Dolos list

List of predatory, parasitic, or pseudoscientific publishers and journals

Because Science does not need lack of rigor and seriousness, we do not need them ...

Operation

Preamble

 

The Dolos list is part of a particular context where the problem of publishers and predatory journals has already been identified and denounced, but where the latest blacklists present on the internet are managed anonymously and are ultimately less consulted than their mother list. Indeed, since the removal of the list established by Jeffrey Beall - who decided to withdraw for quite understandable reasons, predatory publishers and journals are less targeted and the denunciation of their practices, which parasitize the research sector, targets more the ethical and economic model in question than the actors who benefit from it.

The Dolos list tries to answer this problem of diffusion and update of the list initially established. It is not administered anonymously, to avoid any doubt about possible conflicts of interest and to produce, in a transparent and assumed manner, this criticism of the predatory publishing sector. In addition, the team in charge of keeping this list, consisting of the staff of my office, some colleagues who decided to join the adventure, and myself, will have, thanks to human and financial means more important than in the past, the possibility of dealing more effectively with additions suggestions and will more easily solve problems that are known to be related to such a project. This list is independent and is funded only by me, a theoretical physicist (professor's degree available here in French and English) concerned about the future of scientific research and its rigor.

Given the recent proliferation of still undisclosed predatory publishers and journals, and the lack of rigor and partiality of the existing white lists, to which we will return, the Dolos list will be stricter and more procedural than its predecessors. It will meet specific rules - for which I assume full responsibility.

The Dolos list will never have to justify itself to anyone in any case, unless the interests of justice so require, as in the framework of, for example, a procedure initiated by the Dolos list team. Collected evidence serves only to make a decision. Justification requests will therefore never be processed, regardless of the originator of this request, so that they do not delay the team's work.

This list is a resource intended both for researchers, who will need to orient themselves in their publishing process, and for the rest of the people, journalists or readers, who will want reliable scientific information.

Summary

   Introduction

   Part I - Base of the list

   Part II - Additions to the list

      Subpart 1 - Conditions of addition

         Section A - Financial transparency

            Subsection a - Low transparency

            Subsection b - Non-existent transparency

         Section B - Quality of peer review

            Subsection a - Questionable peer review

            Subsection b - Non-existent peer review

         Section C - Expertise of the editorial board

         Section D - Veracity of the information disseminated

         Section E - Protection of intellectual property

         Section F - Qualifications required

            Subsection a - "Peer-reviewed" term

            Subsection b - "Scientific journal" and "scientific publisher" terms

      Subpart 2 - Procedures for adding

         Section A - Reports

         Section B - Preliminary inquiry

         Section C - Opening of the examination

         Section D - Comprehensive investigation

            Subsection a - Questions

            Subsection b - Content examination

         Section E - Conclusions

         Section F - Definitive additions

            Subsection a - By default

            Subsection b - As a penalty

   Part III - Instructions

      Subpart 1 - Reporting issuers

      Subpart 2 - In Professor GEORGES office

         Section A - Communications with reporting issuers

         Section B - Communications with publishers and journals

         Section C - Communications with stolen, swindled, scamed, plagiarized, or hijacked researchers

         Section D - Languages

      Subpart 3 - Publishers and journals added to the list

   Part IV - Conditions of withdrawal

      Subpart 1 - Office errors

      Subpart 2 - Demands for probation

   Part V - Publications related to the list

   Part VI - Reactions

      Subpart 1 - Threats

      Subpart 2 - Public attacks

   Part VII - Evolution of the rules

   Part VIII - Relations with judicial institutions

   Part IX - Responsibility

   Conclusion

 

Introduction

   The Dolos list records predatory or parasitic publishers as well as unreliable or pseudoscientific independent journals. Newspapers disseminating false scientific information or lacking a minimum process of verification and journalistic ethics could also be mentioned.

   The administrator and sole responsible for the Dolos List is Professor GEORGES. He is the sole financier and it is impossible for anyone else to participate in its financing.

   The Dolos list team, the office, is responsible for executing the procedures and processing suggestions and requests. Apart from the lack of scientific content and the quality of the peer review, it can determine whether or not a publisher or journal meets the requirements for admission to the list.

Part I - Base of the list

   The list is obviously based on the reruns of the Beall's List, including:

https://beallslist.weebly.com

   However, each case has been re-examined. Indeed, although relying on initial estimates, the office looked for possible changes in status. This has helped to remove from the list of journals that have been bought by publishers whose seriousness is not in doubt.

   This re-study allowed to assert all the responsibility of Professor GEORGES, who will assume every name written on this blacklist.

Part II - Additions to the list

      Subpart 1 - Conditions of addition

         Section A - Financial transparency

            Subsection a - Low transparency

   Low transparency on publication fees will not always lead to an addition. These cases will, however, be carefully examined and an addition will not can be ruled out at the preliminary inquiry.

            Subsection b - Non-existent transparency

   An absence of transparency on publication fees will always lead to an addition to the list.

         Section B - Quality of peer review

            Subsection a - Questionable peer review

   A doubt about the peer review or highlighting of a questionable or low-quality article in a journal will not always lead to an addition. These cases will, however, be carefully examined.

            Subsection b - Non-existent peer review

   A publisher or journal promoting a peer review that does not exist will be added to the list.

         Section C - Expertise of the editorial board

   A questionable editorial board will probably lead to an addition to the list.

         Section D - Veracity of the information disseminated

   The dissemination of pseudoscientific information, in the form of articles presented as eminently true, will systematically lead to an addition to the list.

         Section E - Protection of intellectual property

   A lack of consideration for the intellectual property of individuals, including authors, will systematically lead to an addition to the list.

         Section F - Qualifications required

            Subsection a - "Peer-reviewed" term

   The use of the term "peer-reviewed journal" implies that the peer review will have to be serious. The reason set forth in Section B of this Subpart is only valid in the situation where the journal or publisher highlights a peer review. Otherwise, the publisher or journal may still be involved in section D of the same subpart.

            Subsection b - "Scientific journal" and "scientific publisher" terms

   As noted above, a journal or publisher disseminating false scientific information, while using the terms "scientific publisher" or "scientific journal" will be added to the list. This is not a question of censorship of new points of view, but of the requirement of a viable scientific method for scholary publishers and scientific journals.

      Subpart 2 - Procedures for adding

         Section A - Reports

   Anyone is free to report on a publisher or journal. All suggestions are treated with care and it will not be asked to the issuer of the sigally to justify its approach. It will be up to the office to gather the elements to determine whether or not the reported case should lead to an addition.

   Although a certain amount of information about the reporting issuer is required within the contact form, it will not be shared, disseminated or even kept. Indeed, within 48 hours after their opening, the messages are erased, in order to preserve the anonymity of their sender. In this way, Professor GEORGES will remain solely responsible for the content of the list.

   Only the e-mail address accompanied by the identity of the reporting issuer will be kept in a 7-day security period and in a separate file - without the message. The office will so can contact him. if its members believe that the interests of the reporting issuer require it. In most cases, it will not be transmitted to the reporting issuer the result of the examination, reserving this possibility to situations where the reporting issuer may need information in his interest.

         Section B - Preliminary inquiry

   When a case is reported or a publisher or journal is found by the office, a preliminary inquiry begins, which will consist of a first study of the case in question.

   If it is considered that the case is not worrying, it will then be transmitted a notification to the publisher or the journal informing it of this positive examination.

   If it is estimated that the publisher or journal meets at least one of the systematic addition conditions, it is added to the list. This fact will be notified to him, as fast as possible

   If doubt persists, an examination is opened.

         Section C - Opening of the examination

   At the opening of the examination, a notification is sent to the publisher or journal. An examination does not always lead to an addition, but it is still advisable to expect and respond to interrogations issued from the office quickly. An examination takes place over a period of 7 days, before a final decision is taken.

         Section D - Comprehensive investigation

            Subsection a - Questions

   In order to carry out the examination, the office may address a series of questions to the publisher or the journal, which will be the result of questions that arose during the preliminary inquiry. Without answer, the office will be based on its doubts and the other elements.

            Subsection b - Content examination

   The examination of the content consists of an examination by experts of the field covered by the publisher or the journal, which will decide on its seriousness and, if it can, its veracity. In Physics, cases will, for the most part, be studied by Professor GEORGES.

         Section E - Conclusions

   The conclusions are issued at the end of the examination period and must be approved by Professor GEORGES or his Executive Secretary, in order to be effective. Professor GEORGES may not be consulted on most cases, but he will retain full responsibility for all the contents of the list.

         Section F - Definitive additions

            Subsection a - By default

   Certain elements deemed dangerous for public health or civil society will be added permanently.

            Subsection b - As a penalty

   In the event of a threat to the office, the addition to the list of a journal or publisher is final.

Part III - Instructions

      Subpart 1 - Reporting issuers

   To submit another suspect publisher or journal, please use the contact section of this website and indicate in subject: Dolos list - request for addition. Please be as clear as possible about the reasons for your doubts and send us the links in the form "https: //..." so that the request is processed as efficiently as possible.

      Subpart 2 - In Professor GEORGES office

         Section A - Communications with reporting issuers

   Any communication with a reporting issuer will be done in the most respectful and open-minded possible. The office will never judge the honesty or seriousness of a reporting issuer. It will only be responsible for reviewing the suggested journal or publisher.

         Section B - Communications with publishers and journals

   Communications with publishers or journals will not necessarily be exhaustive. The questions should be precise and the notifications should be brief.

         Section C - Communications with stolen, swindled, scamed, plagiarized, or hijacked researchers

   In order to best protect researchers, Professor Georges will attach great importance to being warned if their intellectual property is not respected or if their name is usurped. This is one of the priorities of the office.

         Section D - Languages

   It is possible that for the sake of clarity or speed of treatment, the messages are written by the office in French. The rest of the time, emails will be written in English.

   The French and English languages will be preferred for the reports, but this is not an obligation in this case.

   Journals and publishers will have to write systematically in French or in English.

      Subpart 3 - Publishers and journals added to the list

   It will be preferable that the journals and publishers added to the list adopt an approach of acceptance and change of their practices. Threats taken seriously may be subject to permanent addition or prosecution.

Part IV - Conditions of withdrawal

      Subpart 1 - Office errors

   The main reason for an immediate withdrawal from the list would be an office mistake. In this case, the case will be re-examined and, if the error is approved by Professor GEORGES or his Executive Secretary, the item will be removed from the list

      Subpart 2 - Demands for probation

   A journal or publisher may apply for probation. Probation will consist of a prolonged study over 6 years during which the journal or the publisher will have to behave irreproachably. At the end of these 6 years, Professor GEORGES or his Executive Secretary may decide to withdraw the item in question.

   As an exception, a journal added to the list that would be bought by a very serious publisher could be withdrawn as soon as possible.

Part V - Publications related to the list

   The office will certainly have to produce regularly statements for the authorities and the research sectorn, openletters to journals and publishers, information articles, or miscellaneous releases in the statements section.

Part VI - Reactions

      Subpart 1 - Threats

   Threats taken seriously may be subject to permanent addition or prosecution.

      Subpart 2 - Public attacks

   Threats taken seriously may be subject to prosecution or public reactions, ideally targeted.

   In accordance with the legislation and with the accepted principles within the office, a public attack, which would be characterized criminally, towards one of the employees of the Professor GEORGES' office will lead obligatorily and without delay to a request of opening of judicial information.

Part VII - Evolution of the rules

   The modifications made to the present rules are decided by Professor GEORGES, who will appreciate, however, that suggestions be made to him on the ResearchGate discussion provided for this purpose :

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Dolos_list_a_new_list_of_predatory_publishers_and_journals

Part VIII - Relations with judicial institutions

   The office have the duty to seize the competent authorities if a criminal action is highlighted. The office will have the duty to seize the competent authorities if a criminal or criminal action is highlighted. It is important to note that fraud and identity theft are reprehensible, regardless of the country in which the publisher or journal operates.

Part IX - Responsibility

   The full responsibility for the contents of the list belongs to Professor Alexandre GEORGES - and I vouch for my office the accuracy of the information provided. He is the sole legal representative of this initiative and has the full financial burden - which is important in this area.

Conclusion

   The goal of the Dolos list is to be a useful resource for researchers, journalists, and other readers.

   Predatory journals harm the sharing of results and works, the scientific community, and, more broadly, the research sector. Indeed, the lack of scientific rigor makes difficult to access reliable information for the public and the press and is harmful to the sharing of information by scientists.

   I do not know if predatory publishers and journals will disappear one day, but if this list can at least help reduce the importane of this market and the dissemination of pseudoscientific information, it will be a success.

Sincerely yours,

Professor Alexandre GEORGES,
Theoretical Physicist.