It seems like Beall’s list is down. I belong to the ones thinking that he did a great service to Science, and we need a replacement.
My idea is that publon reviewers could forward invitations to publish to publons in the same way as we forward the thank you for reviewing emails. Publons could then maintain a page connected to each publisher identifiable by the email contents. Here, there could be a way to add comments in the same way as for pubpeer.
The problem with both white and blacklists is of course that it is difficult for a new publisher to break in even if legit. This could be a way to give new publishers the benefit of doubt.
Sorry we've been slow to respond to your post. The disappearance of Beall's list is certainly a loss for science and we have been brainstorming what we can do to help researchers evaluate journals in its absence.
Are you asserting that any journal which actively solicits publications is not to be trusted? I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to think of the implications of your idea.
You'll see something from us on this front soon, probably in the next few weeks. In the mean time we've written a bit about how you can assess unfamiliar journals in lieu of Beall's list here: https://publons.com/blog/bealls-list-gone-but-not-lost/.
Hi, I suppose that trusted journals also advertises by email, but I think that it should be possible to single out journals that send many similar or identical requests if you have access to a good number of examples.
I have only used the Beall list before, although the DOAJ seems interesting. According to wikipedia, they have around 10 000 journals in their database, which seems a high number perhaps.