[7] Some of the criteria used by Cabells to tag journals as predatory have been criticized,[8] including, for instance, the indicator “no policies for digital preservation" whose interpretation varies according to subjectivity.
[8] Other concerns include "questionable weighing and reviewing methods" and "a lack of rigour in how Cabell applies its own procedures" as "identical criteria are recorded multiple times in individual journal entries" and "discrepancies exist between reviewing dates and the criteria version used and recorded by Cabell".
Jeffrey Beall has argued that deceptive journal lists are useful to researchers who want to know where to publish, adding that he thinks Cabell's appeals process will be one of the most challenging aspects to manage.
[10] Aalto University economist Natalia Zinovyeva told Nature that it will be "extremely valuable" to help academic committees evaluate researchers' CVs.
[10] Rick Anderson, the former president of the Society for Scholarly Publishing, wrote: "Overall, I find the Cabell’s Blacklist product to be a carefully crafted, honestly managed, and highly useful tool for libraries, faculty committees, and authors.