Trust and methodology
How BeallsLists.com reviews journals and publishers
Our aim is to separate historical archive material from current evidence and to make present-day verification reproducible. We do not treat one list, one metric, one database or one warning sign as a complete verdict.
Maintained by the Beallslists.com editorial review team · Evidence reviewed: · Current verification cycle: 2026
1. Historical material is labeled as historical
Entries preserved from the original Beall archive are presented as records of what appeared in that historical source. Later BeallsLists.com additions, removals, notes or current publisher reviews should be dated and identified separately.
2. Current reviews use multiple evidence types
Depending on the question, a review may check journal identity, ISSN, publisher ownership, domains, indexing records, editorial-board information, peer-review policy, APCs, licensing, archiving, corrections and recent published articles.
3. We prefer first-party verification sources
For indexing and metrics, the preferred evidence is the database or metric provider itself. For journal identity, independent bibliographic or ISSN records are preferred over a publisher badge. Secondary commentary can provide context but should not replace the underlying record.
4. We distinguish facts from interpretation
A factual statement should be supported by a source that another reader can reproduce. An interpretation—such as “enhanced due diligence recommended”—should explain which facts led to that recommendation.
5. We avoid numerical predatory scores
Journal evaluation is contextual. A checklist helps ensure important areas are reviewed, but an arbitrary score can create false certainty. Multiple serious conflicts deserve more attention than a cosmetic website flaw.
6. Dates matter
Current evidence pages should show when the evidence was reviewed. A date is changed when the underlying content or verification is materially updated, not merely to make a page appear fresh.
7. Corrections are part of the process
Publishers, editors, authors and readers may submit evidence of factual errors. Corrections should identify what changed and preserve enough context to understand the update. See the changelog and listing policy.
8. Reader responsibility
BeallsLists.com is a research and verification aid. Authors should also consider institutional, funder and disciplinary requirements and seek specialist advice where a decision has significant career, legal or financial consequences.
Sources and further verification
- Think. Check. Submit. — researcher-focused journal and publisher due diligence
- Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing — journal transparency principles from DOAJ, COPE, OASPA and WAME
Historical records are useful context, but journal ownership, indexing, policies and websites can change. Verify current claims at the original source before making a submission, hiring, promotion or funding decision.