In reply to Cameron Neylon.

Hi Cameron,

Your example of explosive materials was helpful. The explosion is “publishing in a questionable journalâ€, all the content of both lists is justified, and their only limitation is omissions (note that I still conclude that both are incomplete). So, relying exclusively on a white list is secure, though it could make one miss a suitable journal, while relying exclusively on a black one is risky, because one may choose a questionable journal not included in the list.

So far, I agree with you, but you (and I) had to make a few major assumptions: “perfectâ€ lists, and exclusive reliance on a single list, black or white. But in practice, lists are imperfect (some more than others), and one can use both black and white lists when making a choice. For instance, while relying on DOAJ white list, I would certainly avoid the journals that falsely pretend to be in DOAJ (I consider them as fraudulent), and I would consider with much suspicion those flagged by DOAJ as “suspected [of] editorial misconductâ€, or “not adhering to Best practiceâ€.

The quality of DOAJ evaluation process, which I described briefly in my previous comment, justifies in my opinion the use of both its white and black lists.

These two issues (list quality and respective “safenessâ€ of black and white lists) are maybe separate from a theoretical point of view. However, they should not be considered separately when one discusses guidelines, one of these being, as we both agree, that choices should not be based solely upon lists.

We all know the limitations of these guidelines: busy researchers enjoy (need?) simple / simplistic solutions and answers. Considering that Beall’s list (missed by many, or so it seems) was often suggested as the definite answer, and that rumours have it that it will soon reincarnate, I think it’s important to assess the quality of existing lists, white or black.