Thanks Catherine and Dean,

I agree on going forward with research.  Predatory Publishing is on my research agenda.  I have a checklist of journal quality criteria that I presented at MLA in Boston.  My perspective is to teach people to choose publishing venues intentionally... and use reputable indexes such as Medline/PubMed .  
http://opus.govst.edu/faculty/27/

Feel free to use with attribution.

Paul


Paul Blobaum, M.A., M.S.            Follow my scholarship at: http://works.bepress.com/paul_blobaum
Full Professor
University Archivist
College of Health and Human Services Librarian Liaison
Scholarly Communications Librarian
Governors State University Library
University Park, IL  60484  708-534 4139  pblobaum at govst dot edu

________________________________________
From: Medical Libraries Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Dean Giustini [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 2:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MEDLIB-L] Beall's List - Archived

Agree 100%. I also think it would be wise for us to do more research (and
periodic updates) *about predatory publishing *and continue to scan the
medical journal literature. I started a wiki entry on the topic (though it
has real limitations at this point):
http://hlwiki.slais.ubc.ca/index.php/Predatory_journals_discourse_2017

regards,
Dean Giustini
UBC biomed librarian
Vancouver Canada

On 21 January 2017 at 12:44, Catherine Arnott SMITH <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Some people on this list will have heard me say this before at one of the
> CE classes I've taught on predatory publishing. So you all can stop
> reading. But everybody else: Grabbing the list at the moment is fine; of
> course, as information professionals we all know that all of Beall's lists
> (publishers, journals, spurious "impact factors", etc.), not being updated
> any more will rapidly go stale and will become less trustworthy with time.
> In addition, publishers, journals, and "impact factors" that looked
> questionable, but actually aren't, will go un-challenged now.
>
> So: get really familiar with other kinds of evaluation criteria, some of
> which overlap with Beall's criteria quite a lot. Evaluation criteria that
> are living organisms will never go out of date. The important role of
> medical librarians in supporting evaluation of publishers, predatory or
> otherwise, has become only more important now -- not less.
>
> Catherine Arnott Smith, PhD
> Associate Professor
> University of Wisconsin-Madison iSchool
> Discovery Fellow, Living Environments Laboratory
> Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>
> “Form is never more than an extension of content.” [Charles Olson quoting
> Robert Creely; Projective Verse, 1950].
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Medical Libraries Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Coletti,Margaret (BIDMC - Knowledge Services)
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 12:09 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [MEDLIB-L] Beall's List - Archived
>
> Beall's List is archived at this URL: https://web.archive.org/web/
> 20170112125427/https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/
> My advice: Grab it before this disappears as well.
>
> Margo Coletti, AMLS, AHIP
> Director, Knowledge Services
> Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
> 330 Brookline Ave.
> Boston, MA 02215
> Phone: (617) 632-8480
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> This message is intended for the use of the person(s) to whom it may be
> addressed. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or
> otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not
> the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, copying, or use of
> this information is prohibited. If you have received this message in error,
> please permanently delete it and immediately notify the sender. Thank you.
>