• Charlesworth Author Services
  • Open Access

What has happened to Beall’s List?

In recent weeks, Beall’s List of so-called predatory Open Access publishers has been taken down, leading to much discussion online as to why this has happened.

“Jeffrey Beall, the University of Colorado Denver librarian who has since 2008 chronicled “potential, possible, or probable” predatory publishers, has — at least for now — pulled the plug on his influential, and at times controversial, site.”


 A popular blog that lists “potential, possible, or probable predatory” publishers and journals has disappeared. The blog—started in 2010 by librarian Jeffrey Beall of the University of Colorado in Denver (CU Denver)—now states: “This service is no longer is available.” Mystery as controversial list of predatory publishers disappears”


Official reasons as to why the list has been removed, and comment from Beall himself, are yet to be forthcoming. However, the take-down of the list itself has only served to continue the debate around the importance of giving scrutiny to the industry and helping to identify potential predatory operators.


Advice for authors on determining appropriate journals to submit to

Advice for authors seeking help to determine the validity of the journal or publisher they are wishing to submit their paper to is to use resources such as Think.Check.Submit.  You should work through a checklist of considerations to help guide successful submission to reputable journals. Read an article we published for more information http://cwauthors.com/article/ThinkCheckSubmit


What is (or was) Beall’s List?

American librarian Jeffrey Beall has kept a list of “potential, possible, or probable” untrustworthy open access (OA) publishers since 2008: [1] Beall’s List of Predatory Open-Access Publishers.

The website, scholarlyoa.com, contained a list of some 1,000 supposedly “predatory” publishers, and another list of over 1,000 “predatory” journals. It caused some controversy, but was nevertheless influential in the academic community; according to Emil Karlsson, “The list has received both praise for highlighting these problems and criticism for being unfair.”[2]

Beall’s criteria for listing a “predatory” journal or publisher has included:

1. Failure to identify editor or provide academic information about editor and editorial staff     

2. Lack of independent and creditable editorial board (duplicate board for more than one journal, concocted board, few board members, lack of diversity for       so-called “international” journals, etc.

3. Lack of transparency in publishing practices (including with regard to publishing fees and plagiarism checks)

4. Lack of integrity (sending spam emails, failing to vet board members and potential peer reviewers for academic qualifications, false claims about metrics, etc.)

For a full list of Beall’s criteria, please visit: https://web.archive.org/web/20170105195017/https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/criteria-2015.pdf (Please note that this is now an archive list, and not updated.)


 Here is some additional reading about Retraction Watch and retracted papers:








Share with your colleagues

Related articles

How to identify and use open access databases in your research

What is the future for the Open Access movement and how does it impact you?

Learn more

Bitesize Webinar: Understanding Open Access- Module 5 - Recent Developments and Future Directions

What to consider when choosing an open access outlet for your article