Signs of divisiveness, discrimination and stigmatization caused by Jeffrey Beall's “predatory” open access publishing blacklists and philosophy

TL;DR: In this paper , the authors argue that journals should be evaluated on a continuum, and not just in two shades, black and white, and argue that currently available qualitative and quantitative systems should be fused to deterministically appreciate the zonation of white, gray and black journals, so as to possibly reduce or eliminate the influence of cognitive or perception bias from the "predatory" publishing debate.

TL;DR: A recent review examines four mechanisms through which this occurs: (1) predatory journals that accept publications for monetary gain but do not engage in rigorous peer review; (2) pseudoscientists who provide scientific-sounding information but whose advice is inaccurate, unfalsifiable, or inconsistent with the scientific method; (3) occasions when legitimate scientists spread misinformation or disinformation; and (4) miscommunication of science by the media and other communicators as mentioned in this paper .

TL;DR: The use of Beall's Lists, pre- and post-2017, may constitute a methodological error and, even if papers carry a disclaimer or limitations section noting this weakness, their conclusions cannot always be relied upon as discussed by the authors .

TL;DR: In this article , the authors examined the profile of Alexandre Georges, the curator of the now-defunct Dolos list, and the uncertainty regarding the veracity of its curator's identity.

TL;DR: Leading scholars and publishers from ten countries have agreed a definition of predatory publishing that can protect scholarship that took 12 hours of discussion, 18 questions and 3 rounds to reach.

TL;DR: The paper details how predatory publishers came to exist and shows how they were largely enabled and condoned by the open-access social movement, the scholarly publishing industry, and academic librarians.

TL;DR: Common wisdom assumes that the hazard of predatory publishing is restricted mainly to the developing world, and frequent, aggressive solicitations from predatory publishers are generally considered merely a nuisance for scientists from rich countries, not a threat to scholarly integrity.