As of early this year the influential and often controversial index of so-called ‘predatory publishers,’ Beall’s list, went dark. We’ve mentioned this resource regularly here, so an update is in order. The credentials of possible publishing options will remain an ongoing concern for all players in the world of academia, so I’m sharing this very interesting, practical post from the good folk at The Research Whisperer (thank you!!), for your interest. Next time you’re solicited out of left-field from a title you have no working-relationship with, think about this.
Excerpt from academic spam I received on 2 Feb 2017.
It seemed like such a good idea at the time.
‘Let’s write something on predatory publishing!’ I said.
‘Let’s talk about all that academic spam we get!’ I said.
I even roped in my fab colleague from La Trobe’s Borchardt Library, Steven Chang (@stevenpchang), to write something, too. He was keen. We swapped links on email and Twitter.
For me, not having Beall’s List active is a big blow against the tracking of, and education about, predatory processes in contemporary scholarship. I used it all the time and, though Beall is not without his critics, I found it to be of strong value and an excellent way to build awareness…
View original post 873 more words