{"id":104152,"date":"2017-01-24T09:36:48","date_gmt":"2017-01-24T09:36:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/?p=104152"},"modified":"2025-07-22T16:10:56","modified_gmt":"2025-07-22T16:10:56","slug":"bealls-list-gone-but-not-lost","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/academia-government\/blog\/bealls-list-gone-but-not-lost\/","title":{"rendered":"Beall’s list: gone but not lost"},"content":{"rendered":"

Beall\u2019s list of \u2018predatory\u2019 open access journals has disappeared but the information isn\u2019t lost: It still exists across many resources – including on Publons.<\/em><\/p>\n

Note: It is worth clarifying here that Publons is not an indexing service. That means that any journal in the world can have some kind of presence on Publons. The reasoning for this is to allow any researcher doing a review to be able to get recognition for their work, which we think is best for research. We don’t think the role for Publons is to be a whitelist for journals. That said, part of what we can offer researchers and the scholarly publishing space is a suggested list of things for researchers to consider before submitting to a journal, and visibility on aspects of that journal’s presence on Publons (more details on this below) to consider alongside other factors.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Predatory publishers. Most researchers have heard of them, some have fallen victim to them, and some receive hundreds of emails from them every year.<\/p>\n

These email requests kick off the chain of deception. They\u2019re usually sent by journal editors soliciting papers under the guise of Open Access. They prey on authors by charging them a fee to publish or present their findings in conferences. They then pocket the money without providing any of the services provided by reputable publishers, and the unchallenged research is pushed out into the public domain.<\/p>\n

Peer review is the service most of these journals fail to provide. It is a quality control method that helps to maintain the trustworthiness of published literature, and when it\u2019s missing, the credibility of the entire research is called into question.<\/p>\n

This puts peer review at the heart of the predatory publisher problem.<\/p>\n

Some researchers are able to recognise predatory publishers from a mile away. Their emails often range from overtly to mildly suspicious. But spotting them is becoming harder and harder. The number of them is growing exponentially – they pushed\u00a0420,000 into the market in 2014<\/a>, up from 53,000 in 2010 – and the sheer volume of their emails is a reckoning force.<\/p>\n

Jeffrey Beall once helped researchers fight against this problem. But his solution recently vanished from the internet.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Jeffrey Beall<\/p><\/div>\n

In 2010, Beall created a list citing thousands of \u201cpotential, possible, or probable predatory publishers\u201d that he alleged would exploit or deceive authors. Researchers could refer to it when they needed a second opinion on a suspicious publisher or journal.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s still unknown<\/a>\u00a0why Beall, a scholarly communications librarian at the University of Colorado, Denver, removed his list, but the controversy surrounding it was well known.<\/p>\n

For many, it was an influential guide that helped researchers determine whether a publisher or journal is legitimate. For others, it lacked transparency, was unforgiving, and was the cause of several\u00a0legal threats<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Criticisms aside, however, Beall\u2019s goal of deterring predatory publishers and promoting best practices was much-needed. So what now?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Alternatives<\/h4>\n

The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is a valuable resource for catching unethical publishing requests. This membership organisation has undertaken a review of the journals and publishers listed to ensure they commit to and prove quality, peer-reviewed open access. These can be found in the\u00a0DOAJ\u2019s directory<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Another option comes from librarians Sarah Beaubien and Max Eckard. In 2014 they published a set of\u00a0Open Access Journal Quality Indicators<\/a>\u00a0with both positive and negative journal characteristics. This helps researchers perform their own evaluation of ethical and unethical open access publications.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0Think, Check and Submit campaign<\/a>\u00a0also helps authors identify trusted
\njournals for their research. They offer a simple checklist to assess the credentials of a journal or publisher – as does Nature magazine reporter, Declan Butler,\u00a0in this article<\/a>.<\/p>\n

While all this information is extremely helpful in spotting unethical operators, a gap still exists. We know this because we still regularly face challenges when determining which journals to formally partner with.<\/p>\n

With that in mind, we\u2019re releasing our internal checklist for evaluating the publishers we partner with, and more information on how researchers can use our Journal List.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Publons Journal List<\/h4>\n

Publons\u2019\u00a0Journal List<\/a>\u00a0is also a positive and dynamic alternative to Beall\u2019s list.<\/p>\n

We display a green tick for all our vetted publishers and showcase which journals are “endorsed” by peer reviewers in the Publons community.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

We make it possible for any journal to set a review policy on Publons, and show verified review volume, and researcher endorsements for every journal on our network. It enables researchers to see who is reviewing and editing for the journal, who endorses it, and enables researchers to make up their own mind based on the information presented.<\/p>\n

Researchers can also see\u00a0which publishers we partner with<\/a>. We take this process very seriously and worked with our\u00a0publisher advisory group<\/a>\u00a0right from the start on a guide to analyse publishers\u2019 practices. It\u2019s not the only determining factor we use, but it\u2019s a useful set of standards that help us evaluate if we should partner with a publisher or not.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

There are several filters on our journal list to help researchers pull out this important information. Take BMJ and its journal,\u00a0BMJ Open<\/em>, in the screenshots above, for example. Our filters show this open access publisher is a vetted and valued partner of ours, that allows both signed and published reviews. And upon clicking the journal for closer inspection, information on the reviewers, editors, and researchers endorsing the journal is all available.<\/p>\n

Publons\u2019 guide to evaluating publishers<\/h4>\n

Our process involves researching the journal or publisher and answering the questions posed in the checklist below.<\/p>\n

The answers to these questions, plus information on how that journal or publisher has engaged with Publons to date (number and quality of reviews added, for example), inform our decision on whether or not to partner with them.<\/p>\n

Our full guide is below. But first, here\u2019s a few indicators researchers can use to get a quick handle on a journal\u2019s ethical processes:<\/p>\n