Open main menu

On June 15, 2017, the Beaumont, Texas–based company Cabell's International launched a blacklist of what it claims are predatory journals. Cabell's describes the blacklist as "the only blacklist of deceptive and predatory academic journals."[1]

Contents

SubscriptionEdit

Unlike Beall's List, which went offline permanently in early 2017, Cabell's blacklist is available on a subscription basis. Specifically, it is available either as a standalone product or as an "add-on" at a discounted rate to subscribers to at least one discipline on Cabell's whitelist.[1]

The company originally considered offering its blacklist for free. It then decided that the cost of building and maintaining their list was too high for a free service.[2]

CriteriaEdit

The list is compiled with 65 criteria, which the company reviews quarterly. It includes specific mentions of the reasons a given journal is included, an attempt to limit libel lawsuits.[3]

ReceptionEdit

Wadim Strielkowski of the University of California, Berkeley criticized Cabell's blacklist in an article in The American Journal of Medicine, writing that it may be too expensive for individuals to subscribe to it. He also argued that the criteria it used to classify a journal as predatory were "somewhat misleading", adding: "Similar to Beall's List, Cabell's undertakes their scrutiny of the journals hidden from the view of the public and then announces the results, which might be disputed by the publishers and by the academics publishing in the journals, who would suddenly appear on the Blacklist."[1]

Jeffrey Beall has argued that journal blacklists are useful to researchers who want to know where to publish, adding that he thinks Cabell's appeals process will be one of the most challenging aspects of its blacklist to manage.[3] Aalto University economist Natalia Zinovyeva told Nature that it will be "extremely valuable" to help academic committees evaluate researchers' CVs.[3] Rick Anderson, the former president of the Society for Scholarly Publishing, wrote: "My overall assessment of the Cabell's blacklist is that it is a welcome development, and that it still needs quite a bit of work."[4]

ReferencesEdit

  1. ^ a b c Strielkowski, Wadim (April 2018). "Predatory Publishing: What Are the Alternatives to Beall's List?". The American Journal of Medicine. 131 (4): 333–334. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.10.054. ISSN 0002-9343.
  2. ^ Basken, Paul (2017-09-22). "Why Beall's blacklist of predatory journals died". Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2018-05-02.
  3. ^ a b c Silver, Andrew (2017-05-31). "Pay-to-view blacklist of predatory journals set to launch". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22090. Retrieved 2018-05-02.
  4. ^ Anderson, Rick (2017-07-25). "Cabell's New Predatory Journal Blacklist: A Review". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved 2018-05-02.

External linksEdit