English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In scholarly publishing, blacklists aim to register fraudulent or deceptivejournals and publishers, also known as "predatory", to minimise the spread ofunreliable research and the growing of fake publishing outlets. However,blacklisting remains a very controversial activity for several reasons: thereis no consensus regarding the criteria used to determine fraudulent journals,the criteria used may not always be transparent or relevant, and blacklists arerarely updated regularly. Cabell's paywalled blacklist service attempts toovercome some of these issues in reviewing fraudulent journals on the basis oftransparent criteria and in providing allegedly up-to-date information at thejournal entry level. We tested Cabell's blacklist to analyse whether or not itcould 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'sGray Open Access dataset (2012-2016) to assess the coverage of Cabell'sblacklist and get insights on their methodology. Out of the 10,123 journalsthat we tested, 4,681 are included in Cabell's blacklist. Out of this number ofjournals included in the blacklist, 3,229 are empty journals, i.e. journals inwhich no single article has ever been published. Other collected data points toquestionable weighing and reviewing methods and shows a lack of rigour in howCabell applies its own procedures: some journals are blacklisted on the basisof 1 to 3 criteria, identical criteria are recorded multiple times inindividual journal entries, discrepancies exist between reviewing dates and thecriteria version used and recorded by Cabell, reviewing dates are missing, andwe observed two journals blacklisted twice with a different number ofviolations. Based on these observations, we conclude with recommendations andsuggestions that could help improve Cabell's blacklist service.

How reliable and useful is Cabell's Blacklist ? A data-driven analysis