I’ve tried to stay away from Beall and his Lists, but sometimes it’s not easy.
The final section of the Intersections essay in the January 2016 Cites & Insights recounts a quick “investigation” into the rationales Beall provided for placing 223 publishers on his 2014 list. Go to page 8: it’s the section titled “Lagniappe: The Rationales, Once Over Easy.” I found that I could find any rationale for condemning the publishers in only 35% of cases.
Perhaps too charitably, I assumed that it was because Beall’s blog changed platforms and he didn’t take the time to restore older posts to the new blog.
Then I noted his 2016 lists–which add 230 (or more) publishers and 375 (or more) independent journals to the 2015 lists. I say “or more” because at least one major publisher has been removed via the Star Chamber Appeal Process, even though Beall continues to attack the publisher as unworthy.
In any case: 605 new listings. My recollection is that there haven’t even been close to 605 posts on Beall’s blog in the past year… but I thought I’d check it out.
The results: As far as I can tell, posts during 2015 include around 60 new publishers and journals. (I may have missed a couple of “copycat” journals, so let’s call it 65).
Sixty or 65. Out of 605.
In other words: for roughly 90% of publishers (most of them really “publishers,” I suspect) and journals added to the list, there is no published rationale whatsoever for Beall’s condemnation.
So if you’re wondering why I regard Beall as irrelevant to the reality of open access publishing (which isn’t all sweetness & light, any more than the reality of subscription publishing), there’s one answer.