Abstract This study uses systematic random sampling to compare the content of “Beall’s List of Predatory Journals and Publishers” and “Cabell’s Blacklist” of journals. The Beall’s List data was generated from its new site that maintains a new list besides the original list. It found that 28.5% Beall’s List sample publishers are out of business, some Cabell’s Blacklist journals have become ceased. The main takeaway is that among the Beall’s List sample publishers with a working website for journal publishing, only 31.8% can be found on Cabell’s Blacklist.

中文翻译：

---

Beall's List 和 Cabell's Blacklist：两个掠夺性 OA 期刊列表的比较

摘要 本研究采用系统随机抽样比较“Beall's List of Predatory Journals and Publishers”和“Cabell's Blacklist”期刊的内容。Beall's List 数据是从其新站点生成的，该站点在原始列表之外还维护了一个新列表。调查发现，28.5% 的 Beall's List 样本出版商停业，部分 Cabell's Blacklist 期刊停刊。主要结论是，在拥有期刊出版工作网站的 Beall's List 样本出版商中，只有 31.8% 可以在 Cabell's Blacklist 上找到。