Cabell's blacklist

Cabell Publishing, a U.S. company, offers a paid subscription service featuring a blacklist of deceptive and predatory journals, and a whitelist of "verified, reputable journals", with details about those journals' acceptance rates and invited article percentages.[1] Cabell's describes the blacklist as "the only blacklist of deceptive and predatory academic journals."[2]

Subscription

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.[2]

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.[3]

Criteria

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.[4][5]

Reception

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."[2]

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.[4] Aalto University economist Natalia Zinovyeva told Nature that it will be "extremely valuable" to help academic committees evaluate researchers' CVs.[4] Rick Anderson, the former president of the Society for Scholarly Publishing, wrote: "Overall, I find the Cabell’s Blacklist product to be a carefully crafted, honestly managed, and highly useful tool for libraries, faculty committees, and authors."[6]

gollark: Dunbar's number is 150 or so - humans can have meaningful social relationships with 150 or so people, apparently. Many systems require larger-scale coordination than this.
gollark: ... so we can have technology?
gollark: Communal thinking works for small close-knit communities. But that obviously does not scale.
gollark: And as an individual... you need to randomly give companies stuff and hope they'll send you back food?
gollark: The gifts thing sounds bad - just to be able to interact with an industry, you need to give companies free stuff and just hope they'll randomly give you stuff if you ask for it?

References
  1. "The Journal Whitelist". Cabell's. n.d. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
  2. 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. PMID 29175236.
  3. Basken, Paul (2017-09-22). "Why Beall's blacklist of predatory journals died". Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2018-05-02.
  4. 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.
  5. "Cabells Predatory Journals Blacklist Criteria v 1.1". The Source. 20 March 2019. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
  6. By (1 May 2019). "Cabell's Predatory Journal Blacklist: An Updated Review". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.