Jeffrey Beall’s “predatory” lists must not be used: they are biased, flawed, opaque and inaccurate
Keywords:Jeffrey Beall, Predatory journals, Open access, Scientific publishing
A commentary published in «Nature» by Jeffrey Beall called for the ban of “predatory” journals from the scientific record. That call for a ban was deeply flawed since the lists on which the term “predatory” were based, were themselves flawed. Many papers published in such journals are valid, having been peer reviewed, and acting in an academically responsible manner, making Beall’s call unfair, and discriminatory. Beall’s blog served as a useful alert system, but in no way were Beall’s black lists, which failed to indicate precise inclusion criteria for each entry, validated by scholars around the globe, much less suitable for use in any policy-making. Even though the Beall blog suddenly went blank on January 15, 2017, with no explanation to the public by Beall, the lists continue to be flaunted as de facto publishing black lists by several academics and websites.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2017 Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
The copyrights of all the texts on this journal belong to the respective authors without restrictions .
This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (full legal code).
See also our Open Access Policy.
All the metadata of the published material is released in the public domain and may be used by anyone free of charge. This includes references.
Metadata — including references — may be re-used in any medium without prior permission for both not-for-profit and for-profit purposes. We kindly ask users to provide a link to the original metadata record.