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

Abstract

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.