Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers, journals, conferences … and misleading metrics

Beall’s List

This is a list of questionable, scholarly open-access publishers. It is recommended that authors read the available reviews, assessments and descriptions provided here, and then decide for themselves whether they want to submit articles, serve as editors or on editorial boards.  In a few cases, non-open access publishers whose practices match those of predatory publishers have been added to the list as well. The criteria laid down by the author for determining predatory publishers are here.

It is recommended that scholars read the available reviews, assessments and descriptions provided here, and then decide for themselves whether they want to submit articles, serve as editors or on editorial boards.  In a few cases, non-open access journals whose practices match those of predatory journals have been added to the list. The criteria for determining predatory journals are here.

https://scholarlyoa.com/2017/01/03/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2017/

Given below are tables showing the statistics of the data on predatory publishers and journals

Number of predatory publishers, 2011-2017. Number of predatory, standalone journals, 2013-2017.

Misleading metrics : 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 authors into thinking their journals have legitimate impact factors. This is a list of questionable companies that purport to provide valid scholarly metrics at the researcher, article, or journal level.

Criteria for Determining Misleading Metrics

  1. The website for the metric is nontransparent and provides little information about itself such as location, management team and its experience, other company information, and the like
  2. The company charges journals for inclusion in the list.
  3. The values (scores) for most or all of the journals on the list increase each year.
  4. The company uses Google Scholar as its database for calculating metrics (Google Scholar does not screen for quality and indexes predatory journals)
  5. The metric uses the term “impact factor” in its name.
  6. The methodology for calculating the value is contrived, unscientific, or unoriginal.
  7. The company exists solely for the purpose of earning money from questionable journals that use the gold open-access model. The company charges the journals and assigns them a value, and then the journals use the number to help increase article submissions and therefore revenue. Alternatively, the company exists as a front for an existing publisher and assigns values to that publisher’s journals.

Fake impact factor companies, 2015-2017.

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).  In some cases the legitimate versions of the journals are only published in print form and they may not have websites.

Number of known hijacked journals, 2015-2017.

Here are links to current edition of each list:

Link explaining predatory journals, etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He9GJybTtUw&index=33&list=PLG24w6ETyHS3fYbDnB6LOOzOfATVhP3zp

Questionable conferences

Jeffrey Beall, the librarian who maintains a black list of predatory publishers, also highlights predatory conferences on his helpful website. According to him, “there’s a lot of money to be made in the scholarly-conference organizing business in Asia these days. These are not conferences organized by scholarly societies. Instead, they are conferences organized by revenue-seeking companies that want to exploit researchers’ need to build their vitas with conference presentations and papers in the published proceedings or affiliated journals.”

An example for predatory conference can be viewed in this link https://web.archive.org/web/20161228135310/https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/12/27/conference-organizer-waset-continues-copying-names-of-legitimate-conferences/

and … here is a checklist for identifying predatory conferences.

https://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-identify-predatory-conferences-the-thinkcheckattend-checklist

Knowledge Resource Divsion