2

I submitted a paper to a journal (which was on Beall’s list ten years ago). It got accepted with minor revisions, but they gave me only one week for the revision. Should it be a concern for me if this a standard operating times for making revisions?

Improve this question
2
  • 3
    We do not like to evaluate individual journals here, one reason for which is the one you mentioned, namely that the information gets outdated (see this FAQ). For determining reputability in general, please see this question. I therefore reduced your question to the second one, which is one that we can actually answer.
    – Wrzlprmft ♦
    Commented Jul 10 at 6:59
  • 1
    It might not be "predatory" under the most common interpretations, it could just be low quality. Only you know exactly what journal you submitted to, and why you thought that was a suitable venue.
    – R1NaNo
    Commented Jul 10 at 14:25

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

You can't begin to answer this question unless you first define what "predatory" means, and spoiler alert, that word is not well-defined. These days you get people calling X journal/publisher "predatory" for all sorts of reasons, including:

  • That it charges APCs
  • That it solicits submissions
  • That it has high profit margins
  • That it is based in Egypt (Beall himself suggested this was an "indicator" when discussing Hindawi)

Given the diversity of definitions, it's nearly certain that someone somewhere will say that one week for minor revision is an indicator of predatory journals. Of course, it's equally certain that someone somewhere else will ask if you're trolling when faced with the same question, since according to them, predatory means [insert reason here that is thoroughly unrelated to the one you gave]. Therefore, the title question is unanswerable.

What we can answer unambiguously is:

Should it be a concern for me if this a standard operating times for making revisions?

When the publisher is heavily prioritizing processing times (not all do), then yes, this is standard. If it's too fast for you, just ask for more time; you can expect the request will be granted.

Improve this answer
4
  • Do you have a reference for the claim that Beall called a journal predatory for being based in Egypt?
    – Federico Poloni
    Commented Jul 10 at 7:58
  • @FedericoPoloni I don't think Beall made that particular claim, but he did suggest that being based in Egypt is "bad". Exact text would be difficult to find since the website is defunct now, however. I referred to it previously here (second last bullet point): academia.stackexchange.com/a/115704/84834.
    – Allure
    Commented Jul 10 at 8:04
  • 1
    Searching the Wayback Machine I found this article: web.archive.org/web/20131005233414/http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/…. Beall wrote: "Is this the future of scholarly publishing, dumbed down and offshore?" So he didn't directly say that being based in Egypt is bad, but did suggest that not being based wherever he was is bad.
    – Allure
    Commented Jul 10 at 8:05
  • 4
    @Allure Beall was at University of Colorado Denver at the time. Anyway, in the comments to that post Beall maintained that he considered Hindawi "borderline" rather than "predatory". Unless you have better evidence for the claim, I would suggest removing that bullet point altogether.
    – Anyon
    Commented Jul 10 at 12:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .