ARSP as a diversity of perspectives

Following the release of the latest edition of The Annual Review of Social Partnerships (ARSP), Associate Editor, Jill Bogie, discusses the role of multi-stakeholder partnerships in building a more sustainable future.

One of the reasons that ARSP is such a great resource is the diversity of perspectives that it offers and the huge variety of subject areas where cross-sector partnerships (CSPs) are applied. From this variety, one of the notable themes in this year’s issue is multi-stakeholder collaboration. The editors of the Publications Section observe that there is a growing interest in the governance of such arrangements. It is a topic that is covered in each of the five sections of ARSP.

Continue reading

GUEST BLOG: Cabell’s New Inclusion Criteria

by Cabell’s Publishing

Cabell's Directories Logo

In the last few years, the issue of fraudulent or deceptive journals in academic publishing has readily and repeatedly come to forefront of our community’s concerns and discussions. With the continued development of the open access movement and the proliferation of those who seek to abuse the spirit of the cause, the academic community had to re-evaluate itself.  Throughout this introspection, certain voices in the community, some of which manifested as things like Beall’s list or the Bohannon sting, caution that the prevalence of predatory publishing, particularly in open access, is potentially more serious than most ever imagined.

We at Cabell’s, in seeking to help our users navigate the publishing landscape and find success in the publishing community, are mindful of these concerns. Above all, we want to ensure that our users find helpful and accurate information and to direct our users to reputable outlets for publication. We, in this pursuit, entered into our own self-assessment and have since launched a reevaluation initiative.

This initiative, taking cues from the community and acting with redoubled vigor, necessitates the complete reapplication and fresh examination of questioned open-access listings using more stringent inclusion standards and criteria.  The revised standards, which can be viewed in full as a Word document here, include both determinative and suggestive criteria, both positive and negative. In short, this means that because there is no universally accepted per se definition of a predatory publication, we consider qualities that are demonstrative of quality against those that are potentially indicative of abuse.

Because we will only be satisfied by giving our users reliable and trustworthy results, our process is predisposed to stringency, only including results that we can confidently recommend to our users. As such, a journal that is removed from our listings is not necessarily predatory or unethical. Rather, this indicates that the journal has not yet demonstrated clear and conspicuous reputability to our Journals Admissions Department through either the reapplication or the appeals/reform process.

We thank our users and everyone involved for their patience, knowing that this procedure is ensuring them a reliable way to navigate these difficulties in the publishing experience.

Click here to go to our website’s information about this transition.

For more information, use the live chat feature at www.cabells.com, or ask via email at info@cabells.com.

For appeals inquiries, contact the Journals Admissions Department at appeals@cabells.com