Lists of predatory journals and publishers: a review for future refinement

Although predatory publishers are increasingly recognized, universally accepted criteria for defining predatory journals are lacking. These journals challenge the scholarly community by blurring the line between legitimate and questionable publishing practices. Several lists and reports of predatory journals have been published, which offer valuable insights; however, they are not devoid of criticism. Beall's list, although criticized for its inclusion criteria, is currently managed anonymously and updated infrequently. Cabells' list uses an extensive array of inclusion criteria, some of which are similar to those used in Beall's list. Several of these criteria are redundant and fail to detect predatory practices, and using all of them in evaluating a journal is seldom practicable. Kscien's list has emerged as a promising alternative for identifying predatory publishers or journals. However, it requires refinement, potentially through creating a distinct list supported by unequivocal evidence, such as accepting a fake manuscript (ascertained through a sting operation). The present review seeks to catalyze research on identifying predatory journals and publishers by comparing existing lists and suggesting new techniques for detecting predatory practices.