Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

3
  • 5
    A very good and useful link!
    – JRN
    Commented Feb 15, 2012 at 23:19
  • 4
    Beall's list does more good than bad, but it is based on subjective intuition, not data or transparent criteria. It lists Frontiers, and I know of many reputable academic editors and reviewers who provide high-quality reviews for their journals. The controversy [nature.com/news/…. A better procedure: check if it's on Beal's list, if listed, check if it is on the open access whitelist [nature.com/news/open-access-website-gets-tough-1.15674]. If on both further investigation may be needed. Commented Nov 1, 2016 at 16:40
  • 1
    "As of late January 2017, Beall's list has been taken down." If it's not yet available again, over a year later, you should delete this answer. And if it is back, let's suppose Beall answers this question; what do they do?
    – user23776
    Commented Apr 10, 2018 at 16:15