The Idealis recently featured a College and Research Libraries article by Texas A&M librarians Joseph D. Olivarez, Stephen Bales, Laura Sare, Wyoma vanDuinkerken, that examines Jeffrey Beall’s criteria in determining if a publication is predatory. From the abstract:
Jeffrey Beall’s blog listing of potential predatory journals and publishers, as well as his Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access (OA) Publishers are often looked at as tools to help researchers avoid publishing in predatory journals. While these Criteria has brought a greater awareness of OA predatory journals, these tools alone should not be used as the only source in determining the quality of a scholarly journal. Employing a three-person independent judgment making panel, this study demonstrates the subjective nature of Beall’s Criteria by applying his Criteria to both OA and non-OA Library and Information Science journals (LIS), to demonstrate that traditional peer-reviewed journals could be considered predatory.
Olivarez, Bales, Sare, and vanDuinkerken conclude that many of the journals that could be identified as predatory are considered top-tier publications.
This post was produced through a cooperation between Erica Hayes, Elise Daniel, Sarah Ames, Courtenay McLeland, Emily Esten, Kristen Mapes, Amber D'Ambrosio, and Heidi Winkler (Editors-at-large for the week), Sarah Melton (Editor for the week), and Nickoal Eichmann-Kalwara, Caitlin Christian-Lamb, Roxanne Shirazi, and Patrick Williams (dh+lib Review Editors).