Listed here are academics who serve (knowingly or otherwise) as editors for unscrupulous ‘predatory’ publishers, or publish in their journals, or promote their conferences by acting as speakers or committee members. Note the caveat: knowingly or otherwise. Using names and affiliations without consulting the people concerned is standard practice in the corrupt open access scholarly publishing industry.

There are two lists. The first is arranged alphabetically, the second is arranged in order of the number of alliances, that is, the degree of apparent culpability. What follows below refers to that second list.

It must not be the case that the people listed here are guilty until proven innocent. On the other hand, it is impossible to tell which, without some statement from the person concerned. Even articles, which are vanishingly unlikely to be cases of stolen identity, could have been published in good (ignorant) faith with corrupt and criminal publishers. So how is an academic’s inclusion to be justified? Well, let’s deal with the lower, longer string of names first. Consider it as just a heads-up, an alert: “Hey, your record shows more or less extensive engagement with an underworld of ‘predatory’ publishers and/or conference marketers. Let’s have a conversation about that. The outcome will determine whether you stay there, get deleted, or get elevated into the upper, shorter string of names.” That upper string of names comprises the people who either offend knowingly and don’t care, or who ignore all efforts to engage on the matter. Of course this is complicated by what if anything a third party (their institutional superiors and integrity officers) have to say. That input will be noted wherever it is applicable.

And what is to be done with those who are not with any institution other than, in some cases, their own, or are untraceable and/or don’t reply to mail? Solution: each case gets judged on its own merits. There has to some other very compelling information if that person is to be included in the upper short list of unequivocal offenders. Such details should appear in the notes.

Bear in mind also that delisting takes only an acknowledgment of the problem and a minor alteration to an institutional bio and/or CV.