In January, a commonly referenced resource for combatting “predatory publishing”, Beall’s List, was removed by creator, Jeffrey Beall. Predatory publishing most often refers to ostensibly open access journals that charge scholars for article processing (APCs) without providing services that are associated with legitimate journals. Beall approached this issue by developing a “black list” containing journals that did not meet a set of criteria, including a robust peer review process and a transparent editorial board.
As widely referenced as the list has been since 2010, it has not been without debate and skepticism. Arguments over the criteria Beall employed, whether it unfairly harms startup and Global South publishers, and the usefulness of black lists versus “white lists” (where journals that meet the criteria are included, rather than the opposite) have been consistent, but the removal of the list has refocused and invigorated the conversation.
The primary question on the mind of scholars and scholarly communicators; where do we go from here? To get an idea of just how many answers there can be to that question, check out the thread on the topic on the public OSI Google Group: new workgroup for Beall’s List 2.0 / open resource development?
