Six months later, he published an article in the journal Biochemia Medica claiming that pressure from his employer led to the blog shutdown,[3] although the university's official statement and a response by Beall's direct supervisor both disputed this account.
[15] In 2013, the OMICS Publishing Group threatened to sue Beall for $1 billion for his "ridiculous, baseless, [and] impertinent" inclusion of it on his list, which "smacks of literal unprofessionalism and arrogance".
[16] An unedited sentence from the letter read: "Let us at the outset warn you that this is a very perilous journey for you and you will be completely exposing yourself to serious legal implications including criminal cases lunched against you in INDIA and USA.
[19] The letter stated that three years in prison was a possible penalty, although a U.S. lawyer said that the threats seemed to be a "publicity stunt" that was meant to "intimidate".
Bohannon stated "the results show that Beall is good at spotting publishers with poor quality control".
[21] Notable publishing groups to pass this sting operation include PLoS One, Hindawi, and Frontiers Media.
[1][23] In 2015, four researchers created a fictitious sub-par scientist named Anna O. Szust (oszust is Polish for "fraud"), and applied on her behalf for an editor position to 360 scholarly journals.
By comparison, she received minimal to no positive response from the "control" journals which "must meet certain standards of quality, including ethical publishing practices.
sting operation led Phil Davis to state that "Beall is falsely accusing nearly one in five as being a 'potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open access publisher' on appearances alone.
Being mislabeled as a 'potential, possible, or probable predatory publisher' by circumstantial evidence alone is like the sheriff of a Wild West town throwing a cowboy into jail just 'cuz he's a little funny lookin.'
[29] City University of New York librarians Monica Berger and Jill Cirasella wrote that his views were biased against open-access journals from less economically developed countries.
[30] Berger and Cirasella argued that "imperfect English or a predominantly non-Western editorial board does not make a journal predatory".
"[30] However, for researchers in developing countries, the list has also been described as having been particularly important, as a result of lower access to institutional support for guidance on predatory publishers.
"[32] Anderson suggested that the term "predatory" be retired in the context of scholarly publishing: "It's a nice, attention-grabbing word, but I'm not sure it's helpfully descriptive... it generates more heat than light.
[37] The company later denied any relationship, and its vice president of business development declared that Beall "was forced to shut down blog due to threats and politics".