I was just checking back on this issue and note that OASPA has taken action against the journals identified in the sting.
http://oaspa.org/oaspas-second-statement-following-the-article-in-science-entitled-whos-afraid-of-peer-review/#more-1614
I also came across Phil Davis’ comment that
“Bohannon reports that Beall was good at spotting publishers with poor quality control (82% of publishers on his list accepted the manuscript). That means that Beall is falsely accusing nearly one in five as being a ”potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open access publisher” on appearances alone.”
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/10/04/open-access-sting-reveals-deception-missed-opportunities/
Jeffrey, I wonder have you responded to this somewhere? It would appear to be a pretty fundamental issue.
