Transparency policy
BeallsLists.com listing policy
The site contains both historical archive material and current editorial content. This policy explains how those categories differ, what evidence is used for present-day reviews, and how factual corrections can be submitted.
Maintained by the Beallslists.com editorial review team · Evidence reviewed: · Current verification cycle: 2026
Historical archive entries
Names preserved from the original Beall archive are historical records. Their presence documents that they appeared in that source at that time; it does not automatically represent a new 2026 assessment by BeallsLists.com.
Current additions or evidence profiles
Any current editorial assessment should be dated, attributed to the site's review process and supported by reproducible evidence. Current pages should avoid presenting a conclusion as permanent when the underlying facts can change.
Evidence considered
- Journal/publisher identity and domain records.
- ISSN and bibliographic records.
- Official indexing and metric-provider records.
- Editorial-board and peer-review information.
- APCs, withdrawal terms and other author-facing charges.
- Copyright, licensing, archiving, corrections and ethics policies.
- Recent published content and correction/retraction notices where relevant.
Corrections and responses
A correction request should identify the exact statement, URL and supporting evidence. If a verifiable fact is wrong, the page should be corrected. If the disagreement is interpretive, the evidence and reasoning should be reviewed and, where useful, the response may be summarized.
Removal or status changes
Current status can change when reliable evidence changes. Historical records are normally preserved as archive history rather than erased, while current notes can explain later improvements, closures, acquisitions or other material developments.
No pay-to-remove policy
Editorial status should not depend on payment for removal, favorable review or correction. Paid advertising or sponsorship, if present elsewhere on the site, should be kept separate from editorial assessment.
Methodology
For the detailed process, see How BeallsLists.com reviews journals and publishers.
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.