Saturday, June 18, 2016

What is the Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2016?

The Beall's List (not Bell!) is probably one of the most misunderstood things in academic publishing today and I will make it very clear from the start that based on my own personal editing and publishing experience over many years, his list does not reflect the real nature of many of the journals and publishers that have unfortunately been placed on 'the list'.  I will expand on this in later posts....

Having said that however, below is a 'cut and paste' from Jeffrey Beall's web site.  The first thing that leaps out is the doubling of publishers placed on the list in just two years from 2014 to 2016. during this same period the top five most prolific publishers took control of 70% of all social sciences papers.

Given the fact that these 5 major publishers control the vast majority of the $25 billion a year business, one might wonder who is winning by the efforts of Mr. Beall and what his real agenda is?  It is obvious that the losers are the publishing businesses on the list that have been removed from the competition by a single individual.  All without review, without a judge, and without a jury.  Just one lone wolf who seems to be angry at a new business model called 'open access'. 

If one understands Mr. Beall is a librarian whose job is to catalog physical books and journals,  one might begin to understand his intense vitality at seeing the 'power' of his profession being lost to young information technology geeks hosting the world's academic and scientific research along with a new generation of digital entrepreneurs who don't comply with his version of the universe.

I would also like to note on this post that academic conferences are held by publishers and journals and I know too many Thai doctoral students today who are jetting off to places like Prague, Paris, Tokyo, Jakarta, etc. to present papers for a conference that they are unaware have been inserted onto the Beall List.  Many are finding out much later however that their papers don't count towards their program's requirement because the conference was being sponsored by a journal/publisher on Mr. Beall's list! 

Ooopppssss! Sorry!

There is much more to write about and it will come with time. 

The Asian Editor 

Mr. Jeffrey Beall’s (the librarian) List of Predatory Publishers in  2016
by Jeffrey Beall, January 5, 2016. Each year at this time I formally release my updated list of predatory publishers. Because the list is now very large, and because I now publish four, continuously-updated lists, this year’s release does not include the actual lists but instead includes statistical and explanatory data about the lists and links to them.
Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers: This year, 2016, marks the sixth annual release of this list, which is also continuously updated. The list this year includes 923 publishers, an increase of 230 over 2015.
Number of predatory publishers, 2011-2016.
Number of predatory publishers, 2011-2016.
Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access journals: This year, 2016, marks the fourth annual release of this list, which is also continuously updated. The list this year includes 882 journals, an increase of 375 over 2015.
Number of predatory, standalone journals, 2013-2016.
Number of predatory, standalone journals, 2013-2016.
Two New Lists: Misleading metrics and Hijacked journals  This year, I started two new lists that track two new areas of questionable practices related to open-access journals. The Misleading metrics list includes companies that “calculate” and publish counterfeit impact factors (or some similar measure) to publishers, metrics the publishers then use in their websites and spam email to trick scholars into thinking their journals have legitimate impact factors. The Hijacked journals list includes journals for which someone has created a counterfeit website, stealing the journal’s identity and soliciting articles submissions using the author-pays model (gold open-access).
Misleading metrics: 38. Last year’s list had 26. (The list debuted in March, 2014.)
Hijacked journals: 101 (The list started in May, 2014.)
Hijacked journals, 2015-2016.
Hijacked journals, 2015-2016.
Here are links to current edition of each list:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.