Cabells' Predatory Reports criteria: Assessment and proposed revisions

Silva, Jaime A. Teixeira da; Moradzadeh, Mina; Yamada, Yuki; Dunleavy, Daniel J.; Tsigaris, Panagiotis

doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102659

Cited by 23 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Post Beall Lists (2017 -present), Cabells (https://www2.cabells.com/, accessed 14 April 2023), a private US firm, took up the challenge of establishing predatory blacklists, then later rebranded them as "Predatory Reports". A recent study noted issues with Cabell's criteria in producing their "Predatory Reports", which stood at 16,800 reports in December 2022 [26].…”

Section: What Are the Alternatives To Beall's Lists?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Academia Should Stop Using Beall’s Lists and Review Their Use in Previous Studies

Silva¹,

Kendall

2023

CAJMHE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academics (should) strive to submit to journals which are academically sound and scholarly. To achieve this, they could either submit to journals that appear exclusively on safelists (occasionally referred to as whitelists, although this term tends to be avoided), or avoid submitting to journals on watchlists (occasionally referred to as blacklists, although this term tends to be avoided). The most well-known of these lists was curated by Jeffrey Beall. Beall’s Lists (there are two, one for stand-alone journals and one for publishers) were taken offline by Beall himself in January 2017. Prior to 2017, Beall’s Lists were widely cited and utilized, including to make quantitative claims about scholarly publishing. Even after Beall’s Lists became obsolete (they have not been maintained for the past six years), they continue to be widely cited and used. This paper argues that the use of Beall’s Lists, pre- and post-2017, may constitute a methodological error and, even if papers carry a disclaimer or limitations section noting this weakness, their conclusions cannot always be relied upon. This paper also argues for the need to conduct a detailed post-publication assessment of reports in the literature that used Beall’s Lists to validate their findings and conclusions, assuming that it becomes accepted that Beall’s Lists are not a reliable resource for scientific investigation. Finally, this paper contends that any papers that have identified methodological errors should be corrected. Several lists that were cloned from Beall’s Lists have also emerged and are also being cited. These should also be included in any post-publication investigation that is conducted.

show abstract

Section: What Are the Alternatives To Beall's Lists?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Academia Should Stop Using Beall’s Lists and Review Their Use in Previous Studies

Silva¹,

Kendall

2023

CAJMHE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Тем не менее, и этот «черный» список с платным доступом подвергся критике [9]. Практика его использования показала, что Predatory Reports может быть значительно улучшен, в частности, скорректированы критерии включения журнала в «черный» список, поскольку сфера «хищнических» публикаций -динамично меняющаяся среда, с чем необходимо считаться [10]. Другой «черный» список -список Долоса (Dolos list) -также был создан с опорой на неопределенные критерии в отборе «хищнических» журналов и издателей, кроме того, он не раскрывал личность своего создателя и вскоре исчез [11].…”

Section: к вопросу о критериях связанных с «хищнической» публикационн...unclassified

“…Быть может, Springer Nature следовало в первую очередь рассмотреть эти вызовы в разделе своей редакционной этической политики, посвященном «хищническим» публикациям? 10 Aries systems and Clarivate partner to connect web of science reviewer locator with editorial manager. April 22, 2021.…”

Section: разбираем значение термина «хищнический» в редакционной поли...unclassified

A reflection on Springer Nature’s current editorial policies related to “predatory” journals and references

Teixeira da Silva

2023

Naučnyj redaktor i izdatelʹ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite its prominent position as one of the leading for-profit scholarly publishers of subscription and open access (OA) journals, and its membership of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), Springer Nature can be criticized for taking a vague approach in its editorial policies pertaining to “predatory” publishing. While cautioning authors and/or editors about the citation of papers that are published in “predatory” journals, the advice presented in the policies itself is flawed due its limitation to OA journals – thus apparently excluding the possibility that subscription journals might also be “predatory” and failing to specify precisely which journals authors and editors should be careful of, i.e., no source for the “predatory” definition of OA journals is indicated. Moreover, this vague set of policies does not have a publication date, nor is any authorship specified. The opacity of these aspects of these editorial policies limits their usefulness and weakens their objectives, namely in ostensibly offering scholarly advice to protect editors and authors. I argue that the Springer Nature policies pertaining to “predatory” publishing as they currently stand are not useful, and if left unchanged, can be a source of confusion or error for authors and editors of Springer Nature journals. In this connection, the identified risk is that if the poor advice indicated in those policies is heeded, it may encourage abuse, insults and/or indiscriminate profiling of academics, including those associated with Springer Nature journals. While assuming Springer Nature’s genuine intention to alert editors and authors against citing papers published in suspect scholarly venues, I argue that this editorial set of policies should either be rewritten to rely on clearer parameters, including a definitive list of journals for which “predatory” criteria have been defined, or abandoned as they are overly broad. The criticism is aimed at stimulating a discussion among other editors and publishers, especially COPE members.

show abstract

“…Previous studies have concluded that 28 criteria of Cabell's Journal Blacklist need clari cation and revision, and 39 should be removed (Teixeira da Silva et al 2023). Additionally, Beall's list has also faced criticism due to its vague criteria (Teixeira da Silva and Kimotho, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are the lists of questionable journals reasonable: A case study of early warning journal lists

Tang,

Peng

2023

Accountability in Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The lists of questionable journals are regarded a policy or tool to ensure research quality and integrity. However, due to their lack of clear criteria, they remain highly debated. Taking a typological perspective, we assess the reasonableness of the lists of questionable journals by examining how well it re ects the differences in bibliometric attributes among distinct groups when categorizing and labelling them, and whether these differences are consistent. Using the Early Warning Journal Lists released by the National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences as an example, we grouped listed journals based on warning levels and years.Subsequently, we compared them in groups to determine if there are differences in key academic indicators among different warning categories, thereby evaluating the reasonableness of the warning journal list. Our research ndings suggest that Early Warning Journal Lists may have employed inconsistent criteria when assigning warning levels. Variations in the degrees of differences or the absence of differences were observed among groups across different key academic indicators. Additionally, citation metrics like journal impact factor and journal citation indicator might not have been treated as grouping criteria in the Early Warning Journal Lists, yet this lack of detailed explanation from the creators is evident. This highlights the need for a more scienti c and meticulous assessment of the lists of questionable journals, along with a greater emphasis on sharing detailed standards and data. Furthermore, our study offers recommendations for future formulation of lists of questionable journals by various institutions.

show abstract

Cabells' Predatory Reports criteria: Assessment and proposed revisions

Cited by 23 publications

References 62 publications

Academia Should Stop Using Beall’s Lists and Review Their Use in Previous Studies

Academia Should Stop Using Beall’s Lists and Review Their Use in Previous Studies

A reflection on Springer Nature’s current editorial policies related to “predatory” journals and references

Are the lists of questionable journals reasonable: A case study of early warning journal lists

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About