I think that a convincing rebuttal of Mr. Beall’s evaluation must start with making available the (anonymized & full-text) peer reviews for, let’s say, all articles published in the last 3 issues.
I’ve seen something similar at http://www.sciencedomain.org , where the first published reviews under the “peer review history” seems genuine and (most of the times) written by experts who were able to make substantial comments and critiques. However, it is still dubious whether final acceptance decisions was made based on the expert’s comment or not, or if the company tried to “balance” negative expert peer evaluations with positive non-expert or even “fake” reviews or not. Maybe its worth to reevaluate this publisher sometimes in the future.
(disc. I’m not affiliated with sciencedomain or any of its journals)
