Beall's List Research Articles

Investigating Country-Specific Perceptions of Predatory Journals and Their Impact on Scholarly Integrity: A Systematic Review.

This systematic review aims to identify the countriesmost active in combatting predatory journals and their definitions of such practices. It also seeks to assess awareness within academic communities, examine the impact of predatory journals on research quality and integrity, and compile existing policies to mitigate their negative effects and strengthen global scholarly integrity. A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases on February 7, 2024, in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The focus was solely on identifying studies that examined the unique experiences and interventions associated with predatory journals in distinct national contexts. The analysis included a presentation of quantitative results and a thematic examination of qualitative data. A total of 40 articles covering 19 countries were included. Twenty-four countries (60%) were in Asia, 11 (27.5%) in Africa, two (5%) in Europe, and one (2.5%) each in Australia, North America, and South America. Although not all articles cited Beall's list to identify predatory journals, the thematic analysis showed consistent topics across various definitions and Beall's themes. Our analysis identified factors affecting academic publishing perceptions globally, highlighting publication pressure, predatory practices, and policy impacts on ethics and standards. This systematic review examined the literature on predatory publishing and identified the leading countries in the fight against these predatory publications. This analysis underscores a complex interplay of factors affecting academic publishing globally, from the push towards predatory journals as a response to publishing pressures, to the critical role of government and institutional frameworks.

Predatory Publishing Lists: A Review on the Ongoing Battle Against Fraudulent Actions

Predatory journals challenge the scholarly community by muddling the boundary between legitimate and dubious publishing practices. Despite the awareness of predatory publishers, there are no globally accepted criteria for identifying them. Various warning lists have emerged as predatory practices evolve, but they are not impervious to criticism despite their utility. This study reviewed the most common of the predatory lists. Beall's list, the pioneer in exposing predatory publishers, received criticism for its inclusion criteria. It is now anonymously managed and poorly updated. Cabells' list has a broad range of inclusion criteria; however, some have been criticized for redundancy and lack of alignment with predatory practices. Kscien's list shows promise as an alternative for spotting predatory journals and publishers. However, it requires refinement since the included journals, based on their core criteria, are not distinguished from those included using traditional criteria. The Early Warning List of International Journals is a recent compilation with diverse criteria. Despite attracting the scientific community's attention, there are questions about the reliability of its inclusion criteria. However, these lists are crucial in flagging predatory publishers; researchers can depend on them while preparing their manuscripts.

An Analysis of Solicitations From Predatory Journals in Ophthalmology

PurposeTo evaluate trends associated with email communication from potentially predatory publishers to faculty in ophthalmology. DesignCross sectional study MethodsOphthalmologists (n=14) from various subspecialties and institutions were recruited to participate. Participants identified unsolicited emails they had received originating from publishers in May 2021. Information collected included details on email contents and publisher organizations. Trends in communications from predatory publishers were evaluated. ResultsOver a 30-day study period, a total of 1813 emails were received from 383 unique publishers and 696 unique journals with a mean (SD) of 4.73 (2.46) emails received per day per participant. Of the 1813 emails identified, 242 (13%) emails were invitations to conferences, whereas 1440 (80%) were solicitations for article submissions to open-access pay-to-publish journals. A total of 522 (29.0%) emails were related to ophthalmology, and reference to a prior publication of the participant occurred in 262 emails (14%). Of the 696 unique journals identified, 174 (25%) journals were indexed on PubMed and 426 (61%) were listed on Beall's list. When comparing journals listed on PubMed versus those that were not, PubMed indexed journals had a higher impact factor (2.1 vs 1.5, p=0.002), were less likely to use “greetings” (76% vs 91%, p<0.001), had fewer spelling/grammar errors (40% vs 51%, p=0.01), and were less likely to offer rapid publication (16% vs 25%, p=0.02). ConclusionUnsolicited requests to publish occur frequently and may diminish the quality of the scientific literature. We encourage individuals in ophthalmology to be aware of these trends in predatory publishing.

Beyond Beall's list: The need for contemporary evaluation tools in predatory publishing research

Key points Beall's list was an instrumental resource in its prime, however its cessation of updates since 2017 makes its continued use a potential concern. The landscape of predatory publishing has witnessed profound changes over recent years. In the context of up‐to‐date evaluations, many researchers and institutions are turning towards Kscien's list.

Do orthopaedics surgeons have any idea what predatory journals are?:(cross-sectional study)

ObjectiveThe legitimacy of published research confronts a real challenge posed by predatory journals. These journals not only distribute inadequately written articles but also undermine the prospects of acknowledgment and citation for high-quality content. It is essential, nevertheless, to differentiate between predatory journals and reputable open-access ones. A worldwide anti-predatory movement seeks to enhance awareness about such journals. Hence, our objective was to assess the awareness, attitudes, and practices of Sudanese orthopedic surgeons concerning both predatory and open-access publishing. MethodsConducted between January and April 2023, this cross-sectional electronic survey involved Sudanese orthopedic surgeons. The survey, comprising five domains to gauge knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to predatory and open-access publishing, was shared via the Sudanese Orthopedic Surgeons Association email distribution list among the 561 registered surgeons. The targeted sample size was 286. Categorical variables were reported using frequencies, while continuous variables were presented as medians and interquartile ranges. Nonparametric tests and ordinal regression were employed for inferential statistics. ResultsOf the 561 surgeons, 104 participants completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 18.5 %. Approximately 49% exhibited poor knowledge, with 56% unfamiliar with the term "predatory journals," and 74% unaware of Beall's list. Overall attitudes toward publication in open-access and predatory journals were neutral for 60% of participants, and only 26% demonstrated good overall publication practices. Higher knowledge scores positively correlated with attitude and practice scores. Ordinal regression analysis identified variables such as employment in university hospitals, higher academic rank, publication experience, and working in well-resourced countries as factors increasing the likelihood of higher knowledge, attitude, and practice scores. ConclusionThe majority of the study participants reported very low knowledge of predatory journals and their possible detrimental consequences on the integrity and quality of scientific publications. Therefore, educational efforts on the negative impact of predatory publication practices in orthopedics are needed.

Can ChatGPT identify predatory biomedical and dental journals? A cross-sectional content analysis

ObjectivesTo assess whether ChatGPT can help to identify predatory biomedical and dental journals, analyze the content of its responses and compare the frequency of positive and negative indicators provided by ChatGPT concerning predatory and legitimate journals. MethodsFour-hundred predatory and legitimate biomedical and dental journals were selected from four sources: Beall's list, unsolicited emails, the Web of Science (WOS) journal list and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). ChatGPT was asked to determine journal legitimacy. Journals were classified into legitimate or predatory. Pearson's Chi-squared test and logistic regression were conducted. Two machine learning algorithms determined the most influential criteria on the correct classification of journals. ResultsThe data were categorized under 10 criteria with the most frequently coded criteria being the transparency of processes and policies. ChatGPT correctly classified predatory and legitimate journals in 92.5 % and 71 % of the sample, respectively. The accuracy of ChatGPT responses was 0.82. ChatGPT also demonstrated a high level of sensitivity (0.93). Additionally, the model exhibited a specificity of 0.71, accurately identifying true negatives. A highly significant association between ChatGPT verdicts and the classification based on known sources was observed (P <0.001). ChatGPT was 30.2 times more likely to correctly classify a predatory journal (95 % confidence interval: 16.9–57.43, p-value: <0.001). ConclusionsChatGPT can accurately distinguish predatory and legitimate journals with a high level of accuracy. While some false positive (29 %) and false negative (7.5 %) results were observed, it may be reasonable to harness ChatGPT to assist with the identification of predatory journals. Clinical significance statementChatGPT may effectively distinguish between predatory and legitimate journals, with accuracy rates of 92.5 % and 71 %, respectively. The potential utility of large-scale language models in exposing predatory publications is worthy of further consideration.

Now you have to pay! A deeper look at publishing practices of predatory journals

AbstractIn this study, by using Beall's (Scholarly open‐access, 2014; Beall's list of predatory journals and publishers, 2018) predatory journal lists as well as direct e‐mail solicitations from journals, we intentionally submitted a poorly written manuscript to 58 open‐access journals using counterfeit names and affiliations. Although there have been several studies examining the practices of questionable journals, there is a lack of research investigating the interactive processes in detail. Our analysis, then, was to provide a more comprehensive view of the underlying reasoning for the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. Of the 31 journals acknowledging receipt of our manuscript, 21 accepted it either unexpurgated or asked only for cosmetic revisions. Regarding ‘positive responses’, we point to five common flaws associated with such journals, namely that (1) they lack any interest in the researchers who are submitting manuscripts; (2) they do not judge academic writing in accordance with expected conventions; (3) they appear to be indifferent to scholarship including research design, plagiarism issues, and citation quality; (4) their review process is opaque and overly hasty, and (5) the tone they use in correspondence e‐mail messages is highly inappropriate. Based upon the investigation, it is clear that such journals' primary aim is in securing the article processing fee. Our findings paint a more comprehensive picture of questionable journal practices with the hope of disseminating such information to the broader scholarly community.

Research grants, research collaboration, and publication in predatory journals: Evidence from publications by Indonesian social scientists

AbstractThis study investigates the role of research funding and research collaboration in the potential for publication in predatory journals among Indonesian social science academia. A total of 2953 articles published by at least one Indonesian author in the social science field between 2010 and 2020 in Scopus‐indexed journals were collected. The SCImago quartiles of 2019 for the Scopus database and Beall's list of potential predatory journals 2021 were used to evaluate the quality and credibility of the publication outlets. Descriptive statistics and decision tree analysis were performed to classify and predict the quality and credibility of the publications. A contrast in the quality and credibility of publications was identified between research funded by Indonesian and foreign institutions. Research publications that were financially supported by Indonesian ministries and authored by a single author and/or via local and national collaboration were more likely to appear in lower‐ranked journals and predatory journals than publications funded by international sponsors and/or that involved foreign author(s)/international collaboration. This study therefore highlights the need for significant changes in monitoring and evaluation systems, timelines, and output targets of Indonesian government research grant schemes, alongside the enhanced involvement of foreign researchers and reviewers in the research funding schemes.

An analysis of dental articles in predatory journals and associated online engagement

ObjectiveWe aimed to assess the extent of social media sharing of presumed predatory (PP) dental journals and to compare level of engagement, type of accounts and characteristics of the articles published in presumed legitimate (PL) and PP journals. MethodsSix hashtags were searched across three social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook and Twitter). Data extraction was performed and journals were classified into PP or PL in a multistep approach using MEDLINE, Beall's list and Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). A checklist was created and used for studies not found in the aforementioned recognized databases. ResultsA total of 1742 posts were identified, with the majority (94%) found on Instagram. Of the identified journals, 15.6% were PP. Over one-third of articles from PP journals (35.42%) were indexed on PubMed. The majority of presumed legitimate publications were published in dental specialty only journals (56.44%), compared to 24% in the PP group. The majority of accounts were those of healthcare professionals with most publications related to prosthodontics and implantology (26.3%) and restorative and esthetic dentistry (14.4%), in PL and PP groups, respectively. Similar median number of followers/friends and comments were found among the PL and PP groups. ConclusionOur findings highlight that presumed predatory publications have comparable reach to PL journals on social media risking the sharing of unreliable and misleading information. Clinical significanceResearchers, students and social media users should be capable of identifying presumed predatory dental publications. Means of moderating the influence of these publications should be explored.

Are the works that cite Beall's List accounting journals comparable to those that cite Scopus journals of similar citation impact?

PurposeTh study evaluates the apparent quality of the 10 Beall's List accounting journals with the highest citation rates by investigating whether the works that cite those journals are comparable to those that cite 11 Scopus journals of similar citation impact.Design/methodology/approachThe study investigates the characteristics of the works that cited the Beall's List and Scopus journals, 2015–2020, comparing the two groups of citing works by publication type (article, book, etc.), extent of self-citation, inclusion in Beall's List and Scopus, Open Access (OA) status, publisher type, citation impact, and country/region of interest.FindingsThe Beall's List accounting journals tend to be cited in less reputable outlets; they are especially likely to be cited in Beall's List journals and especially unlikely to be cited in Scopus journals. However, other evidence suggests that these journals occupy a distinctive niche. The works that cite Beall's List journals are especially likely to be OA, to be published by universities and other nonprofits, and to focus on lower-income countries. They also have relatively low journal and publisher self-citation rates.Originality/valueBeall's List accounting journals may be especially useful to scholars who rely on OA journals, who see their local universities as natural publishing partners, and who investigate topics of concern to developing countries. An increase in the number of non-predatory journals that cater to these authors' needs might help resolve the apparent problem of unmet demand for journal space.

Academic spam mails from “Predatory Journals” in cardiology: a cross-sectional study over 3 months

Abstract Background Numerous online journals are referred to as predatory journals because their efforts are focused primarily on collecting publication fees rather than on content, peer review, or manuscript presentation. Many of these journals send Academic Spam Mails (ASM), requesting manuscript submissions. Purpose/Methods Over a 3-month period, all ASMs addressed to the author were collected and analyzed. A fake publication was created with a commonly used structure (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion). The article just repeated the phrase “Please get me off your mailing list” over and over again. This publication was submitted in response to each request to test the control mechanisms of the respective journals. Results During the study period, excluding duplicate requests, 125 ASMs (average 2.1 per business day) were received from a wide variety of journals spanning 38 different subject areas, of which 29/38 (76.4%) were from the medical field. 16/125 (16%) were related to a previously published article but not among the author's most important publications (median h-index rank 22; range 10–138). The majority (73.6%) of journals were listed in Beall's predatory journal list, only an absolute minority (0.8%) were listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, and 96% were not listed in PubMed. Original papers (94.4%), reviews (88.0%), and case reports (87.2%) were most frequently requested; the publication charge (APC) was a median of $1,199 (range $50–3,586); in about 22% of cases, it was not apparent whether APCs were charged and, if so, how much. For the 125 nonsense publications sent out, there was a response in 16/125 (13%) (6 acknowledgements of receipt, 3 apologies, 2 the journal comments that the publication consisted of only one sentence, and 5 other responses). Interestingly, in one case editorial board members had also created a nonsense publication titled: “Ok we not send mail to you” and sent it to the author. 21.6% of the journals had sent ASM to the author again during the next months. Conclusions Academic spam mails from “predatory” online journals are a common problem. They are recognizable by their appearance in warning lists or non-appearance in directories of reputable open access journals. A placement of a nonsense publication in such a “predatory journal” was not successful. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

An Altmetrics and citation analysis of selected predatory journals in library and information science field

PurposeThis paper aims to examine whether Altmetric data can be used as an indicator for identifying predatory journals. Design/methodology/approachThis is an applied study which uses citation and Altmetrics methods. The study selected 21 predatory journals from the Beall's list and Kscien's list, as well as 18 non-predatory open access journals from the DOAJ's list, in the field of Library and Information Science. The Altmetric score for articles published in these journals was obtained from the Altmetric Explorer, a service provided by Altmetric.com. Web of Science was used to search for citation data of articles published in these journals. FindingsThe predatory journals almost have no presence in social media, with poor Altmetric score. In contrast, non-predatory open access journals have a high presence rate and Altmetric score. There is a significant positive correlation between the number of articles cited and the number of articles having Altmetric score among non-predatory open-access journals, but not among predatory journals. Poor Altmetric score may be viewed as a potential characteristic of predatory journals, but other indicators would also need to be considered to determine whether a journal is predatory. Originality/valueDistinct from the traditional research methods, this study combined citation analysis and Altmetrics analysis. By comparing the characteristics of predatory journals and non-predatory open access journals, the findings contribute to the identification of predatory journals.

An Evaluation of Primary Studies Published in Predatory Journals Included in Systematic Reviews From High-Impact Dermatology Journals: Cross-sectional Study.

Predatory publishing is a deceptive form of publishing that uses unethical business practices, minimal to no peer review processes, or limited editorial oversight to publish articles. It may be problematic to our highest standard of scientific evidence-systematic reviews-through the inclusion of poor-quality and unusable data, which could mislead results, challenge outcomes, and undermine confidence. Thus, there is a growing concern surrounding the effects predatory publishing may have on scientific research and clinical decision-making. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether systematic reviews published in top dermatology journals contain primary studies published in suspected predatory journals (SPJs). We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published in the top five dermatology journals (determined by 5-year h-indices) between January 1, 2019, and May 24, 2021. Primary studies were extracted from each systematic review, and the publishing journal of these primary studies was cross-referenced using Beall's List and the Directory of Open Access Journals. Screening and data extraction were performed in a masked, duplicate fashion. We performed chi-square tests to determine possible associations between a systematic review's inclusion of a primary study published in a SPJ and particular study characteristics. Our randomized sample included 100 systematic reviews, of which 31 (31%) were found to contain a primary study published in a SPJ. Of the top five dermatology journals, the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology had the most systematic reviews containing a primary study published in an SPJ. Systematic reviews containing a meta-analysis or registered protocol were significantly less likely to contain a primary study published in a SPJ. No statistically significant associations were found between other study characteristics. Studies published in SPJs are commonly included as primary studies in systematic reviews published in high-impact dermatology journals. Future research is needed to investigate the effects of including suspected predatory publications in scientific research.

The Sensitivity of Research on COVID-19

Beall’s list heavily used as a base for selection of predatory journals by large no. of research studies was ceased from internet in 2017. Thus, status of journal declared as predatory in list is debatable. To verify quality of journals in terms of accuracy and standard of peer review, a sample of Medical Science journals from Beall list and indexed in reputed indexing/abstracting databases was taken. sample of journals was put to quality and credibility check by submitting a deliberately flawed research article. deliberate errors exceed an acceptable norm in submitted research paper. It is astonishing to see that majority of journals (61.96%) accept flawed article on such a sensitive issue, i.e., COVID-19 without peer review and desired revisions. Instant mails reporting paper's acceptance, preceded by multiple emails requesting for submission for Article processing fee, were received frequently. It is found that such publishing ventures are a scare story that only wants to generate as much revenue as possible.

Where predatory and mainstream journals differ: A study of language and linguistics journals

AbstractThis study examined editorial differences between potential predatory and mainstream journals in the discipline of language and linguistics. A keyword search of the relevant journals on Beall's updated list of potential predatory journals led to a sample of 66 journals. An equal number of journals were selected from those indexed by Web of Science (WoS) via stratified random sampling. Analyses showed that the two groups of journals did not differ in terms of certain publication frequencies, mean number of annual articles, mention of peer review time, availability of the author guides and aims/scope sections, absence of editorial boards, mean number of editorial board numbers, article processing charge (APC) for open access, claimed indexation by ERIC and DOAJ and availability of ISSNs. However, these two groups of journals differed markedly in terms of contact information, years of editorial activity, certain publication frequencies, specialized focus, mention of acceptance rate, mean peer review time, claimed adoption of peer review, submission mode, listing of editors‐in‐chief, relevance of their expertise, mean number of editors, relevance of the editorial board members' expertise, mean APC, claimed indexation by Google Scholar/Scopus/WoS, reporting of fake impact factors, provision of Index Copernicus Value, claimed COPE membership, availability of ethical guidelines and various policies and existence of DOIs. These differences can be used as warning signs that a journal may not be legitimate.

Impact of Predatory Journals in Plastic Surgery Literature: Researchers Beware.

Predatory journals have exploited the open access publishing model and are considered as a major threat to the integrity of scientific research. The goal of this study was to characterize predatory publishing practices in plastic surgery. To identify potentially predatory journals in the field of plastic surgery, the authors searched the Cabells' Predatory Reports and Beall's List using preidentified keywords. For presumed legitimate open access journals, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) was queried. The characteristics of potentially predatory journals were compared to those of legitimate open access plastic surgery journals. The authors identified a total of 25 plastic surgery-focused journals. Out of the 25 potentially predatory journals, only 15 journals had articles published within the last 5 years, with a mean number of articles of 33 ± 39 (range, 2 to 159 articles). The mean number of predatory violations according to Cabells' criteria was 6.8 ± 1.4 (range, 3 to 9). Using the DOAJ database, the authors identified a total of 24 plastic surgery-related journals. Compared to potentially predatory journals, journals from the DOAJ were more likely to be indexed in PubMed (0 versus 50 percent, respectively, p < 0.0001). Time to publication was significantly higher in journals from the DOAJ (17 ± 7 versus 4 ± 1 weeks; p = 0.006). Despite higher article processing charges in the DOAJ group, this difference was not statically significant ($1425 ± $717 versus $1071 ± $1060; p = 0.13). Predatory journals are pervasive in the medical literature and plastic surgery is no exception. Plastic surgeons should practice due diligence when choosing a target journal for their articles. Journals with predatory practices should be distinguished from legitimate open access publication platforms.

Predatory journals and publishers: Characteristics and impact of academic spam to researchers in educational sciences

AbstractThis study focuses on the phenomenon of presumed predatory scientific publications in the field of Educational Sciences, and the utilization of email by editors to request manuscripts. It examined, using content analysis methods, 210 emails received by three professors of the field of Education, at a Spanish university with different research profiles over a period of 3 months. Through analysis of the unsolicited emails a total of 139 journals and 37 publishers were identified and examined using: (a) the two main predatory journal inventories (Beall's list and Cabells' Predatory Reports), and (b) six of the major scientific bibliographic databases. The publishers and their websites were also analyzed, as well as the basic aspects of the emails' content. The majority of the unsolicited emails were from predatory journals or publishers and half of the article requests did not match the field of the recipient. In addition, it is relevant to note that more than half of the domains of predatory publishers analysed have untrustworthy security levels. The data provided relevant information on the phenomenon of predation in scientific publications in the field of Education and, most importantly, provided evidence for developing training and preventive strategies to tackle it.

Vulnerability of African Neurosurgery to Predatory Journals: An Electronic Survey of Aspiring Neurosurgeons, Residents, and Consultants

Predatory journals (PJs) publish research with little to no rigorous peer review in exchange for money. It is unclear what proportion of researchers is vulnerable to PJs and which factors are associated with vulnerability. The aim of this study was to evaluate the vulnerability of African neurosurgery researchers to PJs and identify their correlates. A 3-part electronic survey in English and French versions was distributed via social media to African consultants and trainees from November 1 to December 1, 2021. Bivariable relationships were evaluated with χ2 test, Mann-Whitney U test, Spearman ρ correlation, odds ratios, and 95% confidence intervals. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. There were 101 respondents to the survey (response rate 56.1%). Respondents had mean age of 34.9 years, 82.2% were male (n= 83), 38.6% were consultant neurosurgeons (n= 39), and 33.7% were from Central Africa (n= 34). Of respondents, 66 had published ≥ 1 articles in the past, and 13 had published at least 1 article in a PJ. A PJ had contacted 34 respondents via e-mail, and 8 respondents had reviewed articles for a PJ. The Think. Check. Submit initiative and Beall's list were familiar to 19 and 13 respondents, respectively. Publication in PJs was correlated with the respondent's age (R= 0.23, P= 0.02) and total scholarly output (R= 0.38, P < 0.01). Young African neurosurgery researchers are vulnerable to PJs primarily because they are not familiar with the concept of PJs or how to identify them.

The citation impact of the Open Access accounting journals that appear on Beall's List of potentially predatory publishers and journals

Although there are at least six dimensions of journal quality, Beall's List identifies predatory Open Access journals based almost entirely on their adherence to procedural norms. The journals identified as predatory by one standard may be regarded as legitimate by other standards. This study examines the scholarly impact of the 58 accounting journals on Beall's List, calculating citations per article and estimating CiteScore percentile using Google Scholar data for more than 13,000 articles published from 2015 through 2018. Most Beall's List accounting journals have only modest citation impact, with an average estimated CiteScore in the 11th percentile among Scopus accounting journals. Some have a substantially greater impact, however. Six journals have estimated CiteScores at or above the 25th percentile, and two have scores at or above the 30th percentile. Moreover, there is considerable variation in citation impact among the articles within each journal, and high-impact articles (cited up to several hundred times) have appeared even in some of the Beall's List accounting journals with low citation rates. Further research is needed to determine how well the citing journals are integrated into the disciplinary citation network—whether the citing journals are themselves reputable or not.

Journals in Beall's list perform as a group less well than other open access journals indexed in Scopus but reveal large differences among publishers

AbstractThe list of potential, possible or probable predatory scholarly open access (OA) publishers compiled by Jeffrey Beall was examined to determine the effect of their inclusion upon authors, and a possible bias against OA journals. Manually collected data from the publication archives of a sample of 250 journals from Beall publishers reveals a strong tendency towards a decline in their article output during 2012–2020. A comparison of the subset of 506 Beall journals indexed in Scopus with a benchmark set of other OA journals in Scopus with similar characteristics shows that Beall journals reveal as a group a strong decline in citation impact over the years, and reached an impact level far below that of their benchmarks. The Beall list of publishers was found to be heterogeneous in terms of bibliometric indicators but to be clearly differentiated from OA journals not included in the list. The same bibliometric comparison against comparable non‐OA journals reveal similar, but less marked, differences in citation and publication growth.