Signs of divisiveness, discrimination and stigmatization caused by Jeffrey Beall's “predatory” open access publishing blacklists and philosophy

Predatory journals and their practices present a conundrum for systematic reviewers and evidence synthesisers of health research: A qualitative descriptive study

Predatory journals are a blemish on scholarly publishing and academia and the studies published within them are more likely to contain data that is false. The inclusion of studies from predatory journals in evidence syntheses is potentially problematic due to this propensity for false data to be included. To date, there has been little exploration of the opinions and experiences of evidence synthesisers when dealing with predatory journals in the conduct of their evidence synthesis. In this paper, the thoughts, opinions, and attitudes of evidence synthesisers towards predatory journals and the inclusion of studies published within these journals in evidence syntheses were sought. Focus groups were held with participants who were experienced evidence synthesisers from JBI (previously the Joanna Briggs Institute) collaboration. Utilising qualitative content analysis, two generic categories were identified: predatory journals within evidence synthesis, and predatory journals within academia. Our findings suggest that evidence synthesisers believe predatory journals are hard to identify and that there is no current consensus on the management of these studies if they have been included in an evidence synthesis. There is a critical need for further research, education, guidance, and development of clear processes to assist evidence synthesisers in the management of studies from predatory journals.

Are the lists of questionable journals reasonable: A case study of early warning journal lists

The use of lists of questionable journals as a means to ensure research quality and integrity is the subject of an ongoing debate due to their ambiguous criteria. To assess the reasonableness of these lists from a typological perspective, we examined how effectively they reflect differences in bibliometric attributes among distinct groups and whether these differences are consistent. Using the Early Warning Journal Lists from the National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences as a case study, we categorized listed journals by warning levels and publication years. Our findings indicate potential inconsistencies in the criteria used for assigning warning levels, as we observed varying degrees of differences (or their absence) among groups across different key academic indicators. Notably, when it comes to citation metrics like journal impact factor and journal citation indicator, it appears that these criteria may not have been considered for grouping, although this lack of clarity from the creators is apparent. This underscores the importance of conducting more scientific and thorough evaluations of lists of questionable journals, along with a greater emphasis on sharing precise standards and data. Our study also provides recommendations for future iterations of such lists by different institutions.

Reducing Health Misinformation in Science: A Call to Arms

The public often turns to science for accurate health information, which, in an ideal world, would be error free. However, limitations of scientific institutions and scientific processes can sometimes amplify misinformation and disinformation. The current review examines four mechanisms through which this occurs: (1) predatory journals that accept publications for monetary gain but do not engage in rigorous peer review; (2) pseudoscientists who provide scientific-sounding information but whose advice is inaccurate, unfalsifiable, or inconsistent with the scientific method; (3) occasions when legitimate scientists spread misinformation or disinformation; and (4) miscommunication of science by the media and other communicators. We characterize this article as a "call to arms," given the urgent need for the scientific information ecosystem to improve. Improvements are necessary to maintain the public's trust in science, foster robust discourse, and encourage a well-educated citizenry.

Reflections on the disappearance of Dolos list, a now-defunct “predatory” publishing blacklist

After the closure of Jeffrey Beall’s open access “predatory” publishing blacklists in mid-January of 2017, a new “predatory publishing” blacklist emerged in 2018, Dolos list. This blacklist, curated by “Professor Alexandre Georges”, became defunct sometime in late 2020 or early 2021 based on publicly available clues. In this paper, several aspects of this blacklist, as retrieved from the Internet Archive and ResearchGate, were examined, including the profile of “Alexandre Georges”. The veracity of this individual’s identity is questioned. Discussion is provided about the citation, use and promotion of Dolos list in the literature and on websites as a solution and/or resource pertaining to “predatory” publishing. Given the questionable nature of the now-defunct Dolos blacklist website, and the uncertainty regarding the veracity of its curator’s identity, the author holds the opinion that sites that continue to promote the Dolos list may also be spreading inaccurate information (i.e., misinformation) to academics.