Jeffrey Beall’s “predatory” lists must not be used: they are biased, flawed, opaque and inaccurate
A commentary published in «Nature» by Jeffrey Beall called for the ban of “predatory” journals from the scientific record. That call for a ban was deeply flawed since the lists on which the term “predatory” were based, were themselves flawed. Many papers published in such journals are valid, having...
Main Author: | Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
University of Bologna
2017-06-01
|
Series: | Bibliothecae.it |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://bibliothecae.unibo.it/article/view/7044 |
Similar Items
-
Predatory and fake scientific journals/publishers: A global outbreak with rising trend: A review
by: Lukić Tin, et al.
Published: (2014-01-01) -
Predatory Journals, Piracy and New Models of Publishing Scientific Articles
by: Zdeněk Smutný
Published: (2016-06-01) -
Setting New Publishing Standards after the Beall's List
by: Wadim Strielkowski
Published: (2018-04-01) -
Predatory Open Access Publishers and other Dangers to Today’s Scientific Community
by: Zdeněk Smutný, et al.
Published: (2015-12-01) -
Why does Retraction Watch continue to offer support to Jeffrey Beall, and legitimize his post-mortem “predatory” lists?
by: Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Published: (2017-07-01)