Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. 2019 Agnes Gruidneiwicz et al.

[ladycatlover]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03759-y

Leading scholars and publishers from ten countries have agreed a definition of predatory publishing that can protect scholarship. It took 12 hours of discussion, 18 questions and 3 rounds to reach.

Most controversially, we omitted quality of peer review, even though negligent peer review is often a prominent feature of predatory journals. We are not saying that peer review is unimportant, only that it is currently impossible to assess. Unfortunately, many legitimate journals fail to make their peer-review processes sufficiently transparent, for instance by sharing peer reviewers’ comments and other data. At the moment, journal quality, adequacy of peer review and deceit are too subjective to include.

My bolding above. Hmm, I wonder which journals that reminds me of... Lancet and BMJ anyone?

 

[James Morris-Lent]

Just register and publish all investigations. We have this new think called the internet. Journals are an anachronism.