Abstract
Persistence and Indexing of Predatory Journals and Publishers: A Follow-Up Evaluation of Beall’s List
Pravin Bolshete,1 Madhulika Bolshete,1 Priyanka Mate1
Objective
To assess the current status of journals and publishers formerly listed in Beall’s List, including their operational status, recent publication activity, and indexing in recognized databases.
Design
A systematic evaluation of journals and publishers listed in Beall’s List was conducted. The list was accessed from https://beallslist.net/, considering Beall’s original list has been defunct since January 2017. The current version of the list is hosted anonymously and was used solely as a tool to access the archived entities listed by Beall, excluding updates made after 2017. Each website link was checked for functionality, and the operational status of the respective journal or publisher was recorded from November to December 2024. Among journals that remained active, we further assessed whether they had published articles in 2024 and their indexing status, listed on their website, in databases such as PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, Directory of Open Access Journals, and Web of Science.
Results
Of the total number of journals (N = 1310) and publishers (N = 1163) assessed, 617 (47.1%) and 624 (53.7%), respectively, were found to be defunct, with their websites no longer accessible. Among the journals that remained active (n = 693 [52.9%]), 461 (66.5%) had published articles in 2024. Indexing analysis revealed that 154 (22.2%) of these journals mentioned that they are listed in at least 1 recognized academic database.
Conclusions
A significant proportion of predatory journals and publishers listed in Beall’s List have ceased operations, yet a substantial number remain active and continue to publish research. Some of these journals have managed to be indexed in reputed databases, raising concerns about the persistence and evolving strategies of predatory publishing. The operational status of a journal and its indexing do not confirm or refute its current quality. Some journals may have reformed and implemented peer review and ethical publishing practices. However, we cannot confirm whether active journals have improved, remained predatory, or now operate under misleadingly enhanced credibility. Additionally, although the use of Beall’s archived list offers a consistent reference point, the anonymous nature of its current hosting presents limitations. Overall, these findings underscore the need for ongoing scrutiny and awareness required to safeguard academic integrity and prevent researchers from inadvertently submitting their work to predatory journals.
1Sqarona Medical Communications, Pune, India, pravinbolshete@gmail.com.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
All authors are affiliated with Sqarona Medical Communications, which provides medical writing services.