Predatory Journals: Revisiting Beall’s Research

Kendall, Graham; Linacre, Simon

doi:10.1007/s12109-022-09888-z

Cited by 21 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the authors of this paper has previously stated "… the author should carry out their own due diligence, as well as seeking advice from their peers/supervisor(s). If there are any doubts, look for another journal as the world is not short of scientific journals" [9]. This was our way of stating that too many people relied on those lists, despite there being a lot of knowledge and experience among their supervisors, peers and colleagues.…”

Section: The Use Of Beall's Lists By Authorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We do not wish to say that every study that has drawn on the work of Beall's Lists is flawed (that is not our role, as we have neither looked at every paper, nor have we seen the reviewers' comments) but it should no longer be permissible to use Beall's Lists and justify their use by acknowledging that the dataset has problems or other issues, which are known. Any analysis or conclusions must be supported by evidence, an approach that was adopted by Kendall and Linacre [9], who revisited the first 18 OA publishers that Beall analyzed. That paper's conclusions were supported by updated evidence collected about each of those publishers.…”

Section: Beall's Lists As Used By Editors and Reviewersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Academia Should Stop Using Beall’s Lists and Review Their Use in Previous Studies

Silva¹,

Kendall

2023

CAJMHE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academics (should) strive to submit to journals which are academically sound and scholarly. To achieve this, they could either submit to journals that appear exclusively on safelists (occasionally referred to as whitelists, although this term tends to be avoided), or avoid submitting to journals on watchlists (occasionally referred to as blacklists, although this term tends to be avoided). The most well-known of these lists was curated by Jeffrey Beall. Beall’s Lists (there are two, one for stand-alone journals and one for publishers) were taken offline by Beall himself in January 2017. Prior to 2017, Beall’s Lists were widely cited and utilized, including to make quantitative claims about scholarly publishing. Even after Beall’s Lists became obsolete (they have not been maintained for the past six years), they continue to be widely cited and used. This paper argues that the use of Beall’s Lists, pre- and post-2017, may constitute a methodological error and, even if papers carry a disclaimer or limitations section noting this weakness, their conclusions cannot always be relied upon. This paper also argues for the need to conduct a detailed post-publication assessment of reports in the literature that used Beall’s Lists to validate their findings and conclusions, assuming that it becomes accepted that Beall’s Lists are not a reliable resource for scientific investigation. Finally, this paper contends that any papers that have identified methodological errors should be corrected. Several lists that were cloned from Beall’s Lists have also emerged and are also being cited. These should also be included in any post-publication investigation that is conducted.

show abstract

Section: The Use Of Beall's Lists By Authorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Beall's Lists As Used By Editors and Reviewersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academia Should Stop Using Beall’s Lists and Review Their Use in Previous Studies

Silva¹,

Kendall

2023

CAJMHE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Linked to this necessity to publish may be students being targeted by so-called "predatory publishers" [78,79] and, more recently, those in the "Grey" publishing market [80]. More senior academics will likely be familiar with such unsolicited approaches and understand the implications of publishing papers in these journals.…”

Section: Benefits Exist But There Are Potential Negatives Toomentioning

confidence: 99%

How Supervisors Can Support Doctoral Students to Publish and Not Perish in Academia

Marson,

Ferris

2023

Encyclopedia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“Publish or perish” is a term used for the culture adopted in universities, whereby academic members of staff, typically although not exclusively on research and teaching contracts, are required to publish research. Minimum levels of quantity and quality may apply and these may be included in key performance indicators and annual staff reviews to ensure compliance. Whilst this culture has been reported in universities for nearly a century, most recently it has cascaded down to doctoral students who are increasingly expected to publish and otherwise disseminate research during their studies (i.e., research outside of that which is to be submitted in their thesis). This entry relates primarily to doctoral students in a UK setting and studying a monograph route (rather than a published papers submission) in the humanities. It further explores the role played by supervisors to help doctoral students to publish, and in turn the help and guidance supervisors need to offer as support. Many of the findings explored in this entry apply equally beyond the parameters noted above, and, as demonstrated in the literature, international students and institutions are facing similar issues.

show abstract

“…The author observed that predatory journals mostly use such indexes. Kendall and Linacre [ 31 ], revisiting Beall’s list, posited that the rise in the number of publishing journals by few publishers suggests the problem of predatory journals is getting worse. Authors deviating from the Beall’s way of classifying the journals as predatory or non-predatory have grouped the journals into four categories (the first category indicates the most reputed journals).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%