gråsone-nivå". Universitetsavisa. Retrieved September 7, 2021.
  35. ^ Beall, Jeffrey (January 1, 2015). "Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (3rd ed.)" (PDF). Beall's List. Retrieved May 31, 2020.
  36. ^ a b Esposito, Joseph (December 16, 2013). "Parting Company with Jeffrey Beall". The Scholarly Kitchen.
  37. ^ a b c d Berger, Monica; Cirasella, Jill (2015). "Beyond Beall's List: Better Understanding Predatory Publishers". College & Research Libraries News. 76 (3): 132–135. doi:10.5860/crln.76.3.9277. Retrieved August 1, 2015.
  38. ^ Kakamad, Fahmi H.; Mohammed, Shvan H.; Najar, Kayhan A.; Qadr, Goran A.; Ahmed, Jaafar O.; Mohammed, Karukh K.; Salih, Rawezh Q.; Hassan, Marwan N.; Mikael, Tomas M.; Kakamad, Suhaib H.; Baba, Hiwa O.; Aziz, Masrur S.; Rahim, Hawbash M.; Ahmmad, Dlshad R.; Hussein, Dahat A.; Ali, Rebwar A.; Hammood, Zuhair D.; Essa, Rawand A.; Hassan, Hunar Ali (2019). "Kscien's list; a new strategy to hoist predatory journals and publishers". International Journal of Surgery Open. 17: 5–7. doi:10.1016/j.ijso.2019.01.002.
  39. ^ a b c Anderson, Rick (May 11, 2015). "Should We Retire the Term 'Predatory Publishing'?". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved September 20, 2015.
  40. ^ Walters, William H. (2022). "The citation impact of the Open Access accounting journals that appear on Beall's List of potentially predatory publishers and journals". The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 48 (1): 102484. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102484.
  41. ^ Cukier, Samantha; Helal, Lucas; Rice, Danielle B.; Pupkaite, Justina; Ahmadzai, Nadera; Wilson, Mitchell; Skidmore, Becky; Lalu, Manoj M.; Moher, David (2020). "Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review". BMC Medicine. 18 (1): 104. doi:10.1186/s12916-020-01566-1. ISSN 1741-7015. PMC 7203891. PMID 32375818.
  42. ^ Krawczyk, Franciszek; Kulczycki, Emanuel (March 1, 2021). "How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall's lists of predatory journals on academic publishing". The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 47 (2): 102271. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102271. ISSN 0099-1333.

Further reading

  • Buschman, John (2020). "A Political Sociology of the Beall's List Affair". The Library Quarterly. 90 (3): 298–313. doi:10.1086/708959. S2CID 224809316.

External links

  • Beall, Jeffrey. (last archived ed.). Archived from the original on January 12, 2017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  • Beall, Jeffrey. (last archived ed.). Archived from the original on January 11, 2017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  • Updated "Beall's List of Predatory Journals and Publishers" – maintained by an anonymous postdoctoral European researcher

May 07, 2023
beall, list, prominent, list, predatory, open, access, publishers, that, maintained, university, colorado, librarian, jeffrey, beall, blog, scholarly, open, access, list, aimed, document, open, access, publishers, perform, real, peer, review, effectively, publ. Beall s List was a prominent list of predatory open access publishers that was maintained by University of Colorado librarian Jeffrey Beall on his blog Scholarly Open Access The list aimed to document open access publishers who did not perform real peer review effectively publishing any article as long as the authors pay the open access fee Originally started as a personal endeavor in 2008 Beall s List became a widely followed piece of work by the mid 2010s Its influence led some publishers on the list to threaten defamation lawsuits against Beall as well as to lodge official complaints against Beall s work to the University of Colorado In January 2017 Beall removed the list from his blog scholarlyoa com Six months later he published an article in the journal Biochemia Medica claiming that pressure from the University led to the blog shutdown 1 although the University s official statement and a response by Beall s direct supervisor both disputed this account 2 The list was used by scientists to identify exploitative publishers and detect publisher spam 3 4 The closure of Beall s List was cited by some as a tragedy 5 and successors have set out to continue Beall s work Contents 1 History 1 1 Legal threats 1 2 Who s Afraid of Peer Review 1 3 Dr Fraud experiment 1 4 Removal 1 5 Successors 2 Criteria for inclusion 3 Criticism 4 See also 5 References 6 Further reading 7 External linksHistory EditBeall first became interested in predatory open access journals a term he coined in 2008 when he started to receive numerous requests from dubious journals to serve on their editorial boards He said that he immediately became fascinated because most of the e mails contained numerous grammatical errors 6 Starting in 2008 he maintained a list of what he stated were potential possible or probable predatory scholarly open access publishers 7 8 9 In 2011 Beall s list had 18 publishers on it by December 29 2016 this number had grown to 923 10 Legal threats Edit In February 2013 the open access publisher Canadian Center for Science and Education sent a letter to Beall stating that Beall s inclusion of its company on his list of questionable open access publishers amounted to defamation The letter also stated that if Beall did not remove the company from his list it would subject him to civil action 11 In 2013 the OMICS Publishing Group threatened to sue Beall for 1 billion for his ridiculous baseless and impertinent inclusion of it on his list which smacks of literal unprofessionalism and arrogance 12 An unedited sentence from the letter read Let us at the outset warn you that this is a very perilous journey for you and you will be completely exposing yourself to serious legal implications including criminal cases lunched against you in INDIA and USA 13 Beall responded that the letter was poorly written and personally threatening and expressed his opinion that the letter is an attempt to detract from the enormity of OMICS s editorial practices 14 OMICS lawyers stated that damages were being pursued under section 66A of India s Information Technology Act 2000 which makes it illegal to use a computer to publish any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character or to publish false information 15 The letter stated that three years in prison was a possible penalty although a U S lawyer said that the threats seemed to be a publicity stunt that was meant to intimidate 12 Who s Afraid of Peer Review Edit Main article Who s Afraid of Peer Review In 2013 Science correspondent John Bohannon submitted 304 fake scientific articles to various open access journals many of which were published by publishers on Beall s List Among these publishers that completed the review process 82 accepted the paper Bohannon stated the results show that Beall is good at spotting publishers with poor quality control Beall stated that the results support his claim to be identifying predatory publishers 16 However the remaining 18 of publishers identified by Beall as predatory rejected the fake paper leading science communicator Phil Davis to state That means that Beall is falsely accusing nearly one in five 17 Notable publishing groups to pass this sting operation include PLoS One Hindawi and Frontiers Media 16 18 Frontiers Media would later be added to Beall s list in 2015 sparking a controversy that is credited as a major reason for Beall eventually retracting his list 3 19 Dr Fraud experiment Edit In 2015 four researchers created a fictitious sub par scientist named Anna O Szust oszust is Polish for fraud and applied on her behalf for an editor position to 360 scholarly journals Szust s qualifications were dismal for the role of an editor she had never published a single article and had no editorial experience The books and book chapters listed on her CV were made up as were the publishing houses that allegedly published the books One third of the journals to which Szust applied were sampled from Beall s List Forty of these predatory journals accepted Szust as editor without any background vetting and often within days or even hours By comparison she received minimal to no positive response from the control journals which must meet certain standards of quality including ethical publishing practices 20 Among journals sampled from the Directory of Open Access Journals DOAJ 8 of 120 accepted Szust The DOAJ has since removed some of the affected journals in a 2016 purge None of the 120 sampled journals listed in Journal Citation Reports JCR offered Szust the position The results of the experiment were published in Nature in March 2017 21 and widely presented in the press 22 23 24 Removal Edit On January 15 2017 the entire content of Beall s Scholarly Open Access website was removed along with Beall s faculty page on the University of Colorado s website 25 The removal was first noticed on social media with speculation on whether the removal was due to migration of the list to the stewardship of Cabell s International 26 The company later denied any relationship and its vice president of business development declared that Beall was forced to shut down blog due to threats and politics 26 The University of Colorado declared that the decision to take down the list was a personal decision from Beall 27 Beall later wrote that he had taken down his blog because of pressure from the University of Colorado which threatened his job security 1 Beall s supervisor Shea Swauger wrote that the university had supported Beall s work and had not threatened his academic freedom 2 A demand by Frontiers Media to open a research misconduct case against Beall to which the University of Colorado acquiesced is reported as the immediate reason for Beall to take down the list The university s investigation was closed with no findings 3 19 In an interview in 2018 Beall stated that my university began to attack me in several ways They launched a research misconduct investigation against me after seven months the result of the investigation was that no misconduct had occurred They also put an unqualified mendacious supervisor over me and he constantly attacked and harassed me I decided I could no longer safely publish the list with my university threatening me in these ways 28 Beall has not reactivated the list Successors Edit Since Beall s List closed similar lists have been started by others 29 including CSIR Structural Engineering Research Centre and an anonymous group at Stop Predatory Journals 29 30 Cabell s International a company that offers scholarly publishing analytics and other scholarly services has also offered both a black list and a white list for subscription on their website 31 32 Since 2021 the Norwegian Scientific Index includes the category level X that includes journals suspected of being predatory its establishment was linked to expressions of concern regarding the publisher MDPI 33 34 Criteria for inclusion EditBeall applied a diverse set of criteria before including a publisher or journal on his lists Examples included 35 Two or more journals have duplicate editorial boards i e same editorial board for more than one journal There is little or no geographical diversity among the editorial board members especially for journals that claim to be international in scope or coverage The publisher has no policies or practices for digital preservation meaning that if the journal ceases operations all of the content disappears from the internet The publisher copy proofs locks their PDFs thus making it harder to check for plagiarism The name of a journal is incongruent with the journal s mission The publisher falsely claims to have its content indexed in legitimate abstracting and indexing services or claims that its content is indexed in resources that are not abstracting and indexing services Criticism EditThe list s 82 accuracy rate in the Who s Afraid of Peer Review sting operation led Phil Davis to state that Beall is falsely accusing nearly one in five as being a potential possible or probable predatory scholarly open access publisher on appearances alone 17 He wrote that Beall should reconsider listing publishers on his predatory list until he has evidence of wrongdoing Being mislabeled as a potential possible or probable predatory publisher by circumstantial evidence alone is like the sheriff of a Wild West town throwing a cowboy into jail just cuz he s a little funny lookin Civility requires due process 17 Joseph Esposito wrote in The Scholarly Kitchen that he had been following some of Beall s work with growing unease 36 and that Beall s broader critique really an assault of Gold OA and those who advocate it had crossed the line 36 City University of New York librarians Monica Berger and Jill Cirasella wrote that his views were biased against open access journals from less economically developed countries 37 Berger and Cirasella argued that imperfect English or a predominantly non Western editorial board does not make a journal predatory 37 They stated that the criteria he uses for his list are an excellent starting point for thinking about the hallmarks of predatory publishers and journals 37 and suggested that given the fuzziness between low quality and predatory publishers whitelisting or listing publishers and journals that have been vetted and verified as satisfying certain standards may be a better solution than blacklisting 37 However for researchers in developing countries the list has also been described as having been particularly important as a result of lower access to institutional support for guidance on predatory publishers 38 Rick Anderson associate dean in the J Willard Marriott Library University of Utah challenged the term predatory open access publishing itself what do we mean when we say predatory and is that term even still useful This question has become relevant because of that common refrain heard among Beall s critics that he only examines one kind of predation the kind that naturally crops up in the context of author pays OA 39 Anderson suggested that the term predatory be retired in the context of scholarly publishing It s a nice attention grabbing word but I m not sure it s helpfully descriptive it generates more heat than light 39 In its place he proposed the term deceptive publishing 39 Beall s List primarily assesses the predatory journals based on their compliance with procedural standards even though the quality of a journal can be judged on at least six different dimensions 40 A 2020 review in BMC Medicine found that only 3 of predatory checklists found online met their study s criteria for being evidence based Beall s List was not amongst them 41 A 2021 study in The Journal of Academic Librarianship confirmed Beall s bias against OA journals 42 See also EditJournalologyReferences Edit a b Beall Jeffrey 2017 What I learned from predatory publishers Biochemia Medica 27 2 273 279 doi 10 11613 BM 2017 029 PMC 5493177 PMID 28694718 a b Swauger Shea December 1 2017 Open access power and privilege A response to What I learned from predatory publishing College amp Research Libraries News 78 11 603 606 doi 10 5860 crln 78 11 603 a b c Basken Paul September 12 2017 Why Beall s List Died and What It Left Unresolved About Open Access The Chronicle of Higher Education Watson Roger 2017 Beall s list of predatory open access journals RIP Nursing Open 4 2 60 doi 10 1002 nop2 78 PMC 5340161 PMID 28286661 It provided an easy checklist against the flood of uninvited emails from unknown publishers Spears Tom January 17 2017 World s main list of predatory science publishers vanishes with no warning Ottawa Citizen Retrieved January 18 2017 Butler D 2013 Investigating journals The dark side of publishing Nature 495 7442 433 435 Bibcode 2013Natur 495 433B doi 10 1038 495433a PMID 23538810 Beall Jeffrey Beall s List Potential possible or probable predatory scholarly open access publishers Scholarly Open Access last archived ed Archived from the original on January 12 2017 Kolata Gina April 7 2013 Scientific Articles Accepted Personal Checks Too The New York Times Retrieved January 18 2014 Jump Paul August 2 2012 Research Intelligence Predators who lurk in plain cite Times Higher Education Retrieved August 29 2015 Carey Kevin December 29 2016 A Peek Inside the Strange World of Fake Academia Upshot The New York Times Flaherty Colleen February 15 2013 Librarians and Lawyers Inside Higher Ed Retrieved December 8 2014 a b New Jake May 15 2013 Publisher Threatens to Sue Blogger for 1 Billion Chronicle of Higher Education Retrieved October 22 2016 Anderson Rick May 20 2013 High Noon A Publisher Threatens to Lunch a Criminal Case Against Librarian Critic Scholarly Kitchen Retrieved October 24 2016 Chappell Bill May 15 2013 Publisher Threatens Librarian With 1 Billion Lawsuit NPR Retrieved October 2 2016 Venkataramakrishnan Rohan May 19 2013 Send Section 66A bullies home India Today Retrieved October 24 2016 a b Beall Jeffrey Science Magazine Conducts Sting Operation on OA Publishers Scholarly Open Access Archived from the original on 12 October 2013 Retrieved 22 October 2013 a b c Davis Phil October 4 2013 Open Access Sting Reveals Deception Missed Opportunities The Scholarly Kitchen Quinn David Wiesmann Daniel Who s afraid of peer review Who does peer review Science Retrieved November 14 2019 a b Basken Paul September 22 2017 Why Beall s blacklist of predatory journals died University World News Sorokowski Piotr March 22 2017 Predatory journals recruit fake editor Nature 543 7646 481 483 Bibcode 2017Natur 543 481S doi 10 1038 543481a PMID 28332542 Sorokowski Piotr Kulczycki Emanuel Sorokowska Agnieszka Pisanski Katarzyna March 23 2017 Predatory journals recruit fake editor Nature 543 7646 481 483 Bibcode 2017Natur 543 481S doi 10 1038 543481a PMID 28332542 Kluger Jeffrey Dozens of Scientific Journals Offered Her a Job But She Didn t Exist Time Retrieved March 22 2017 Kolata Gina March 22 2017 A Scholarly Sting Operation Shines a Light on Predatory Journals The New York Times Retrieved March 22 2017 Burdick Alan March 22 2017 A Scholarly Sting Operation Shines a Light on Predatory Journals The New Yorker Retrieved March 22 2017 Why did Beall s List of potential predatory publishers go dark Retraction Watch January 17 2017 Archived from the original on April 18 2018 Retrieved January 18 2017 a b Librarian s list of predatory journals reportedly removed due to threats and politics Inside Higher Ed January 18 2017 Retrieved January 25 2017 Singh Chawla Dalmeet January 17 2017 Mystery as controversial list of predatory publishers disappears Science doi 10 1126 science aal0625 Retrieved January 18 2017 Jeffrey Beall Predatory publishers threaten scientific integrity are embarrassment to India The Indian Express July 20 2018 a b The precarious prevalence of predatory journals Research Matters January 28 2018 Retrieved March 16 2018 Siegfried Elaine June 16 2017 Fake Medical News Dermatology Times Archived from the original on March 16 2018 Retrieved August 16 2018 Cabell s New Predatory Journal Blacklist A Review The Scholarly Kitchen July 25 2017 Archived from the original on September 21 2017 Retrieved December 7 2017 Cabell s International Archived from the original on December 8 2017 Retrieved December 7 2017 Vi innforer niva X for tvilsomme tidsskrifter We are introducing level X for dubious journals Khrono May 27 2021 Retrieved May 27 2021 Plasserer tretten vitenskapelige tidsskrift pa grasone niva Universitetsavisa Retrieved September 7 2021 Beall Jeffrey January 1 2015 Criteria for Determining Predatory Open Access Publishers 3rd ed PDF Beall s List Retrieved May 31 2020 a b Esposito Joseph December 16 2013 Parting Company with Jeffrey Beall The Scholarly Kitchen a b c d Berger Monica Cirasella Jill 2015 Beyond Beall s List Better Understanding Predatory Publishers College amp Research Libraries News 76 3 132 135 doi 10 5860 crln 76 3 9277 Retrieved August 1 2015 Kakamad Fahmi H Mohammed Shvan H Najar Kayhan A Qadr Goran A Ahmed Jaafar O Mohammed Karukh K Salih Rawezh Q Hassan Marwan N Mikael Tomas M Kakamad Suhaib H Baba Hiwa O Aziz Masrur S Rahim Hawbash M Ahmmad Dlshad R Hussein Dahat A Ali Rebwar A Hammood Zuhair D Essa Rawand A Hassan Hunar Ali 2019 Kscien s list a new strategy to hoist predatory journals and publishers International Journal of Surgery Open 17 5 7 doi 10 1016 j ijso 2019 01 002 a b c Anderson Rick May 11 2015 Should We Retire the Term Predatory Publishing The Scholarly Kitchen Retrieved September 20 2015 Walters William H 2022 The citation impact of the Open Access accounting journals that appear on Beall s List of potentially predatory publishers and journals The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48 1 102484 doi 10 1016 j acalib 2021 102484 Cukier Samantha Helal Lucas Rice Danielle B Pupkaite Justina Ahmadzai Nadera Wilson Mitchell Skidmore Becky Lalu Manoj M Moher David 2020 Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals a systematic review BMC Medicine 18 1 104 doi 10 1186 s12916 020 01566 1 ISSN 1741 7015 PMC 7203891 PMID 32375818 Krawczyk Franciszek Kulczycki Emanuel March 1 2021 How is open access accused of being predatory The impact of Beall s lists of predatory journals on academic publishing The Journal of Academic Librarianship 47 2 102271 doi 10 1016 j acalib 2020 102271 ISSN 0099 1333 Further reading EditBuschman John 2020 A Political Sociology of the Beall s List Affair The Library Quarterly 90 3 298 313 doi 10 1086 708959 S2CID 224809316 External links EditBeall Jeffrey List of Publishers Potential possible or probable predatory scholarly open access publishers last archived ed Archived from the original on January 12 2017 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint unfit URL link Beall Jeffrey List of Standalone Journals Potential possible or probable predatory scholarly open access journals last archived ed Archived from the original on January 11 2017 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint unfit URL link Updated Beall s List of Predatory Journals and Publishers maintained by an anonymous postdoctoral European researcher Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Beall 27s List amp oldid 1152067683, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.