Timeline for Comparative quality of articles in questionable journals
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:49 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://academia.stackexchange.com/ with https://academia.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| S Aug 9, 2014 at 22:38 | history | suggested | Wrzlprmft♦ |
Added disreputable-publishers tag.
|
|
| Aug 9, 2014 at 21:42 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 9, 2014 at 22:38 | |||||
| Jun 3, 2014 at 19:36 | comment | added | Cape Code | What strikes me, is the seemingly consensual opinion that citing articles published in these pseudo-journals is perfectly ok. | |
| Jun 3, 2014 at 18:34 | answer | added | Pete L. Clark | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jun 3, 2014 at 14:30 | comment | added | ff524 | @eykanal spot checks of a couple of issues, usually. Occasionally a reader brings a specific plagiarized article to his attention. | |
| Jun 3, 2014 at 14:19 | comment | added | eykanal | @ff524 - Interesting. I wonder how he identifies that. | |
| Jun 3, 2014 at 14:07 | comment | added | ff524 | @Jigg not at all. I'm just pointing out a self-selection bias that might make it less meaningful to compare the incidence of fraud in Beall's list journals vs other journals | |
| Jun 3, 2014 at 14:02 | comment | added | Cape Code | @ff524 although not all of the publishers/journals listed by Beall have a documented history of plagiarism. | |
| Jun 3, 2014 at 13:16 | comment | added | ff524 | One of Beall's criteria is "publishes plagiarized papers" so the list does self-select for that. | |
| Jun 3, 2014 at 13:06 | history | asked | eykanal | CC BY-SA 3.0 |