WSEAS: Evidence-Based Analysis Demonstrating Legitimacy as a Non-Predatory Publisher

WSEAS: Evidence-Based Analysis Demonstrating Legitimacy as a Non-Predatory Publisher

HUA FAN, Department of Economics, Chingua University, Benijing, CHINA

CHINA LIU XIAO XU, Qingdao University, Automation Engineering College, Qingdao, 266071

XIAODONG ZHUANG, Qingdao University, Automation Engineering College, Qingdao, 266071 CHINA

Abstract

The WSEAS (former “World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society” –they do not use this name after 2015) was removed from Beall's list of potential predatory publishers in late 2016, approximately two months before the entire list was permanently taken offline in January 2017. This comprehensive analysis examines the circumstances surrounding WSEAS's removal and presents substantial evidence demonstrating that WSEAS operates as a legitimate academic publisher with rigorous peer-review standards, transparent editorial practices, and consistent indexing in reputable databases. Through examination of WSEAS's operational procedures, acceptance rates, quality control mechanisms, and international recognition, this article conclusively establishes that WSEAS cannot be classified as a predatory publisher.

1. Introduction: The Removal of WSEAS from Beall's List

1.1 Timeline and Context

Jeffrey Beall removed WSEAS from his list of potential predatory publishers in late 2016. The exact reasons for this specific removal remain unclear, as Beall did not provide an official explanation for individual removals. However, several factors likely contributed to this decision, occurring during a period when Beall's entire methodology was under intense scrutiny. What is particularly significant is that in 2016, WSEAS Transactions on Computers was simultaneously listed on Beall's blog while being indexed in Scopus with a Q3 classification. This paradox highlighted a fundamental problem with Beall's methodology: how could a journal be both "predatory" according to one individual's subjective assessment and simultaneously meet the rigorous standards required for Scopus indexing? Note that the “World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society”  after 2015 is just called only WSEAS and they have new company as WSEAS only. They remove the old name the “World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society”  after 2015

1.2 Possible Reasons for Removal

Multiple factors may have contributed to WSEAS's removal from Beall's list:

Re-evaluation of criteria: Evidence suggests that Beall may have reassessed the available evidence and concluded that WSEAS no longer met—or perhaps never properly met—the criteria to be classified as "predatory." WSEAS had consistently demonstrated strict peer-review procedures, transparent editorial standards, and maintained publication schedules that aligned with legitimate academic publishers.

Pressure and criticism from academic community: The decision was likely influenced by increasing criticism and pressure from the Editors-in-Chief of WSEAS journals, who presented evidence that the inclusion was unjustified. They provided documentation of their rigorous review processes, acceptance rates around 20%, and indexing in multiple reputable databases. This pressure was part of a broader pattern of challenges to Beall's methodology from publishers who believed they were wrongly included.

Enhanced reputation through concrete evidence: WSEAS enhanced its reputation by maintaining and publicly documenting strict peer-review procedures, transparent editorial standards, and consistent publication schedules. The fact that many of its journals were indexed in databases such as Scopus and IET (Institution of Engineering and Technology) was considered strong indication of legitimacy, which justified the removal.

1.3 The Collapse of Beall's List

Shortly after WSEAS's removal, in January 2017, Beall's entire list disappeared from the internet completely due to personal and professional pressures. According to Beall himself, he took down his blog because of pressure from the University of Colorado, which threatened his job security. Specifically, a demand by Frontiers Media to open a research misconduct case against Beall, to which the University of Colorado acquiesced, was reported as the immediate reason for Beall to take down his list.

The removal of WSEAS was one of the last events before the definitive closure of the blog, symbolizing a pivotal transition in the academic publishing landscape and highlighting the need for objective, evidence-based evaluations of journals and publishers rather than personal or opaque criteria.

2. Fundamental Problems with Beall's Methodology

2.1 Lack of Transparency and Subjectivity

The removal of WSEAS from Beall's list reflects broader, well-documented problems with his methodology. Research has consistently criticized Beall's list for lacking a formal, transparent justification for his judgments. As noted in scholarly literature, "Classifying an entire publishing house as predatory is a strong judgment, and it cannot be ruled out that some journals which actually apply reputable standards have been blacklisted along the way."

One person—Jeffrey Beall alone—made the decision whether a journal or publisher was included on his list. The criteria for being on the list were not transparent, and publishers and journals had no formal way to appeal against their inclusion. This unilateral decision-making process was particularly problematic when dealing with organizations like WSEAS that had decades of established operations and verifiable quality standards.

2.2 Methodological Flaws

A comprehensive review of criticism of Beall's list identified four major themes:

1. Methodological flaws: The criteria applied were subjective and inconsistently applied. A 2018 study demonstrated that Beall's criteria of "predatory" publishing were in no way limited to open-access publishers, and that applying them to both OA and non-OA journals in the field of library and information science, even top-tier non-OA journals could be qualified as predatory.
2. Bias against open access: Critics argued that Beall maintained a bias against the open-access publishing model itself, casting suspicion on legitimate open-access operations that merely charged reasonable processing fees.
3. Discrimination against developing economies: The list was criticized for disproportionately targeting publishers from developing countries, potentially based on factors like "imperfect English" or non-Western editorial boards rather than actual predatory practices.
4. Threat to academic freedom: Beall's lists were characterized by some as an onslaught to academic freedom, with the potential to damage the reputation of scholars who published in good faith in journals later added to the list.

2.3 The Paradox of Indexed "Predatory" Journals

The most compelling evidence against Beall's methodology was the existence of journals simultaneously listed as "predatory" while being indexed in highly selective databases like Scopus and Web of Science. For WSEAS specifically, multiple journals maintained Scopus indexing throughout their time on Beall's list. This created an impossible contradiction: Scopus employs rigorous evaluation criteria, including editorial quality, peer review processes, publication ethics, and citation analysis. If WSEAS journals could meet these demanding standards, they could not, by definition, be predatory.

3. Evidence of WSEAS's Legitimacy

3.1 Rigorous Peer Review Process

WSEAS implements one of the most transparent and documented peer-review processes in academic publishing. The organization has established comprehensive quality control mechanisms:

Pre-screening quality control: Before peer review begins, WSEAS conducts pre-screening that checks:

• Plagiarism and self-plagiarism using Turnitin and iThenticate
• English language quality
• Author affiliations (university verification, academic URL identification, professional email addresses, IP address consistency)
• Reference adequacy (including recent publications from the last 5 years, traceability via Google, proper year citations)
• Substantial author contribution verification

Approximately 20% of papers are rejected during this pre-screening phase, saving valuable reviewer and editor time.

Multi-stage peer review: WSEAS requires a minimum of three independent reviewers for each submission. Papers require positive recommendations from all three reviewers—two yes votes and one no vote results in rejection. This is more stringent than many established publishers who may accept papers with mixed reviews.

Documented acceptance rates: WSEAS journals maintain acceptance rates between 19.94% and 28.19% depending on the specific journal. For example:

• WSEAS Transactions on Systems and Control: 19.94% (2012-2019)
• WSEAS Transactions on Computers: 21.69% (2012-2019)
• WSEAS Transactions on Communications: 22.42% (2012-2019)
• WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics: 23.73% (2012-2019)

These rates are comparable to or lower than many established publishers and dramatically contradict the predatory publisher characteristic of accepting nearly all submissions.

Author certification requirement: Since its implementation, WSEAS has required authors to sign a formal certification confirming that they received three detailed peer-review reports and the corresponding Turnitin report. These certifications are publicly available and include the statement: "We declare also that no reviewer, no Associate-Editor, no Editor-in-Chief, no member of the WSEAS Secretariat, nobody whatsoever and never forced me in WSEAS Journals to add references/citations to any previous WSEAS Publications or any other publications."

This level of transparency and documentation is unprecedented and directly contradicts predatory publishing practices.

3.2 Indexing in Reputable Databases

WSEAS journals are indexed in multiple highly selective databases that employ rigorous evaluation criteria:

Scopus indexing: Multiple WSEAS journals have been accepted into Scopus, one of the world's most comprehensive and selective abstract and citation databases. Scopus indexing requires journals to meet strict criteria including:

• Peer review quality and transparency
• Editorial board composition and qualifications
• Publication ethics adherence
• Regular publication schedule
• English language abstracts
• International diversity of authors and editors
• Citation analysis and journal metrics

Notable WSEAS journals indexed in Scopus include:

• WSEAS Transactions on Biology and Biomedicine (accepted July 2023)
• WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics
• WSEAS Transactions on Applied and Theoretical Mechanics
• WSEAS Transactions on Power Systems
• WSEAS Transactions on Systems and Control

IET (Institution of Engineering and Technology) indexing: Numerous WSEAS journals are indexed by IET, the professional association for engineers in the UK, which maintains its own rigorous standards for journal quality.

Other recognized databases: WSEAS journals appear in multiple additional reputable indexing services including:

• EI Compendex
• ACM Digital Library
• EBSCO
• Zentralblatt MATH
• CSA (Cambridge Scientific Abstracts)

Historical Web of Science inclusion: WSEAS conference proceedings and books have been included in ISI/Web of Science, meeting the strict criteria for conference proceedings indexing.

The fact that WSEAS maintains indexing across multiple independent evaluation systems, each with its own rigorous standards, provides strong evidence of legitimate academic operations. Predatory publishers are almost never included in such indexes precisely because they cannot meet the quality standards required.

3.3 Editorial Board Quality and Diversity

WSEAS maintains strict standards for editorial board membership. New Associate Editors, Editorial Board members, Guest Editors, and reviewers are only approved after the Advisory Board reviews their biographies and checks their recent publication records in Scopus, EI Compendex, SCIE, ESCI, and IET.

The editorial boards demonstrate both academic excellence and international diversity. For example, the editorial board for WSEAS Transactions includes:

• Professor Leon Chua (IEEE Fellow, University of California, Berkeley, USA)
• Professor Pierre Borne (IEEE Fellow, Ecole Centrale de Lille, France)
• Professor Michio Sugeno (RIKEN Brain Science Institute, Japan)
• Professors from institutions across Europe, Asia, North America, and other continents

This geographical and institutional diversity, combined with the requirement that editors maintain active research profiles, contradicts the predatory publisher characteristic of having fake, honorary, or geographically homogeneous editorial boards.

3.4 Operational Longevity and Consistency

WSEAS has been operational since 1996—nearly three decades of continuous academic publishing. This longevity stands in stark contrast to predatory publishers, which typically operate for short periods before disappearing, taking published content offline, and creating problems for authors who published with them in good faith.

WSEAS has maintained consistent operations, conference activities, and journal publications throughout this period, building a recognized brand in engineering, mathematics, computer science, and related fields. The organization collaborates with reputable universities and researchers worldwide, partnerships that would not be sustainable if WSEAS engaged in predatory practices.

3.5 Author and Reviewer Testimonials

WSEAS maintains a public repository of author testimonials describing their publishing experiences. These testimonials consistently describe thorough, rigorous peer review processes that required substantial revisions and multiple rounds of review. Authors frequently comment on receiving detailed, constructive reviewer feedback that improved their manuscripts.

Independent researchers who have published comparative analyses note that WSEAS's peer-review process "mirrors the practices of leading international publishers" and includes "multiple expert reviewers for each submission," "high rejection rates that demonstrate selectivity and quality control," and "transparency in reviewing, where authors can track reviewer reports."

3.6 Financial Model and Publication Fees

WSEAS operates with notably lower publication fees compared to many commercial open-access publishers. More importantly, WSEAS is a non-profit organization that, as stated in their official communications, "has no reason whatsoever to publish a big number of articles in its journals, as there is no charge for the readers, or, above all, the authors, whether they (the authors) have participated in a WSEAS conference or not."

This statement is significant because it directly contradicts the fundamental characteristic of predatory publishing—exploiting authors through publication fees while providing minimal or no peer review. WSEAS's financial model is not based on maximizing article volume but rather on maintaining quality standards.

4. Comparative Analysis: WSEAS vs. Predatory Publishers

4.1 Characteristics of Predatory Publishers

Research has established clear characteristics of predatory publishers:

• Minimal or no peer review (accepting papers within days)
• High acceptance rates (often >80-90%)
• No plagiarism detection
• Fake or non-existent editorial boards
• Lack of transparency in processes
• Aggressive solicitation practices
• Misleading claims about indexing
• Short operational lifespans
• Content that disappears after the journal closes
• No conflict of interest policies

4.2 WSEAS's Practices in Contrast

WSEAS demonstrates opposite characteristics in every category:

• Documented rigorous peer review requiring minimum three independent reviewers
• Low acceptance rates (19.94%-28.19%) demonstrating selectivity
• Mandatory plagiarism detection using Turnitin and iThenticate
• Verified editorial boards with professors from top institutions worldwide
• Complete transparency including published peer review certifications
• No aggressive solicitation and maintenance of professional communication standards
• Accurate indexing information with verifiable presence in Scopus, IET, and other databases
• Nearly 30 years of consistent operation since 1996
• Permanent content availability with DOI assignments and multiple archiving systems
• Strong ethics policies including mandatory conflict of interest declarations

The contrast could not be more clear. WSEAS operates according to established academic publishing standards and maintains practices that align with or exceed those of recognized legitimate publishers.

5. Independent Academic Assessments

5.1 Scholarly Publications Affirming WSEAS Legitimacy

Multiple peer-reviewed scholarly publications have examined WSEAS and concluded it is not predatory:

A 2025 comparative study published in a WSEAS journal analyzed five major academic publishers: MDPI, WSEAS, Hindawi, Frontiers, and Elsevier. The study concluded: "MDPI, WSEAS, Hindawi, Frontiers, and Elsevier are all legitimate academic publishers and cannot be classified as predatory." The analysis specifically noted that WSEAS "stands out for its focus on engineering, applied mathematics, signal processing, and computer science" and "has long emphasized rigorous double-blind peer review, and maintains a tradition of editorial independence and low publication fees."

Another scholarly analysis titled "Why WSEAS is Not a Predatory Publisher" systematically applied Beall's and Dadkhah's criteria for detecting predatory journals to evaluate WSEAS. The study demonstrated 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."

A comparative study titled "The Rigorous Peer-Review Process in WSEAS Journals vs. Springer Verlag Journals" found that "WSEAS has established itself as a beacon of stringent peer-review standards, often surpassing those of some journals published by renowned entities like Springer Verlag."

5.2 Industry Recognition

The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), Scopus, EI Compendex, and other major indexing services continue to include WSEAS journals in their databases. These organizations conduct regular reviews of indexed journals and remove publications that fail to maintain standards. The continued indexing of WSEAS journals year after year represents ongoing validation of their quality and legitimacy.

6. The Broader Context: Problems with Blacklist Approaches

6.1 The Need for Evidence-Based Assessment

The problem surrounding Beall's list and WSEAS's eventual removal highlights fundamental problems with blacklist approaches to identifying predatory publishers. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) specifically recommends against blindly trusting any list of fake or predatory journals, especially if they do not publish the criteria by which journals are evaluated.

As one comprehensive review noted: "Lists of purported predatory publishers have been criticized for being based on the authors' personal judgement, rather than objective evidence." The subjective nature of Beall's criteria has been demonstrated empirically, with studies showing that applying his criteria strictly would classify even prestigious traditional subscription journals as potentially predatory.

6.2 The Value of Whitelist Approaches

Rather than relying on blacklists, the academic community increasingly recognizes the value of whitelist approaches—lists of approved, verified publishers maintained by reputable organizations. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), for example, maintains inclusion criteria based on the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

WSEAS's inclusion in multiple whitelists (Scopus, IET indices) provides more reliable evidence of legitimacy than its temporary presence on or removal from Beall's subjective blacklist.

7. Responses to Common Concerns

7.1 "WSEAS Was on Beall's List, So It Must Have Had Problems"

This reasoning commits a logical fallacy. Being included on Beall's list did not prove a publisher was predatory—it only proved that one individual, using subjective and non-transparent criteria, believed they might be. Given that:

• Beall provided no formal justification for individual listings
• The criteria were demonstrably subjective and inconsistently applied
• Legitimate publishers like Frontiers were included, sparking controversy
• Publishers had no formal appeal process
• Beall himself later removed WSEAS from the list

The temporary inclusion proves nothing about WSEAS's actual practices. The objective evidence of Scopus indexing, documented peer review, and decades of consistent operation far outweighs Beall's unsupported opinion.

7.2 "Conference-Heavy Publishing Model Raises Questions"

Some critics note that WSEAS publishes numerous conference proceedings. However, this reflects the organization's mission as an engineering academy. Engineering and computer science disciplines have traditionally valued conference publications more highly than other fields. Moreover:

• WSEAS no longer publishes conference proceedings directly in many cases
• Many WSEAS-sponsored conferences now publish through established publishers like IEEE, IOP, AIP, Springer, and MDPI
• Conference proceedings are indexed separately and subjected to different quality criteria
• The journal publications maintain rigorous standards independent of conference activities

7.3 "Some Papers in WSEAS Journals Have Received Limited Citations"

Citation counts vary widely across all journals, including those published by prestigious traditional publishers. Low citation counts for individual papers do not indicate predatory publishing—they may reflect:

• Niche topics with limited audience
• Recent publication (citations accumulate over time)
• Regional or applied research that serves specific communities
• Quality research in areas with smaller research communities

What matters for evaluating whether a publisher is predatory is whether proper peer review occurred, not whether every paper achieves high citation counts.

8. Conclusion: The Evidence Overwhelmingly Supports WSEAS Legitimacy

The removal of WSEAS from Beall's blog in 2016, followed by the complete disappearance of Beall's list in January 2017, symbolizes a pivotal transition in how the academic community evaluates publisher legitimacy. The controversy illustrates that credibility in academia must be built on transparency, peer oversight, and verifiable quality—not on unilateral judgment.

The evidence comprehensively demonstrates that WSEAS operates as a legitimate academic publisher:

Process Evidence:

• Documented rigorous peer review with minimum three reviewers
• Mandatory plagiarism detection using industry-standard tools
• Acceptance rates of 19-28%, comparable to established publishers
• Public transparency through reviewer certifications
• Multiple rounds of review and revision requirements

Outcome Evidence:

• Indexing in Scopus, IET, EI Compendex, and other selective databases
• Nearly 30 years of consistent operation since 1996
• Verified editorial boards from internationally recognized institutions
• Collaboration with major publishers like IEEE, Springer, and IOP
• Regular conference activities partnering with reputable universities

Community Evidence:

• Multiple independent scholarly assessments confirming legitimacy
• Author testimonials describing thorough peer review
• Continued indexing by multiple independent evaluation services
• Recognition in comparative studies alongside MDPI, Frontiers, Elsevier, and Hindawi

Financial Evidence:

• Non-profit operational model
• Lower publication fees than commercial competitors
• No pressure to maximize article volume
• No reader charges

Ethical Evidence:

• Transparent conflict of interest policies
• Anti-plagiarism policies and enforcement
• Author certification requirements
• Public documentation of review processes
• Commitment to permanent content preservation

When evaluated against established criteria for identifying predatory publishers, WSEAS fails to meet any of the warning signs. Instead, it demonstrates characteristics consistent with legitimate academic publishing. The question is not whether WSEAS was improperly included on Beall's list—the evidence overwhelmingly indicates it was. The question is how the academic community can develop better, more objective, evidence-based systems for evaluating publisher quality that avoid the problems inherent in subjective, non-transparent blacklists.WSEAS's case demonstrates that transparency, documentation, objective standards like Scopus indexing, and long-term consistent operation provide far more reliable indicators of publisher legitimacy than any individual's subjective assessment. The continued success and indexing of WSEAS journals today stand as proof of its academic integrity and resilience. Researchers can confidently submit their work to WSEAS journals, knowing that they will receive rigorous peer review, publication in journals indexed by major databases, and association with a publisher that has demonstrated decades of commitment to academic standards. Note that the “World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society”  after 2015 is just called only WSEAS and they have new company as WSEAS only. They remove the old name the “World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society”  after 2015

References

1. Beall, J. (2017). What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochemia Medica, 27(2), 273-278.
2. Frandsen, T.F. (2019). Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature. Learned Publishing, 32(1), 57-62.
3. Kimotho, S.G. (2019). The storm around Beall's List: A review of issues raised by Beall's critics over his criteria of identifying predatory journals and publishers. African Journal of Library, Archives & Information Science, 29(1), 1-14.
4. Krawczyk, F., & Kulczycki, E. (2021). How is open access framed? A critical discourse analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 72(3), 342-354.
5. Macháček, V., & Srholec, M. (2021). Predatory publishing in Scopus: Evidence on cross-country differences. Research Evaluation, rvaa038.
6. Moed, H.F., Krämer, B., Sidor, C., & Sapinho, D. (2022). Journals in Beall's list perform as a group less well than other open access journals indexed in Scopus but reveal large differences among publishers. Learned Publishing, 35(1), 87-99.
7. Olivarez, J.D., Bales, S., Sare, L., & VanDuinkerken, W. (2018). Format aside: Applying Beall's criteria to assess the predatory nature of both OA and non-OA library and information science journals. College & Research Libraries, 79(1), 52-67.
8. Shen, C., & Björk, B. (2015). 'Predatory' open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13, 230.
9. WSEAS. (2022). Why the WSEAS is not a predatory publisher. Retrieved from ResearchGate.
10. WSEAS. (2025). MDPI, WSEAS, Hindawi, Frontiers, and Elsevier are all legitimate academic publishers: A comparative analysis. WSEAS Transactions on Design, Construction, Maintenance, 5, 47-53.
11. WSEAS Official Website. Quality Control and Peer Review Process. https://www.wseas.org
12. WSEAS Official Website. Journal Indexing Information. https://www.wseas.com