RESOURCE: Format Aside: Applying Beall’s Criteria to Assess the Predatory Nature of both OA and Non-OA Library and Information Science Journals

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.

Author: Sarah Melton

Sarah Melton is Head of Digital Scholarship at Boston College. Her group explores and documents new tools and supports teaching and research in a variety of areas that utilize broad methodologies in the digital humanities. She is interested in questions of digital infrastructure, the philosophical underpinnings of ”openness,” and the intersection of public history and digital humanities. She has worked with Open Access Button for the past several years. Sarah holds a PhD from Emory University’s Graduate Institute of the Liberal Arts.