Jeffrey Beall’s “predatory” lists must not be used: they are biased, flawed, opaque and inaccurate

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva


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. 


Jeffrey Beall; Predatory journals; Open access; Scientific publishing

Full Text:

PDF (English)

DOI: 10.6092/issn.2283-9364/7044


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2017 Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Unported License.

ISSN 2283-9364 – ISSN-L 2280-7934
The journal is hosted and mantained by ABIS-AlmaDL [privacy]