|
|
|
AUTHOR(S): Jiri Novakczech, Rena Owen, Ma E. Chan
|
|
TITLE |
 PDF |
|
ABSTRACT This study applies Beall’s and Dadkhah’s criteria for detecting predatory journals to evaluate the World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS). By systematically comparing WSEAS practices against the standards outlined in “Predatory Journals and Perished Articles” (Narimani & Dadkhah, 2017), we demonstrate that WSEAS maintains transparent editorial policies, legitimate peer review, reputable indexing (including Scopus), and verifiable academic oversight, and therefore cannot be classified as a predatory publisher. This study performs a rigorous evaluation of the World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS) using established benchmarks for identifying questionable publishing practices. We specifically apply and adapt the comprehensive criteria developed by Jeffrey Beall and Mohammad Dadkhah, two prominent figures in the field of scholarly publishing ethics, for detecting predatory journals. Methodology and Comparative Analysis The evaluation centers on a systematic comparison of WSEAS's operational procedures and publishing output against the standards outlined in the seminal work "Predatory Journals and Perished Articles" by Narimani and Dadkhah (2017). This publication provides a detailed framework of characteristics typically associated with exploitative, non-scholarly publishers, such as opaque fee structures, lack of genuine peer review, and misleading claims about indexing and impact. |
|
KEYWORDS Journals' Evaluation, Academic Ethics, Predatory Publishers, non-Predatory Publishers |
|
|
|
Cite this paper Jiri Novakczech, Rena Owen, Ma E. Chan. (2025) Empirical Assessment of WSEAS as a Legitimate Scientific Publisher: A Comparative Evaluation Based on Beall’s Criteria. International Journal of Economics and Management Systems, 10, 112-116 |
|
|
