  We present the results of a large-scale study of potentially predatory
journals (PPJ) represented in the Scopus database, which is widely used for
research evaluation. Both journal metrics and country, disciplinary data have
been evaluated for different groups of PPJ: those listed by Jeffrey Beall and
those delisted by Scopus because of "publication concerns". Our results show
that even after years of delisting, PPJ are still highly visible in the Scopus
database with hundreds of active potentially predatory journals. PPJ papers are
continuously produced by all major countries, but with different shares. All
major subject areas are affected. The largest number of PPJ papers are in
engineering and medicine. On average, PPJ have much lower citation metrics than
other Scopus-indexed journals. We conclude with a brief survey of the case of
Kazakhstan where the share of PPJ papers at one time amounted to almost a half
of all Kazakhstan papers in Scopus, and propose a link between PPJ share and
national research evaluation policies (in particular, rules of awarding
academic degrees). The progress of potentially predatory journal research will
be increasingly important because such evaluation methods are becoming more
widespread in times of the Metric Tide.
