Who is Jeffrey Beall?

Who is Jeffrey Beall?

by

Table of Contents

Introduction

Before the term “predatory journal” was a staple of every academic editor’s vocabulary, before university librarians whispered warnings about shady publishers charging authors for fake peer review, there was Jeffrey Beall. A quiet academic librarian from the University of Colorado Denver, Beall launched a blog that would shake the foundations of scholarly publishing. It was a one-man operation with global impact. His now-infamous “Beall’s List” cataloged open access publishers he deemed questionable, unethical, or downright fraudulent.

But as the list gained traction, so did the controversies. Accusations of bias, lack of transparency, and ideological warfare against open access made Beall as many enemies as admirers. And then—just as suddenly as he had appeared—he vanished. His blog disappeared in 2017. No warning. No farewell post. Just a dead URL and a growing mythology around his disappearance.

So, who exactly is Jeffrey Beall? A crusader against corruption? A librarian out of his depth? A cautionary tale about academic whistleblowing? This article dives deep into Beall’s work, the rise and fall of his blacklist, the debates he ignited, and the silence he left behind.

From Librarian to Watchdog: The Rise of Beall’s List

Jeffrey Beall was not a household name—unless you worked in scholarly communication. As a scholarly communications librarian at the University of Colorado Denver, he began noticing a disturbing trend around 2008. A flood of new open access publishers had started to emerge in the wake of the Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002) and the NIH Public Access Policy (2008). Many were legitimate, but others appeared to have little interest in editorial standards or peer review.

In response, Beall began compiling a list of what he called “potential, possible, or probable predatory” publishers. He published this list on a blog, Scholarly Open Access, launched in 2012. It was spartan—more like a cautionary noticeboard than a blog. But it struck a nerve. By 2014, his list had grown to include over 700 publishers and was cited in academic papers, news reports, and institutional policies.

Jeffrey Beall was meticulous, if controversial. He used a set of criteria to judge publishers, including lack of transparency, fake metrics, spam solicitations, and editorial board irregularities. But he did all this without a team, without legal support, and without the backing of a major institution. It was DIY whistleblowing.

The Problem of Predatory Journals

The context for Beall’s work was the rapid expansion of open access publishing. While open access democratized knowledge and reduced barriers for readers, it also created perverse incentives. Instead of making money from subscriptions, publishers began making money from authors, often through Article Processing Charges (APCs). In a perfect world, that fee covers peer review, editing, and dissemination. But unscrupulous publishers realized they could pocket the APC without doing the work.

The result? A deluge of journals that looked legitimate but lacked even the most basic scholarly integrity. No peer review. No archiving. No editorial standards. Fake impact factors and plagiarized content. Some even listed scholars as editors without their consent.

The stakes were high. Academics desperate to publish found themselves in the clutches of these outfits. Institutions struggled to evaluate faculty work. And the public, who often funds research, got access to content of dubious credibility. Into this chaos stepped Beall—and many were glad he did.

A Polarizing Figure in the Publishing World

Admiration poured in from academics, librarians, and journalists. Science writer John Bohannon, who authored the infamous 2013 “sting” published in Science where 157 journals accepted a fake paper, credited Beall for inspiring the investigation. “Beall’s list was a starting point,” Bohannon wrote.

But as Beall’s influence grew, so did the backlash. Critics accused him of lacking due process. Journals were blacklisted without appeal. Some claimed he was biased against the open access movement altogether. Beall, for his part, made no effort to hide his disdain. He frequently published blog posts criticizing open access as a threat to scholarly rigor and referred to some proponents as “open access fundamentalists.”

This position—valid or not—earned him enemies in high places. Groups like the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), which was building a whitelist, distanced themselves. Others argued that the rise of pay-to-publish models was not inherently predatory, and that Beall’s rigid binary—good versus bad, legitimate versus predatory—ignored the complexity of the publishing ecosystem.

The backlash wasn’t just rhetorical. Legal threats followed. In 2013, Canadian publisher OMICS—now infamous for its aggressive APC model and misleading practices—threatened Beall with a $1 billion lawsuit for defamation. OMICS would later be fined $50 million by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 2019 for deceptive practices. Beall, it turns out, had been onto something.

But his legal troubles weren’t just external. Reports suggest that his own institution, the University of Colorado Denver, began pressuring him to take down the list. According to an anonymous source cited by Inside Higher Ed, administrators grew uncomfortable with the growing legal risks. The university never made a public statement, but Beall reportedly felt “abandoned” and “unprotected.”

In January 2017, the blog was gone.

The Disappearance

There was no warning. No post explaining the decision. One day, Scholarly Open Access was online; the next, it wasn’t. The academic community scrambled to find answers. Was he sued? Fired? Silenced?

Beall has since confirmed that he took down the blog voluntarily, citing “threats and harassment” as a key factor. He also pointed to institutional politics—he felt isolated and unsupported by his university. In an interview later that year, he said, “I was a target from all sides. I just couldn’t keep going.”

The silence only fueled the speculation. Some saw it as a cautionary tale about the risks of whistleblowing. Others saw it as the end of an era. But the questions lingered: Why did no institution step in? Why wasn’t Beall’s work formally archived? And how is it that the one person trying to clean up academic publishing was the one driven into exile?

Legacy, Resurrection, and the List That Wouldn’t Die

Although the original Beall’s List disappeared, its ghost lives on. Several websites and repositories have since mirrored or continued his work, such as the anonymous “Stop Predatory Journals” project and various GitHub repositories. Some of these sources remain active, though without Beall’s involvement or endorsement.

Interestingly, the list’s absence also encouraged more community-based efforts. Cabells launched its own Blacklist and Whitelist in 2017, using a more transparent and criteria-based system. The DOAJ continued refining its vetting process. Journals began displaying badges of integrity. In a way, Beall’s departure forced the academic community to mature—to institutionalize what had been a solo endeavor.

Still, the list is cited today in academic papers, even in journals themselves. Despite its disappearance, Beall’s List retains mythic status in the academic world.

Beall’s Biases and the Open Access Debate

One of the most persistent criticisms of Beall was that he conflated predatory publishing with open access. Critics argued that his list disproportionately targeted open access publishers from the Global South, failing to acknowledge the structural inequalities in academic publishing. After all, why should APCs paid to Elsevier or Springer be considered more legitimate than those paid to lesser-known journals from India or Nigeria?

Beall’s response was unapologetic. He believed that the gold open access model—where authors pay to publish—was fundamentally flawed. He also argued that open access had created a market that rewarded quantity over quality, and that the peer review process was being undermined in favor of profitability.

It was a controversial stance, to say the least. Advocates of open access, including Peter Suber and Heather Joseph, accused Beall of fearmongering. They argued that open access was not the problem—lack of oversight and accountability was. But Beall never relented. And perhaps his bluntness was part of his effectiveness.

Where is Jeffrey Beall Now?

Since his blog’s disappearance, Jeffrey Beall has largely retreated from public discourse. He still resides in Colorado and continues his work as a librarian, albeit in a quieter capacity. In rare interviews, he has reiterated his concerns about the state of academic publishing but has shown little interest in rejoining the public debate.

Beall’s silence is striking, especially at a time when generative AI is creating new risks for academic fraud and when academic publishing has never been more global, digital, or decentralized. The predatory journal threat has evolved, but Beall remains on the sidelines.

Perhaps the battle aged him. Or perhaps he simply knew when to walk away. After all, his work wasn’t a career—it was a burden.

Conclusion: Hero, Cautionary Tale, or Both?

So, who is Jeffrey Beall?

A librarian. A whistleblower. A polarizing figure. A man who tried to warn the world that academic publishing had a parasite problem—and was punished for being too effective. He didn’t get rich, didn’t get tenure, and didn’t get a legacy institution to carry on his work. What he got was sued, harassed, and eventually sidelined.

Yet here we are, years later, still citing his list, still trying to fix the very system he critiqued. In a publishing world bloated by paywalls and plagued by impersonators, Beall’s voice—calm, stubborn, and flawed—still echoes.

Maybe that’s the greatest irony of all. For a man who tried so hard to name the dishonest actors in academia, it was the system itself that played him the dirtiest trick: silence.

Leave a comment