Timeline for Has a journal ever switched between being a predatory journal and a reputable one?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 10, 2020 at 14:12 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 27, 2019 at 22:35 | comment | added | A Simple Algorithm | @Allure I skimmed that discussion and it seems mainly over whether to restrict the term to open access or include other publishers which also charge the author a fee. | |
| Apr 27, 2019 at 22:13 | comment | added | Allure | @ASimpleAlgorithm no, but the question of whether only author-pays journals can be predatory is a controversial one too. See e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… | |
| Apr 27, 2019 at 17:33 | comment | added | A Simple Algorithm | Did Medical Hypothesis actually charge authors to publish? That's a rather critical part of the equation and the wikipedia page didn't mention it. | |
| Feb 13, 2019 at 0:43 | history | edited | Allure | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1916 characters in body
|
| Feb 13, 2019 at 0:25 | comment | added | Allure | @Acccumulation right, but if the source says Rose Simpson found more evidence, it didn't go into details on what that evidence is. The only other detail mentioned is that OMICS moved the publishing operations to India, but that's quite reasonable since India's labour costs are cheaper than Canada's. By argumentum ex silentio I'd guess that she didn't find anything particularly clear-cut. At most, it's guilt by association because of the FTC suit. | |
| Feb 12, 2019 at 15:35 | comment | added | Acccumulation | "Rose Simpson clearly thinks so" The passage you present says, in their words, that they were "red flags", and then quotes Rose Simpson as saying that they were her "first suspicion". That suggests that this prompted her to look into it more and find more evidence. Your passage does not at all support the conclusion that Rose Simpson find typos by themselves to be conclusive proof of a journal being predatory. | |
| Feb 12, 2019 at 14:39 | comment | added | PLL | I agree with basically everything in your comment, especially the problems with Beall’s list. But I don’t think that contradicts that there could be a clear-cut answer (a journal going from “most academics feel its practices are predatory” to “most/all academics agree it’s legitimate”). Reading up further on the Frontiers situation, though, I agree it’s a bad example. | |
| Feb 12, 2019 at 8:38 | comment | added | Allure | @PLL Very few journals start from "haha academics are so gullible I'll just charge them to publish". Instead it's a long slippery slope all the way to the bottom, and at each point the odds are the journals think they're acting with good intentions. That's why Beall's list generated such controversy even from people unaffiliated with publishers. FuzzyLeapfrog's answer for example is fine if you believe Frontiers used to be predatory but no longer; on the other hand some people will argue that Frontiers is still predatory today, or indeed that it was never predatory to start with. | |
| Feb 11, 2019 at 22:37 | comment | added | PLL | “This question isn't really answerable because what's predatory and what isn't predatory isn't well-defined.” — sure, the difference is a spectrum not a hard boundary, and is in many instances debatable. But at any given time, plenty of journals are either clearly legitimate or clearly predatory, so it’s easy to imagine what a clear-cut answer to this question could look like, and the two other current answers (FuzzyLeapfrog and iayork) both come pretty close. | |
| Feb 11, 2019 at 21:14 | history | answered | Allure | CC BY-SA 4.0 |