43-524: This is a category which contains journals published by Scientific & Academic Publishing (SAP). SAP was listed on Beall's list before the list was taken down in 2017 and is considered to engage in predatory publishing practices . No article currently exist on SAP, as it has not been shown to meet our notability guidelines , but this could change in the future. The following 129 pages are in this category, out of 129 total. This list may not reflect recent changes . Beall%27s list Beall's List
86-621: A black list and a white list for subscription on their website. Since 2021, the Norwegian Scientific Index includes the category "level X" that includes journals suspected of being predatory; its establishment was linked to expressions of concern regarding the publisher MDPI . A site entitled Beall's List of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers states that it includes the original list as at 15 January 2017, with updates listed separately, maintained by an anonymous European postdoctoral researcher; as of March 2024
129-713: A Delhi-based law student, Shreya Singhal , filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India . She argued that Section 66A was vaguely phrased, and as a result, it violated Article 14, 19 (1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution. The PIL was accepted on 29 November 2012. In August 2014, the Supreme Court asked the central government to respond to petitions filed by the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) which claimed that
172-453: A better solution than blacklisting." However, for researchers in developing countries, the list has also been described as having been particularly important, as a result of lower access to institutional support for guidance on predatory publishers. Rick Anderson, associate dean in the J. Willard Marriott Library , University of Utah , challenged the term "predatory open access publishing" itself: "what do we mean when we say 'predatory,' and
215-497: A controversy that is credited as a major reason for Beall eventually retracting his list. In 2015, four researchers created a fictitious sub-par scientist named Anna O. Szust ( oszust is Polish for "fraud"), and applied on her behalf for an editor position to 360 scholarly journals. Szust's qualifications were dismal for the role of an editor; she had never published a single article and had no editorial experience. The books and book chapters listed on her CV were made-up, as were
258-796: A plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites. Despite this, as per a research paper by Abhinav Sekhri and Apar Gupta, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000 continues to be used by police departments across India in prosecutions. The data privacy rules introduced in the Act in 2011 have been described as too strict by some Indian and US firms. The rules require firms to obtain written permission from customers before collecting and using their personal data. This has affected US firms which outsource to Indian companies. However, some companies have welcomed
301-447: A predominantly non-Western editorial board does not make a journal predatory". They stated that "the criteria he uses for his list are an excellent starting point for thinking about the hallmarks of predatory publishers and journals", and suggested that "given the fuzziness between low-quality and predatory publishers, whitelisting, or listing publishers and journals that have been vetted and verified as satisfying certain standards, may be
344-577: A resolution seeking to amend Section 66A. He was supported by D. Bandyopadhyay, Gyan Prakash Pilania , Basavaraj Patil Sedam , Narendra Kumar Kashyap, Rama Chandra Khuntia and Baishnab Charan Parida . P Rajeev pointed out that the cartoons and editorials allowed in the traditional media were being censored in the new media. He also said that the law was barely debated before being passed in December 2008. Rajeev Chandrasekhar suggested that 66A should only apply to person-to-person communication pointing to
387-614: A similar section under the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. Shantaram Naik opposed any changes, saying that the misuse of law was insufficient to warrant changes. The then Minister for Communications and Information Technology , Mr Kapil Sibal , defended the existing law, saying that similar laws existed in the US and the UK. He also said that a similar provision existed under the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. However, P Rajeev said that
430-416: A total of 1,328 separate journals. Beall originally classified all but one of the publishers he reviewed as being predatory. A decade later, two of the original 18 had been acquired by reputable publishers, and three appeared to have gone out of business. The remaining 13 publishers had significantly increased the number of journals they were publishing, to a total of 1,650 individual journals (about 10% of
473-526: A widely followed piece of work by the mid-2010s. The list was used by scientists to identify exploitative publishers and detect publisher spam. The influence of Beall's List led some publishers on the list to threaten defamation lawsuits against Beall, as well as to lodge official complaints against Beall's work to the University of Colorado. In January 2017, Beall removed the list from his blog, scholarlyoa.com. Six months later, he published an article in
SECTION 10
#1732786874330516-548: Is good at spotting publishers with poor quality control". Beall stated that the results support his claim to be identifying "predatory" publishers. However, the remaining 18% of publishers identified by Beall as predatory rejected the fake paper, leading science communicator Phil Davis to state "That means that Beall is falsely accusing nearly one in five". Notable publishing groups to pass this sting operation include PLoS One , Hindawi , and Frontiers Media . Frontiers Media would later be added to Beall's list in 2015, sparking
559-691: Is like the sheriff of a Wild West town throwing a cowboy into jail just 'cuz he's a little funny lookin.' Civility requires due process." Joseph Esposito wrote in The Scholarly Kitchen that he had been following some of Beall's work with "growing unease", and that Beall's "broader critique (really an assault) of Gold OA and those who advocate it" had "crossed the line". City University of New York librarians Monica Berger and Jill Cirasella wrote that his views were biased against open-access journals from less economically developed countries. Berger and Cirasella argued that "imperfect English or
602-486: Is that term even still useful?... This question has become relevant because of that common refrain heard among Beall's critics: that he only examines one kind of predation—the kind that naturally crops up in the context of author-pays OA." Anderson suggested that the term "predatory" be retired in the context of scholarly publishing: "It's a nice, attention-grabbing word, but I'm not sure it's helpfully descriptive... it generates more heat than light." In its place, he proposed
645-515: The Who's Afraid of Peer Review? sting operation led Phil Davis to state that "Beall is falsely accusing nearly one in five as being a 'potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open access publisher' on appearances alone." He wrote that Beall "should reconsider listing publishers on his 'predatory' list until he has evidence of wrongdoing. Being mislabeled as a 'potential, possible, or probable predatory publisher' by circumstantial evidence alone
688-466: The Constitution of India ensuring freedom of speech and expression to all, as well as possibly in conflict with WTO agreements. The Internet Freedom Foundation has criticized the ban for not following the required protocols and thus lacking transparency and disclosure. On 2 April 2015, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra , Devendra Fadnavis revealed to the state assembly that a new law
731-635: The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), 8 of 120 accepted Szust. The DOAJ has since removed some of the affected journals in a 2016 purge. None of the 120 sampled journals listed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) offered Szust the position. The results of the experiment were published in Nature in March 2017, and widely presented in the press. The list's 82% accuracy rate in
774-627: The Ministry of Home Affairs cited Section 69 in the issue of an order authorising ten central agencies to intercept, monitor, and decrypt “any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer.” While some claim this to be a violation of the fundamental right to privacy , the Ministry of Home Affairs has claimed its validity on the grounds of national security. The bans on Chinese apps based on Section 69A has been criticized for possibly being in conflict with Article 19(1)(a) of
817-522: The IT Act gave the government power to arbitrarily remove user-generated content. On 24 March 2015, the Supreme Court of India gave the verdict that Section 66A is unconstitutional in entirety. The court said that Section 66A of IT Act 2000 "arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech" provided under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India . But the Court turned down
860-650: The IT Act includes the Intermediary Guidelines Rules 2011 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 . The bill was passed in the budget session of 2000 and signed by President K. R. Narayanan on 9 May 2000. The bill was finalised by a group of officials headed by the then Minister of Information Technology , Pramod Mahajan . The original Act contained 94 sections, divided into 13 chapters and 4 schedules , out of which
903-663: The Ministry of Information Technology, Milind Deora has supported a new "unambiguous section to replace 66A". In 2022, it was reported that there has been a proposal to replace the Information Technology Act with a more comprehensive and updated Digital India Act, which would cover a wider range of information technology issues and concerns. This law could ostensibly have focal areas around privacy, social media regulation, regulation of over-the-top platforms, internet intermediaries, introducing additional contraventions or offences, and governance of new technologies. The Indian government closely connects data to citizens' privacy and this
SECTION 20
#1732786874330946-564: The UK law dealt only with communication from person to person. In November 2012, IPS officer Amitabh Thakur and his wife, social activist Nutan Thakur, filed a petition in the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court claiming that Section 66A violated the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India . They said that the section was vaguely worded and frequently misused. In November 2012,
989-563: The University of Colorado acquiesced, is reported as the immediate reason for Beall to take down the list. The university's investigation was closed with no findings. In an interview in 2018, Beall stated that "my university began to attack me in several ways. They launched a research misconduct investigation against me (after seven months, the result of the investigation was that no misconduct had occurred). They also put an unqualified, mendacious supervisor over me, and he constantly attacked and harassed me. I decided I could no longer safely publish
1032-696: The company from his list, it would subject him to "civil action". In 2013, the OMICS Publishing Group threatened to sue Beall for $ 1 billion for his "ridiculous, baseless, [and] impertinent" inclusion of it on his list, which "smacks of literal unprofessionalism and arrogance". An unedited sentence from the letter read: "Let us at the outset warn you that this is a very perilous journey for you and you will be completely exposing yourself to serious legal implications including criminal cases lunched against you in INDIA and USA." Beall responded that
1075-435: The decision to take down the list was a personal decision from Beall. Beall later wrote that he had taken down his blog because of pressure from the University of Colorado, which threatened his job security. Beall's supervisor, Shea Swauger, wrote that the university had supported Beall's work and had not threatened his academic freedom. A demand by Frontiers Media to open a research misconduct case against Beall, to which
1118-445: The e-mails contained numerous grammatical errors." Starting in 2008, he maintained a list of what he stated were "potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers". In 2011, Beall's list had 18 publishers on it; by December 29, 2016, this number had grown to 923. Many of the journals listed were not actively publishing or published very few papers each year. The original list of 18 publishers published
1161-527: The entire content of Beall's Scholarly Open Access website was removed, along with Beall's faculty page on the University of Colorado's website. The removal was first noticed on social media, with speculation on whether the removal was due to migration of the list to the stewardship of Cabell's International. The company later denied any relationship, and its vice president of business development declared that Beall "was forced to shut down blog due to threats and politics". The University of Colorado declared that
1204-700: The formation of a Controller of Certifying Authorities to regulate the issuance of digital signatures. It also established a Cyber Appellate Tribunal to resolve disputes rising from this new law. The Act also amended various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , the Banker's Books Evidence Act, 1891, and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 to make them compliant with new technologies. A major amendment
1247-615: The journal Biochemia Medica claiming that pressure from his employer led to the blog shutdown, although the university's official statement and a response by Beall's direct supervisor both disputed this account. The closure of Beall's List was cited by some as a loss of an important resource, and successors have set out to continue Beall's work. Beall first became interested in predatory open-access journals (a term he coined) in 2008, when he started to receive numerous requests from dubious journals to serve on their editorial boards . He said that he "immediately became fascinated because most of
1290-498: The letter was "poorly written and personally threatening" and expressed his opinion that the letter "is an attempt to detract from the enormity of OMICS's editorial practices". OMICS' lawyers stated that damages were being pursued under section 66A of India's Information Technology Act, 2000 , which makes it illegal to use a computer to publish "any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character" or to publish false information. The letter stated that three years in prison
1333-409: The list with my university threatening me in these ways." Beall has not reactivated the list. Since Beall's List closed, similar lists have been started by others, including CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre , and an anonymous group at Stop Predatory Journals . Cabell's International, a company that offers scholarly publishing analytics and other scholarly services, has also offered both
Category:Scientific & Academic Publishing academic journals - Misplaced Pages Continue
1376-577: The most recent entries in its ChangeLog are from December 8, 2021. Information Technology Act, 2000 The Information Technology Act, 2000 (also known as ITA-2000 , or the IT Act ) is an Act of the Indian Parliament (No 21 of 2000) notified on 17 October 2000. It is the primary law in India dealing with cybercrime and electronic commerce . Secondary or subordinate legislation to
1419-640: The number of journals listed in Cabells' Predatory Reports in 2022), primarily due to the dramatic increase in the number of journals published by OMICS Publishing Group from 63 to 742. Beall considered multiple criteria before including a publisher or journal on his lists. Examples included: In February 2013, the open-access publisher Canadian Center for Science and Education sent a letter to Beall stating that Beall's inclusion of its company on his list of questionable open-access publishers amounted to defamation. The letter also stated that if Beall did not remove
1462-472: The publishing houses that allegedly published the books. One-third of the journals to which Szust applied were sampled from Beall's List. Forty of these predatory journals accepted Szust as editor without any background vetting and often within days or even hours. By comparison, she received minimal to no positive response from the "control" journals which "must meet certain standards of quality, including ethical publishing practices." Among journals sampled from
1505-458: The strict rules, saying it will remove fears of outsourcing to Indian companies. Section 69 allows intercepting any information and ask for information decryption. To refuse decryption is an offence. The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 allows the government to tap phones. But according to a 1996 Supreme Court verdict, the government can tap phones only in case of a "public emergency". But there is no such restriction on Section 69. On 20 December 2018,
1548-659: The term "deceptive publishing". Beall's List primarily assessed the predatory journals based on their compliance with procedural standards, even though the quality of a journal can be judged on at least six different dimensions. A 2020 review in BMC Medicine found that only 3% of "predatory checklists" found online met their study's criteria for being "evidence-based"; Beall's List was not amongst them. A 2021 study in The Journal of Academic Librarianship confirmed Beall's bias against OA journals. On January 15, 2017,
1591-484: The third and fourth schedule were omitted later. The law applies to the whole of India. If a crime involves a computer or network located in India, persons of other nationalities can also be indicted under the law. The Act provides a legal framework for electronic governance by giving recognition to electronic records and digital signatures . It also defines cyber crimes and prescribes penalties for them. The Act directed
1634-446: Was a possible penalty, although a U.S. lawyer said that the threats seemed to be a "publicity stunt" that was meant to "intimidate". In 2013, Science correspondent John Bohannon submitted 304 fake scientific articles to various open access journals, many of which were published by publishers on Beall's List. Among these publishers that completed the review process, 82% accepted the paper. Bohannon stated "the results show that Beall
1677-427: Was a prominent list of predatory open-access publishers that was maintained by University of Colorado librarian Jeffrey Beall on his blog Scholarly Open Access . The list aimed to document open-access publishers who did not perform real peer review , effectively publishing any article as long as the authors pay the article processing charge . Originally started as a personal endeavor in 2008, Beall's List became
1720-607: Was announced that the Ministry of Home Affairs would form a committee of officials from the Intelligence Bureau , Central Bureau of Investigation , National Investigation Agency , Delhi Police and the ministry itself to produce a new legal framework. This step was reportedly taken after complaints from intelligence agencies that they were no longer able to counter online posts that involved national security matter or incited people to commit an offence, such as online recruitment for ISIS . Former Minister of State with
1763-446: Was being framed to replace the repealed Section 66A. Fadnavis was replying to a query by Shiv Sena leader Neelam Gorhe. Gorhe had said that the repeal of the law would encourage online miscreants and asked whether the state government would frame a law in this regard. Fadnavis said that the previous law had resulted in no convictions, so the law would be framed such that it would be strong and result in convictions. On 13 April 2015, it
Category:Scientific & Academic Publishing academic journals - Misplaced Pages Continue
1806-515: Was made in 2008. It introduced Section 66A which penalized sending "offensive messages". It also introduced Section 69, which gave authorities the power of "interception or monitoring or decryption of any information through any computer resource". Additionally, it introduced provisions addressing pornography , child porn , cyber terrorism and voyeurism . The amendment was passed on 22 December 2008 without any debate in Lok Sabha. The next day, it
1849-485: Was passed by the Rajya Sabha. It was signed into law by the then President Pratibha Patil , on 5 February 2009. Following is a list of offences and the corresponding penalties under the 2000 Act: From its establishment as an amendment to the original act in 2008, Section 66A attracted controversy over its unconstitutional nature: In December 2012, P Rajeev , a Rajya Sabha member from Kerala, tried to pass
#329670