Cabells' Predatory Reports: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
On June 15, 2017, the [[Beaumont, Texas]]–based company [[Cabell's International]] launched a [[blacklist]] of what it claims are [[predatory journal|predatory]] [[scholarly journal]]s. Unlike [[Beall's List]] (which went offline permanently in early 2017), |
On June 15, 2017, the [[Beaumont, Texas]]–based company [[Cabell's International]] launched a [[blacklist]] of what it claims are [[predatory journal|predatory]] [[scholarly journal]]s. Unlike [[Beall's List]] (which went offline permanently in early 2017), Cabell's blacklist can only be viewed by people who pay a subscription fee. Specifically, viewership is limited to paid subscribers to at least one discipline on Cabell's whitelist who also pay an annual $1,500 add-on fee.<ref name=ajm/> The company originally wanted to offer its blacklist for free, but found that the cost of maintaining their blacklist was too expensive not to charge a fee to use it.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20170920150122306 |title=Why Beall's blacklist of predatory journals died |last=Basken |first=Paul |date=2017-09-22 |website=Chronicle of Higher Education |access-date=2018-05-02}}</ref> The decision to include journals on the list is based on 65 criteria, which the company reviews quarterly. The list includes specific mentions of the reasons a given journal is on the list, in an attempt to limit [[libel]] lawsuits.<ref name=nature>{{Cite web |url=https://www.nature.com/news/pay-to-view-blacklist-of-predatory-journals-set-to-launch-1.22090 |title=Pay-to-view blacklist of predatory journals set to launch |last=Silver |first=Andrew |date=2017-05-31 |website=Nature |language=en |doi=10.1038/nature.2017.22090 |access-date=2018-05-02}}</ref> Cabell's describes the blacklist as "the only blacklist of deceptive and predatory academic journals."<ref name=ajm>{{Cite journal |last=Strielkowski |first=Wadim |date=April 2018 |title=Predatory Publishing: What Are the Alternatives to Beall's List? |url=http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002934317311968 |journal=The American Journal of Medicine |volume=131 |issue=4 |pages=333–334 |doi=10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.10.054 |issn=0002-9343}}</ref> |
||
==Reception== |
==Reception== |
||
Wadim Strielkowski of the [[University of California, Berkeley]] criticized |
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."<ref name=ajm/> [[Jeffrey Beall]], the creator of the now-offline Beall's List of predatory journals, 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.<ref name=nature/> [[Aalto University]] economist Natalia Zinovyeva told ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' that it will be "extremely valuable" to help academic committees evaluate researchers' [[Curriculum vitae|CV]]s.<ref name=nature/> 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."<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/07/25/cabells-new-predatory-journal-blacklist-review/ |title=Cabell's New Predatory Journal Blacklist: A Review |last=Anderson |first=Rick |date=2017-07-25 |website=The Scholarly Kitchen |language=en-US |access-date=2018-05-02}}</ref> |
||
==References== |
==References== |
||
Revision as of 15:51, 13 March 2019
On June 15, 2017, the Beaumont, Texas–based company Cabell's International launched a blacklist of what it claims are predatory scholarly journals. Unlike Beall's List (which went offline permanently in early 2017), Cabell's blacklist can only be viewed by people who pay a subscription fee. Specifically, viewership is limited to paid subscribers to at least one discipline on Cabell's whitelist who also pay an annual $1,500 add-on fee.[1] The company originally wanted to offer its blacklist for free, but found that the cost of maintaining their blacklist was too expensive not to charge a fee to use it.[2] The decision to include journals on the list is based on 65 criteria, which the company reviews quarterly. The list includes specific mentions of the reasons a given journal is on the list, in an attempt to limit libel lawsuits.[3] Cabell's describes the blacklist as "the only blacklist of deceptive and predatory academic journals."[1]
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."[1] Jeffrey Beall, the creator of the now-offline Beall's List of predatory journals, 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]
References
- ^ 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.
- ^ Basken, Paul (2017-09-22). "Why Beall's blacklist of predatory journals died". Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2018-05-02.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Anderson, Rick (2017-07-25). "Cabell's New Predatory Journal Blacklist: A Review". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved 2018-05-02.
External links
 | This website-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |