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, 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.

中文翻译：

---

卡贝尔的黑名单有多可靠和有用？数据驱动的分析

在学术出版中，黑名单旨在注册欺诈或欺骗性期刊和出版商，也称为“掠夺性”，以最大程度地减少不可靠研究的传播和虚假出版商的增长。然而，由于以下几个原因，黑名单仍然是一项非常有争议的活动：对于用于确定欺诈期刊的标准没有达成共识，所使用的标准可能并不总是透明或相关的，并且黑名单很少定期更新。Cabell 的付费黑名单服务试图克服其中的一些问题，即根据透明标准审查欺诈期刊，并在期刊条目级别提供据称是最新的信息。我们测试了卡贝尔 的黑名单，以分析其是否可以被利益相关者（包括我们自己的学术图书馆）用作学术交流中的可靠工具。为此，我们使用了 Walt Crawford 的 Gray Open Access 数据集（2012-2016）的副本来评估 Cabell 黑名单的覆盖范围并深入了解他们的方法。在我们测试的 10,123 种期刊中，有 4,681 种被列入 Cabell 的黑名单。在列入黑名单的这些期刊中，有 3,229 个是空期刊，即从未发表过任何文章的期刊。其他收集到的数据指向有问题的称重和审查方法，并表明 Cabell 应用自己的程序缺乏严谨性：一些期刊根据 1 到 3 条标准被列入黑名单，相同的标准多次记录在单个期刊条目中，审稿日期与 Cabell 使用和记录的标准版本之间存在差异，审稿日期缺失，我们观察到两个期刊因违规次数不同而两次列入黑名单。基于这些观察结果，我们提出了有助于改进 Cabell 黑名单服务的建议和建议。