{"id":6163,"date":"2019-11-26T07:57:36","date_gmt":"2019-11-26T07:57:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thepublicationplan.com\/?p=6163"},"modified":"2021-09-15T14:04:53","modified_gmt":"2021-09-15T14:04:53","slug":"cabells-blacklist-of-predatory-journals-passes-12000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thepublicationplan.com\/2019\/11\/26\/cabells-blacklist-of-predatory-journals-passes-12000\/","title":{"rendered":"Cabell\u2019s blacklist of predatory journals passes 12,000"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Cabells<\/p>\n

Following the closure of Beall\u2019s list <\/a>\u00a0of predatory journals, the scholarly analytics company Cabell’s International<\/a> launched their own<\/a> in 2017 called The Journal Blacklist<\/a>. Last month in their online blog, The Source<\/a>, Simon Linacre<\/a> announced that the list had reached a new milestone<\/a>, although not one that many will be celebrating. After hitting the 10,000 mark late last year<\/a>, the blacklist has now surpassed this and reached over 12,000 journals, having tripled in size since it was originally launched.<\/p>\n

In the blog, Linacre explains that this increase illustrates the ever-growing prevalence of predatory journals, some of which can be found listed on PubMed<\/a>. He also cites the evaluation methods used to assess whether a journal exhibits predatory behaviours as a key factor; 60 different weighted criteria<\/a> are used. Linacre uses one predatory journal identified in the list, the “British Journal of Marketing Studies”<\/em>, as an example of some of the key red flags<\/a> that may indicate a journal is not legitimate:<\/p>\n