Scholarly Open Access
Critical Analysis of Jeffrey Beall's Blog - Open Access Publishing

Home 

  About Jeffrey Breall

 About Us

Beall's Criteria

Beall's List 

Support 

Contact 


Support Friends of Open Access


Jeffrey Beall
Predatory Blogger


Beall is not a recognized authority in evaluating scholarly Journals. 

Jeffrey Bealls blog has no affiliation to any governing body or organization accredited to scholarly publishing. This is an important key element that needs to be considered when analyzing his blog. He is just a single individual writing a blog (full of nonsense) same as many others do over the internet. His blog is his personal opinion and has not been tested for its validity and as such has no authority whatsoever. Even so, Beall attempted to create a problem that does not exist. When we compare the number of open access journals around the world, Beall’s list is not significant at all. Despite that, Beall has maliciously discredited many Open access journals and demanded ransom in exchange for the removal of them from his hit list. This academic crime must end. We continually expose Beall conspiracy against Open Access Journals. Please support Friends of open access.

 

Support Friends of Open Access

Your support help us to expose self proclaimed journal critic; Jeffrey Beall's  predatory and corrupt practices against Open Access Journals and Publishers. Please forward all information to us. email:  openaccess@scholarlyoa.net

What people say about Potential, Possible or Probable Predatory Blogger Jeffrey Beall
Posted on February 27, 2016

Exposed: "Randykitty" is a Jeffrey Beal 

I came by Jeffrey Beall's blog while searching for journals. Jeffrey Beall himself is not qualified as a judge on open access journals.
Most importantly, I have noticed that Jeffrey also uses Wikipedia to promote his 'agenda.' He goes by the username "Randykitty".(I have many reasons to believe why Randykitty is Jeffrey Beall. The user mainly edits open access journals, monitors his own entry, and cites Beall's blog,).  It gives false impression to many that he is the 'holy' judge of open access journals.
 I think many should know about this. Beall is getting attention much more than he should have.

Wikipedia is being manipulated to promote Beall and his bogus blog. People need to know

 

Posted on February 25, 2016

Beall An Extortionist

Many publishers have written that Beall contacted them demanding money.  Our experience is somewhat different in that Beall offered to provide his professional services and advice, which presumably would lead to our removal from his list.  A specific dollar amount was not indicated other than a statement that his time was “very valuable” to him.  I don’t know if this constitutes extortion or not, but at a minimum it is certainly a conflict of interest and unprofessional. 

Josephine Oaakay
USA.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted on February 12, 2016

Beall is a fake Ph.D.

Mr. Jeffrey Beall is a fake professor who is frequently referred to as Dr. Beall yet he does not correct people when he is addressed as Dr. Beall.  Beall does not have a Ph.D.  He is a masters student only who has no more credibility than a disgruntled student writing on "Rate My Professor".  He is a dishonest person.  If he posted on his blog that he was only a student no one would believe him. He needs the Ph.D. to be believable.

Josephine Oaakay
USA  

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted on July 15, 2015

Beall has no credibility

Walt Crawford has done excellent work on OA-journals, DOAJ and especially on Bealls list. He has published his works in his Cites and Insights – http://citesandinsights.info/.
As to the question regarding “how many OA articles have been published with no fee”, Walts data based on an analysis of articles published in 7.301 of the journals listed in DOAJ (journals without an English language interface excluded (approx.. 2.800 journals) suggested that from 2012-2014 some 670.000 articles have been published in journals charging APCs (the numbers do not tell anything about the volume of waivers)! Some 470.000 have been published in OA-journals charging no APCs. That is 60% with APCs and 40% without APCs. Of the remaining 2.800 OA- journals from DOAJ not included in Walts study approx.. 80% do not charge APCs.

Please note that we are talking articles published in genuine OA-journals. Articles published as Hybrid OA articles in subscription journals are out of scope here.

Walts works on Bealls list – Ethics and Access 1: The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall (http://citesandinsights.info/civ14i4.pdf) and Journals, “Journals” and Wannabes: Investigating The List (http://citesandinsights.info/civ14i7.pdf) – are really worth reading if you would like a more detailed look at the list.

Initially posted on https://blogs.lt.vt.edu/openvt/2015/05/19/a-response-to-jeffrey-bealls-critique-of-open-access/

------------------------------------------

Posted on June 25, 2015

What are your thoughts about Jeff Beall's List? Should it be the only criterion for rejecting a journal a predatory journal?

Jeff Beall's List of predatory journals is coming under a lot of criticism, as he is more and more found as being biased primarily towards open-access (online) journals. After reading much about him, I am moving to the camp of those who believe that it should not be the primary source to decide on the quality of a scholarly journal. I would like to find out what is happening in your different institutions of higher education on this list.

Safary Wa-Mbaleka
Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies

Initially posted on https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_your_thoughts_about_Jeff_Bealls_List_Should_it_be_the_only_criterion_for_rejecting_a_journal_a_predatory_journal

-------------------------------------------

Posted on May 10, 2015

Pay and remove your name from Beall's list. Unethical bribery business model

Beall will tell you. He already asked money from IARIA, SCIRP, HINDAWI, TAYLOR and FRANICS, AIP and several others. There are several places (blogs) and several voices on the web. Pay and remove your name from Jeffrey Beall's list. Commercial Companies pay Jeffrey Beall. They are their gold sponsors and transfer the money to Caribbean Accounts (St.Vicent and Belize).

Beall never addressed any one of these allegations. Beall is an impostor and predatory blogger. Shame to University of Colorado.

Article initially appeared on http://iaria-highsci.blogspot.ca/2014/01/jeffrey-beall-black-listed-hindawi-and.html

--------------------------------------------------------------

Posted on May 05, 2015

The only thing I can say here is that Jeff is not a honest man at all

As a bystander, I found Beall's website a few days ago and paid close attention to what he wrote about MDPI. I also checked up some facts on my own, and posted a few comments. My comments went through initially. When I checked again today, I noticed that all my comments are gone. I can only assume that Beall deleted them. Beall is a predatory blogger.

Joel Kinnamann

Original quote initially published on https://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2014/02/18/bealls-criticism-of-mdpi-lacks-evidence-and-is-irresponsible/

--------------------------

Posted on April 30, 2015

Beall's criticism that these are "one-word" titles is ridiculous and incompetent

Now that your own credibility is being increasingly challenged, your ability to create controversy is going to be diminished. Eventually nobody is going to care about your list anymore.

Jinhai Gao

Original quote initially published on https://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2014/02/18/bealls-criticism-of-mdpi-lacks-evidence-and-is-irresponsible/

-----------------------------------------------

Posted on April 25, 2015

Predatory Beall's  so called review board, appeal board has No names, no school affiliations, no job titles, not even initials.

Predatory Beall’s blog meet his own standard for transparency? Not even close. predatory Beall’s “review board” and “appeals board” are filled with people only described as “friends.” No names, no school affiliations, no job titles, not even initials. Apparently, none of predatory blogger's friends have a name. This is strange, if not completely suspicious. However Beall’s unnamed “friends” help decide which journals are credible and which are not.

Marty Ludlum
Owner, Mustang Journals, Inc

Original quote initially published on http://mustangjournals.com/The_Mustang_Story.pdf

-----------------------------------------

Posted on April 20, 2015

The best way to judge any academic paper is to read it. Not to refer predatory blogger Beall's List

I could write for days about the double standards and vague criteria used by Bogus Beall, but why? He’s just not worth it. My happiness in life does not depend on the approval of some Denver librarian. Yours should not either. For those who are adamant at supporting his non-transparent blog as though it was biblical prophecy, I can only remind you, at one time Bernie Madoff was worshiped on Wall Street. His fifteen minutes has also long since expired. The best way to judge any academic paper is to read it.

Marty Ludlum
Owner, Mustang Journals, Inc.
MustangJournals@aol.com

Original quote initially published on http://mustangjournals.com/The_Mustang_Story.pdf

-------------------------------------------------

Posted on April 15, 2015

Beall's criteria almost laughable

I did look at Beall criteria as a whole. Some like the one I pointed out above just seem like ranting or in some cases almost laughable, “Have a contact address that turns out to be somebody’s apartment”. That may be a good example but not a published criteria for determining whether a journal/publisher is predatory. Try something along the lines of having a verifiable business address and phone number.

That’s what I mean by nonsense. Maybe not the best term, and if so, I apologize but hopefully Beall get my point.

In my view a list of poor quality publishers isn’t very helpful beyond publicizing the problem. Certifying legitimate publishers based on a clear, objective, and verifiable set of standards developed by a broad range of stakeholders is far more effective particularly if funding agencies start requiring publishers to be certified before they will pay APCs to the publisher. That is what we should be working to address this problem.

 David Solomon, a professor in the department of medicine at Michigan State University and a founding member of OASPA 

Original article published on http://blog.scirp.org/scirp-2/jeffrey-beall-i-am-an-academic-crime-fighter/

-------------------------------------------------------

Posted on April 10, 2015

Beall should quit this nonsense

David Solomon, a professor in the department of medicine at Michigan State University and a founding member of OASPA concludes his comment with respect to Beall’s criteria: “I think you [Beall] have made your point but it is either time to do something constructive or quit this nonsense.”

Original article published on http://blog.scirp.org/scirp-2/jeffrey-beall-i-am-an-academic-crime-fighter/
--------------------------------------------

Posted on April 05, 2015

Beall lists should be ignored

Beall [is] acting as prosecutor, judge and jury on who’s predatory and who’s not. Remarkably, hundreds if not thousands of librarians and others seem to take Beall’s word as gospel.” (Crawford 2014a) But it seems he has been going too far and people have started to turn away from him. “… the lists should be ignored.” (Crawford 2014b)

Original article published on http://blog.scirp.org/scirp-2/jeffrey-beall-i-am-an-academic-crime-fighter/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted on March 30, 2015 by Friends of Open Access

Jeffrey Beall is not an academic of any standing nor a scholar

Jeffrey Beall is not an academic of any standing nor a scholar. Doesn’t have a PhD. See below an article by Beall which is absolute rubbish and doesn’t have any academic content and rigour. Pretty pathetic and a desperate attempt to list it as a publication in his profile/CV. We wonder who reviewed this article and accepted to be published.

http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514

Original article published on https://jeffreybeallbogus.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/jeffreybeallbogus/

-----------------------------------------------------------

Posted on March 25, 2015 by Friends of Open Access

Beall does not want that the whole world know about his crime

Mr Beall disseminated his list via website, so, publishers that feel inappropriately judged by Mr beall should counter-attack via web site. Good luck. This website is a beginning. I tried to paste websites like this into Mr beall’s website, but unfortunately they are removed, instead of defending himself. This make me think that all this counter-webs contain true information, and Mr Beall does not want that the whole world know about his crime.

Jeanne A. Pawitan

Original article published on https://jeffreybeallbogus.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/jeffreybeallbogus/

----------------------------------------------------------------

Posted on March 22, 2015 by Friends of Open Access

Beall is not a scholar promote his (unqualified) services

Complete agreement that Jeffrey Beall is neither a scholar nor has any relevant academic credentials to make any credible statement of fact/opinion. Merely trying to leverage from free Internet as a means to promote his (unqualified) services. This is the ugly downside of unregulated Internet commentaries.

Prof Newman

Original article published on https://jeffreybeallbogus.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/jeffreybeallbogus/

---------------------------------------------------

Posted on March 20, 2015 Friend of Open Access


Bogus Jeffrey Beall 

 

Jeffrey Beall is on a crusade of his own. It is baffling that someone w/o any substantive track record in research can make sweeping comments about other scholars, scientists, renowned academics and organizations of standing and reputation. His commentaries are without basis and frivolous. His claims are bogus. This blog invites scholars, academics and researchers to comment about this individual who under the pretext of serving the academic community is merely distorting facts with baseless commentaries and without any scientific or scholarly expertise. Jeffrey Beall has no prior track record in research, research publications and / or has not severed as an editor in any reputable journal of standing. He is merely an assistant librarian. We are equally surprised/disappointed that his university permits such unprofessional conduct by a ‘quasi’ academic (at best).

Original article published on https://jeffreybeallbogus.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/jeffreybeallbogus/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted on March 18, 2015 by Friends of Open Access

Not provide sufficient evince for his claims - Unreliable, unmethodical and personal opinions

We wish to conclude by expressing that Beall’s blacklist in its current form is unnecessary and unreliable. On the one hand, there are professional indexing databases operating as watchdogs of journal quality. Professional databases such as the Web of Science, Scopus or PubMed can be used as whitelists of good journals. Also, professional services and societies, such as the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), are putting in a great deal of effort to distinguish reputable open access journals and their publishers from scamming activities. On the other hand, Mr. Beall operates as an individual person and does not provide sufficient evidence for his claims, does not attempt to verify his statements for accuracy, nor operate a methodological approach to his appraisals. Beall also denies the right to defense to those that he attacks. Beall’s judgments are therefore to be considered as unreliable, unmethodical and his personal opinions.

Original article published on http://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/534

----------------------------------------------------

Posted on March 01, 2015 by Friends of Open Access

Beall has no PhD but in his blog refer him as Dr. 

Beall  is not a doctor, does not hold a PhD, and should thus never be referred to as Dr. Unfortunately, Mr. Beall fails to correct the comments posted to his blog that refer to him as Dr. Beall. He should add a small note, each time, that that information is factually incorrect, and should correct it. In the same way that Ivan and Adam correct errors in their comments and in comments made by bloggers at RW.
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

Originally published on http://retractionwatch.com/2014/01/20/jeffrey-beall-scores-a-retraction/

----------------------------------------------------

Posted on February 25, 2015 by Friends of Open Access

Beall's stories are not substantiated by sufficient evidence

As you can see, my comments have been wiped off that blog, within 30 minutes of posting them. This indicates that Mr. Beall is biased, unfair and does not moderate based on valid criticisms. He is unable to face fair criticism either. Mamun’s query (and concern) is valid. Beall’s response is not and the message he has sent that scientist is not factually correct.

c) I am of the opinion that several of the stories on the Beall blog should be retracted, because they are not substantiated by sufficient evidence to make the claims he makes. I can provide a substantial assessment if required, but that in itself would take an entire book volume to compile.
-Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

Originally published on http://retractionwatch.com/2014/01/20/jeffrey-beall-scores-a-retraction/

-----------------------------------------

Posted on February 20, 2015 by Friends of Open Access

Jeffrey Beall is an impostor and academic criminal - Dr. Clement
 
I recently forwarded an email to him from this Publisher:  xyz

Actually this publisher is spamming me everyday and promise rapid publication of my papers to its conferences and journals. Also, instead of conference proceedings, they push all the papers from the conferences to their journals which is unacceptable.

I explained to Jeffrey Beall that according his own criteria, a journal that can publish everything from every science and every scientific field, with a publication fee 500 - 1000 USD must be predatory, because for the same reason, Jeffrey Beall classified as predatory publishers many other honest and legitimate publishers.

Originally published on http://impostorbeall.blogspot.ca/2014/01/i-also-thing-that-jeffrey-beall-is.html

-------------------------------------------------

Posted on February 15, 2015 by Friends of Open Access

Beall is a academic terrorist 

It is a real shame that Jeffrey Beall using Nature.com's blog to promote his predatory work. Jeffrey Beall just simply confusing us to promote his academic terrorism. His list is fully questionable. His surveying method is not scientific. If he is a real scientist then he must do everything in standard way without any dispute. He wanted to be famous but he does not have the right to destroy any company name or brand without proper allegation. If we support Jeffrey Beall's work then we are also a part of his criminal activity. Please avoid Jeffrey Beall's fraudulent and criminal activity.

Now a days anyone can open a blog and start doing things like Jeffrey Beall which is harmful for science and open access journals. Nature should also be very alert from Jeffrey Beall who is now using Nature's reputation to broadcast his bribery and unethical business model.

Mark Robinson (Acting Editor, Stanford Magazine)

Originally published on http://publishopenaccess.blogspot.ca/2012/01/bealls-list-of-predatory-open-access.html


------------------------------------

Posted on February 12, 2015 by Friends of Open Access

J
effrey Beall's list is not accurate to believe

Jeffrey Beall's list is not accurate to believe. There are a lot of personal biases of Jeffrey Beall. Hindawi still uses heavy spam emailing. Versita Open still uses heavy spam emailing. But these two publishers have been removed in Jeffrey Beall's list recently. There is no reason given by Jeffrey Beall why they were removed. Jeffrey Beall is naive in his analysis. I think some other reliable blog should be created to discuss more fruitfully these issues. His blog has become useless.

Dr Gillian Dooley (Special Collections Librarian at Flinders University)

Originally published on http://publishopenaccess.blogspot.ca/2012/01/bealls-list-of-predatory-open-access.html

----------------------------------

Posted on February 10, 2015 by Friends of Open Access

Beall's another predatory and scamming activity

My name is Petre Dini and I am the President of IARIA, www.iaria.org 
I am also victim of Jeffrey Beall 
Actually, this pseudo-scholar Jeffrey Beall is a thug. He uses black lists to create profit. Also he is involved in tax evation and money laundry. 
I asked him several times to remove IARIA from his black list and he promised me to re-analyze the site www.iaria.org 
There is not any real reason to have our institute IARIA in his pseudo-list. 
The cost to re-analyze the portal of my organization www.iaria.org was 100,000 USD, 
Exactly "re-analyze" was the verb that he used in our phone conversation. Why re-analyze? Who is he that analyzes or re-analyzes Academic organizations? 
What are his qualifications. I am professor in Electrical Engineering with many publications (in IARIA and outside IARIA). Who is this pseudo-professor - money hungry thug? 

Anyway, Jeffrey Beall gave us two accounts in Tax Heaven Countries: One account in a Bank of St. Vincent and another account in Belize. 
We do not pay 100,000 USD for IARIA and so IARIA is still now in his list.

I estimate that Hindawi has paid to pseudo-professor Jeffrey Beall something like 1500000 (1 million and half) $ 
Somebody must report Jeffrey Beall' activities in American Authorities. 

Thanks 
Petre Dini

Originally published on http://publishopenaccess.blogspot.ca/2012/01/bealls-list-of-predatory-open-access.html

--------------------------------------------------

Posted on January 17, 2015 by Friends of Open Access

 

Thanks for the thorough work. I did not realise how lunatic Beal was. With friends like him, non-open access publishers do not need many enemies.

 

The rant against semantic web was uncalled for though. Semantic Web is working very well. The technologies are not always the ones envisioned initially. For instance, in business RDFa – that is RDF in HTML- took over RDF/XML for the moment. Also technology evolves slowly. Triple stores were very slow initially, hence probably the problem with Mulgara and the semantic web platform of PLoS. But the situation is getting steadily better (exponentially better), as with every technologies (I still remember my post-doc, where colleagues told me never to use Java for any serious programming because it was so slow). EMBL-EBI launched its RDF stores this year, and the potential for data integration there, where all the databases have different formats, is clear.
Nicolas Le Novere
See more at: http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1500#sthash.mvVhklPX.dpuf

-----------------------------------------------------

Posted on January 16, 2015 by Friends of Open Access

Wow, Beall’s article is bad. Unbelievably bad, and that leaves me wondering how he managed to get a name in the field in the first place? I’m guessing this must be the first time he’s published something like this? Because I can’t imagine any self-respecting scientist paying this guy any attention at all if he’s previously ranted like this.
Booker
See more at:
http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1500#sthash.mvVhklPX.dpuf

-------------------------------------------------------------

Posted on January, 15, 2015 by Friends of Open Access

Perhaps Beall needs to take a short course on Political Economy. I would recommend Adam Smith and in particular those sections where he takes apart monopolies to establish the conclusion that the only thing worse than a public sector monopoly is a private sector one. Oligopolies (or cartels) are not much different.
Dave Fernig
See more at: http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1500#sthash.Nr0H6Tmb.dpuf

------------------------------------------------------



Posted on January, 12, 2015 by Friends of Open Access

We seem to have reached the third stage of the process described by (a saying popularly attributed to) Gandhi:
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
 
Rhetoric as ridiculous as Beall’s will hasten our progress toward the fourth stage.
Ralph Haygood

See more at: http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1500#sthash.lrFh5m8G.dpuf