Name of your journal is listed in the Bealls’ list

 Dear Dr …

I write this letter to you to inform you that the journal ” ….” is listed in the Beall’s list of predatory journala at ””.In response to our plea to remove the name of the journal, Frontiers in Bioscience, Beall cites “Freedom of speech” as his refuge while his defamation by listing the name of journals on his list has had clearcut impact on faculty of universities who are trying to submit articles for publication in the journal, as dean’s of several medical school ban submission of articles by their faculty to a journal that exists on Beall’s list.

Beall’s list of open access publishers include publishers that are not inherently open access and while Beall was contacted to remove the name of Frontiers in Bioscience, Beall responded not to be contacted. Beall lists a plea committee on his page (, however, he is not even responsive to allowing the plea to be submitted to such a committee. Beall’s assertion is that he publishes his reviews as a form of “free speech” and his reviews are similar to other reviews. However, in no circumstance, a reviewer does not publish the reasoning for the conclusions that are drawn. Moreover, if the intent of this list is to inform journals of their predatory action(s), then, he would give the journals the opportunity to rectify the problems that he finds to be predatory in nature. However, he neither contacts the journals before publishing their name nor he gives the reasoning for inclusion of the name of the publisher. The names of the members of his committee are also not revealed and whether such a committee exists is doubtful. Science works by peer review and to be fair, each and every manuscript is reviewed by at least two reviewers and if needed additional reviewers when a decision can not be reached. However, such a mechanism does not exist for the reviews by Beall. Thus, Beall violates the essence of publishing that requires fair and unbiased reviews by at least two reviewers. The comments from publishers and others ( has examples when Beall allegedly requests money when the publisher requests the name to be removed. The university where he works has been silent on this issue and the reason for such silence is not understood when one of their members is causing clear harm to the publishers who are trying to disseminate science. We have written letters to the dean and associate dean of the school at no avail and given that Beall works at university of colorado, Denver ( and lists his official telephone number at the university on his page is a clear indication that Beall’s action is being supported by the university. Critical Analysis of Jeffrey Beall’s Blog – Open Access Publishing can be found at (

We would like to form a committee who can take actions regarding this list. If you are interested to serve on this committee, please send me your name, telephone number and Email address and we will contact you about nominating the members of the committee who join to oppose this list.

I would like to thank you for your courtesy and consideration.


S Tabibzadeh, MD
President and Professor

Source: Source: E-mail to publishers




[Criticisms on your Journals] A counter Attack

Jeffery Beall from U.S.A. has seriously criticized your journals.

In the following page he has criticized several international journals, including journals from U.S.A..

Subject :- [Criticisms on your Journals] A counter Attack

Please design a blog site / webpage on your journals website the following type Website.

Download MsWord file from the following Link
Step I:-

Password to open file is Jbpics666

The above Msword document contains some pictures of Geffry Beall.

Step II:- Please design a blog site/webpage on your journals website using the pics from the above file.

Step III:-Send the webpage address to Jeffery Beall by email to

Result:- He may delete your journals website from his list. There will psychological impact on him because he is suffering from a number of psychological disorders such as Identity Crisis, Jealousy towards Research Journals etc…

Ethics and Access 2:The So-Called Sting

Call it The Bohannon Hoax or call it The OA Sting. In either case, the story revolves around “Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?” by John Bohannon, which appeared October 4, 2013 in Science As the link indicates, it’s freely available. It’s from the News section, not a peer reviewed article. Here’s the tease: A spoof paper concocted by Science reveals little or no scrutiny at many open access journals. Assuming you read last issue’s essay, you may believe I’m about to excoriate Bohannon’s piece as a terrible, horrible no good piece of attack journalism. You’d be wrong. It’s a well written, interesting piece of work, and I believe John Bohannon has demonstrated that there are a fair number of journals more than 150, at least with, at least for one paper, sloppy or missing peer review practices (or at least sloppy peer reviewers).

Read the full article on this link:

Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association

The international community of Open Access publishers

Our mission is to represent the interests of Open Access (OA) journal and book publishers globally in all scientific, technical and scholarly disciplines. This mission will be carried out through exchanging information, setting standards, advancing models, advocacy, education, and the promotion of innovation.

Through a shared interest in developing appropriate business models, tools and standards to support OA publishing, we can ensure a prosperous and sustainable future to the benefit of our members and the scholarly communities they serve.


Have they been identified as a “Predatory Publisher”?

Jeffrey Beall, an academic librarian at the University of Colorado Denver has created a website that lists problematic scholarly open access publishers. He gives a fully outlined criteria for inclusion of publishers on this list, however his criteria has at times been challenged. Please note that this is not considered an entirely authoritative list as Beall has published articles that make it clear he is critical of the Open Access publishing movement in general. As well doing an Internet search yourself for a publisher may also yield more information if there is a problematic issue.


Counter-criticism 2

Other academic librarians and publishing experts have criticized Beall’s views. Wayne Bivens-Tatum, librarian at Princeton University, published a rebuttal in tripleC, regarding Beall’s criticisms of open access publishing. He stated that Beall’s “rhetoric provides good examples of what Albert O. Hirschman called the ‘rhetoric of reaction’“, and concluded Beall’s “argument fails because the sweeping generalizations with no supporting evidence render it unsound.”[12] City University of New York librarians Monica Berger and Jill Cirasella said his views are biased against open-access journals from less economically developed countries. Berger and Cirasella argue that “imperfect English or a predominantly non-Western editorial board does not make a journal predatory”. While recognizing that “the criteria he uses for his list are an excellent starting point for thinking about the hallmarks of predatory publishers and journals,”[13] they suggest 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 a better solution than blacklisting. The central player in the whitelisting movement is the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).” The managing director of DOAJ, Lars Bjørnshauge, estimates that questionable publishing probably accounts for fewer than 1% of all author-pays, open-access papers, a proportion far lower than Beall’s estimate of 5-10%. Instead of relying on blacklists, Bjørnshauge argues that open-access associations such as the DOAJ and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association should adopt more responsibility for policing publishers: they should lay out a set of criteria that publishers and journals must comply with to win a place on a ‘white list’ indicating that they are trustworthy.[7] Rick Anderson, associate dean in the J. Willard Marriot Library, University of Utah, challenges the term ‘predatory open access publishing’ itself: “what do we mean when we say ‘predatory,’ and 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 suggests 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.”[14]