[en] In scholarly publishing, blacklists aim to register fraudulent or deceptive journals and publishers, also known as “predatory”, to minimise the spread of unreliable research and the growing of fake publishing outlets. However, blacklisting remains a very controversial activity for several reasons: there is no consensus regarding the criteria used to determine fraudulent journals, the criteria used may not always be transparent or relevant, and blacklists are rarely updated regularly. Cabell’s paywalled blacklist service attempts to overcome some of these issues in reviewing fraudulent journals on the basis of transparent criteria and in providing allegedly up-to-date information at the journal entry level. We tested Cabell’s blacklist to analyse whether or not it could be adopted as a reliable tool by stakeholders in scholarly communication, including our own academic library. To do so, we used a copy of Walt Crawford’s Gray Open Access dataset (2012-2016) to assess the coverage of Cabell’s blacklist and get insights on their methodology. Out of the 10,123 journals that we tested, 4,681 are included in Cabell’s blacklist. Out of this number of journals included in the blacklist, 3,229 are empty journals, i.e. journals in which no single article has ever been published. Other collected data points to questionable weighing and reviewing methods and shows a lack of rigour in how Cabell applies its own procedures: some journals are blacklisted on the basis of 1 to 3 criteria – some of which are very questionable, identical criteria are recorded multiple times in individual journal entries, discrepancies exist between reviewing dates and the criteria version used and recorded by Cabell, reviewing dates are missing, and we observed two journals blacklisted twice with a different number of violations. Based on these observations, we conclude with recommendations and suggestions that could help improve Cabell’s blacklist service.
Anderson, R. (2015, May 11). Should we retire the term ‘predatory publishing’?. The Scholarly Kitchen. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/05/11/should-we-retire-the-term-predatory-publishing/.
Anderson, R. (2017, July 25). Cabell’s new predatory journal blacklist: A review. The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved April 10, 2020, from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet. org/2017/07/25/cabells-new-predatory-journal-blacklist-review/.
Anderson, R. (2019, May 1). Cabell’s predatory journal blacklist: An updated review. The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved April 10, 2020, from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet. org/2019/05/01/cabells-predatory-journal-blacklist-an-updated-review/.
Anderson, R. (2020, March 3). Why should we worry about predatory journals? Here’s one reason. The Source. Retrieved April 10, 2020, from https://blog.cabells.com/2020/03/03/guest-post-why-should-we-worry-about-predatory-journals-heres-one-reason/.
Beall, J. (2010). “Predatory” Open-Access scholarly publishers. The Charleston Advisor, 11(4), 10–17.
Beall, J. (2013). The Open-Access movement is not really about open access. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 11(2), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v11i2.525.
Beall, J. (2017). What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochemia Medica, 27(2), 273–278. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.029.
Berger, M., & Cirasella, J. (2015). Beyond Beall’s list: Better understanding predatory publishers. College & Research Libraries News, 76(3), 132–135. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.76.3.9277.
Bisaccio, M. (2018). Cabells’ journal whitelist and blacklist: Intelligent data for informed journal evaluations. Learned Publishing, 31(3), 243–248. https://doi. org/10.1002/leap.1164.
Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60.
Callicott, B. (2015). A Website review — Cabell’s international: A welcome tool in a world of predatory journals. Against the Grain, 27(5), 50–52. https://doi. org/10.7771/2380-176X.7193.
Chen, X. (2019). Beall’s list and Cabell’s blacklist: A comparison of two lists of predatory OA journals. Serials Review, 45(4), 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/009879 13.2019.1694810.
Crawford, W. (2014). Journals, “journals” and wannabes: Investigating the list. Cites & Insights, 14(7), 1–24. Retrieved April 10, 2020, from http://citesandinsights.info/civ14i7.pdf.
Crawford, W. (2016). Gray OA 2012-2016: Gold OA beyond DOAJ. [Dataset]. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4275860.v1.
Crawford, W. (2017). Gray OA 2012-2016: Open Access journals beyond DOAJ. Cites & Insights, 17(1), 1–68. Retrieved April 10, 2020, from https://citesandinsights.info/civ17i1.pdf.
Cukier, S., Helal, L., Rice, D. B., Pupkaite, J., Ahmadzai, N., Wilson, M., … Moher, D. (2020). Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: A systematic review. BMC Medicine 18:104, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01566-1.
DOAJ. (2017, December 13). The reapplications project is officially complete. News Service. https://blog.doaj.org/2017/12/13/the-reapplications-project-is-officially-complete/.
EBSCO. (2019). EBSCO & Open Access. https://www.ebsco.com/open-access.
Eriksson, S., & Helgesson, G. (2017). The false academy: Predatory publishing in science and bioethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 20(2), 163–170. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3.
Eriksson, S., & Helgesson, G. (2018). Time to stop talking about ‘predatory journals’. Learned Publishing, 31(2), 181–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1135.
Eve, M. P., & Priego, E. (2017). Who is actually harmed by predatory publishers? TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 15(2), 755–770. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v15i2.867.
ExLibris. (2019a). Ulrich’s collection policies. ExLibris Knowledge Center. Retrieved August 26, 2020, from https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Ulrich’s/Product_Documentation/Overview/Ulrich%E2%80%99s_Collection_Policies.
ExLibris. (2019b). Predatory publications. ExLibris Knowledge Center. Retrieved August 26, 2020, from https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Knowledge_Articles/Predatory_Publications.
Grudniewicz, A., Moher, D., Cobey, K. D., Bryson, G. L., Cukier, S., Allen, K., … Lalu, M. M. (2019). Predatory journals: No definition, no defence. Nature, 576(7786), 210–212. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y.
Houghton, F., & Houghton, S. (2018). “Blacklists” and “whitelists”: A salutary warning concerning the prevalence of racist language in discussions of predatory publishing. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 106(4), 527–530. https://doi. org/10.5195/jmla.2018.490.
Laine, C., & Winker, M. A. (2017). Identifying predatory or pseudo-Journals. Biochemia Medica, 27(2), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.031.
Linacre, S. (2019, October 2). The journal blacklist surpasses the 12,000 journals listed mark. The Source. Retrieved April 10, 2020, from https://blog.cabells.com/2019/10/02/the-journal-blacklist-surpasses-the-12000-journals-listed-mark/.
Linacre, S. (2020, February 26). Growth of predatory publishing shows no sign of slowing. The Source. Retrieved April 10, 2020, from https://blog.cabells.com/2020/02/26/growth-of-predatory-publishing-shows-no-sign-of-slowing/.
Linacre, S., Bisaccio, M., & Earle, L. (2019). Publishing in an environment of predation: The many things you really wanted to know, but did not know how to ask. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 26(2), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/10517 12X.2019.1603423.
Manca, A., Cugusi, L., Dvir, Z., & Deriu, F. (2017). PubMed should raise the bar for journal inclusion. The Lancet, 390(10096), 734–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31943-8.
Matumba, L., Maulidi, F., Balehegn, M., Abay, F., Salanje, G., Lewis Dzimbiri, & Kaunda, E. (2019). Blacklisting or whitelisting? Deterring faculty in developing countries from publishing in substandard journals. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 50(2), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.50.2.01.
Nelson, N., & Huffman, J. (2015). Predatory journals in library databases: How much should we worry? The Serials Librarian, 69(2), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/03615 26X.2015.1080782.
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. https://doi. org/10.5860/crl.79.1.52.
Rentier, B. (2018). Science Ouverte, le défi de la transparence. Bruxelles: Académie Royale de Belgique.
Schmitz, J. (2019). Qualitätssicherung bei Open-Access-Zeitschriften und predatory publishing. GMS Medizin – Bibliothek – Information, 19(1–2):Doc09, 1–6. https://doi. org/10.3205/mbi000434.
Severin, A., Strinzel, M., Egger, M., Domingo, M., & Barros, T. (2020). Who reviews for predatory journals? A study on reviewer characteristics. BioRxiv: The Preprint Server for Biology. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.09.983155.
Shaghaei, N., Wien, C., Holck, J., Thiesen, A. L., Ellegaard, O., Vlachos, E., & Drachen, T. (2018). Being a deliberate prey of a predator: Researchers’ thoughts after having published in predatory journal. LIBER Quarterly, 28(1), 1–17. https://doi. org/10.18352/lq.10259.
Shen, C., & Björk, B.-C. (2015). ‘Predatory’ Open Access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13(1), Article 230, n.p. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2.
Siler, K. (2020). Demarcating spectrums of predatory publishing: Economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology [Early view]. https://doi.org/10.1002/ASI.24339.
Somoza-Fernández, M., Rodríguez-Gairín, J.-M., & Urbano, C. (2016). Presence of alleged predatory journals in bibliographic databases: Analysis of Beall’s list. El Profesional de La Información, 25(5), 730–737. Retrieved April 10, 2020, from http://hdl. handle.net/10760/30115.
Strinzel, M., Severin, A., Milzow, K., & Egger, M. (2019). Blacklists and whitelists to tackle predatory publishing: A cross-sectional comparison and thematic analysis. MBio, 10(3), e00411-19, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00411-19.
Swauger, S. (2017). Open Access, power, and privilege: A response to “What I learned from predatory publishing.” College & Research Libraries News, 78(11), 603–606. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.78.11.603.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Tsigaris, P. (2018). What value do journal whitelists and blacklists have in academia? The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(6), 781–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.09.017.
Toutloff, L. (2019a, March 8). Cabell’s blacklist criteria v 1.0. The Source. Retrieved April 10, 2020, from https://blog.cabells.com/2019/03/08/v1-0/.
Toutloff, L. (2019b, March 20). Cabell’s blacklist criteria v 1.1. The Source. Retrieved April 10, 2020, from https://blog.cabells.com/2019/03/20/blacklist-criteria-v1-1/.
Van Noorden, R. (2014). Open-Access website gets tough. Nature News, 512(7512), 17. https://doi.org/10.1038/512017a.