Template talk:Predatory open access source list

False positive; implementation error

This edit has been flagged incorrectly as introducing a predatory journal. As best I can tell, the problem is that I added a reference with doi:10.54550/ECA2022V2S3R20 and the system is flagging it because the identifier agrees with ScopeMed (doi:10.5455). I presume this is some sort of regex error; it should be fixable by matching the string "doi:10.5455/.*" instead of "doi:10.5455.*" (or whatever). I hope this is the right place to report; the edit notice doesn't tell you where to report errors. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed, see Special:AbuseFilter/history/891/diff/prev/32275. The usual place for these reports is WP:EF/FP; MediaWiki talk pages are barely watched. (Courtesy ping Headbomb). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I realized this was low-traffic, but couldn’t figure out the right place to ask. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Filter message should be more clear

Got the automatic edit filter notice about using references in this list. But surely you can't expect someone to go through each DOI one-by-one to see which DOI(s) triggered the filter right? And as the list grows, that check will only take longer and longer. Can the filter message be more clear and specific, such as "your reference includes [inserts the violating DOI prefix]..."? Paging Headbomb. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You can use WP:UPSD to easily identify which citation is problematic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Source(s) the list is based on?

It's not clear to me on what specific source or sources is this list based on. Digressivo (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

A variety of sources. This is usually Beall's list + DOAJ's list, Beall's list + Cabell's blacklist, or Beall's list + consensus. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Would it be possible to integrate a system similar to the one at WP:RSPSOURCES? I find it very time-consuming to check each item on this template against the various external lists (Beall's, DOAJ, Cabell's) to see why it was included. It's even harder to find the consensus discussions, as I don't know where to begin searching.

Maybe something like this could really help and make it easier and faster for anyone to verify and contribute to the list:

Extended content

Publisher/Journal	Domain/URL	DOI prefix	Beall's List	DOAJ List	Cabell's Blacklist	WP Discussion
Predatory Journal 1	example.com	{{doi|10.1234}}	Y	Y	N	N/A
Predatory Journal 2	example.com	{{doi|10.4567}}	N	N	Y	1 2

I'm willing to help populate the new columns by checking which lists each item is on. However, as I said, I don't know where to find the past discussions for the 'WP Discussion' column, so I might not be able to help with that part.

Also, if any items have been excluded by consensus, a list of them would be useful too.

@Headbomb Digressivo (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Digressivo: "I find it very time-consuming to check each item on this template against the various external lists" check out WP:UPSD then. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Headbomb I'm already using it and I love it :) But what I meant isn't about checking a random citation against Template:Predatory open access source list, but about checking the rationale for why an entry is on Template:Predatory open access source list in the first place.

For example a user may ask: "why is ARC Journals on Template:Predatory open access source list? Is that because it's on two or more predatory lists (such as Beall's list + DOAJ's list) or was it on just one list and there was a discussion? And which specific predatory list(s) is it on? And if a discussion happened, what's the link to it?"

The collapsible table in my reply above shows a possible implementation (inspired by Wikipedia:RSPSOURCES) to quickly answer those questions, facilitating verification and contributions. Digressivo (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Because those are very obviously predatory journals? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Headbomb sorry for my delayed response. I agree that well-known cases, such as the ones that have a dedicated pages are obvious. However, the majority of entries on this list don't fall into that category. Knowing the specific criteria used for each inclusion is fundamental for verification, without a clear declared rationale the list can resemble WP:OR. This is particularly important for publishers that required a discussion, which also implies their inclusion wasn't so obvious.

Similar pages all have their inclusion/exclusion reasoning clearly documented, e.g.: WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:VSAFE/PERENNIAL, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH. Digressivo (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

academicjournals.org

Is there continued consensus to maintain this publisher on the blacklist? Compared to many of the more obvious predatory journals, it's not nearly as bad. They write on their about page: "In 2014, Academic Journals submitted a formal appeal to Jeffrey Beall. The appeal was very detailed, highlighting item by item as stated in the requirements of Jeffrey Beall. Academic Journals provided clear answers to all of Jeffrey Beall’s requirements. In his response, Jeffrey Beall stated, “that Academic Journals looks pretty good” and “is the most detailed appeal document that I have ever seen” and that “Predatory might be too harsh of a word for this one”. However, Jeffrey Beall declined to remove Academic Journals from his list. He cited low quality and also mentioned an article similarity with another previously published article. However, the mentioned article was published prior to the Academic Journals’ implementation of the iThenticate software for plagiarism detection." I don't see many discussions about this particular publisher, but the name makes it hard to search. Some publications I looked up are or were pincluded in MIAR, but it looks like a lot of these don't publish many articles: https://miar.ub.edu/issn/2006-988X, https://miar.ub.edu/issn/2141-6656 -- Reconrabbit 19:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Headbomb as the most knowledgeable party on this subject (and largely responsible for maintaining this template!!). -- Reconrabbit 19:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Academicjournals.org is by far one of the worse publishers out there. Absolutely no reedeeming quality whatsoever. Hot garbage has more value. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll restrain myself to using their cited sources then -- Reconrabbit 21:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Researchgate included?

Hello, I got confused by the template when trying to add a source during this edit. I just relised since it says "original research" it's probably not a good source anyway, but researchgate is not on the list so I don't know how this got flagged or what to look out for. Thanks for any help. Neon700 (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC)