We’ve reported on (well, linked to) Beale‘s work here for a few years now (since Feb. 2013). This important resource for scholars seeking reliable Open Access journals (and working to avoid potential pitfalls) continues to attract much attention according to our site statistics, so it’s a great pleasure to provide this year’s update today.
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.
There are two new features this year:
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).
See more at: Beall’s List of Predatory Publisheres 2016.
Be well, stay safe online & off, and have a great year in 2016!