Talk:Predatory publishing
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Predatory publishing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Open access was copied or moved into Citation index with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Dogma journals
editIt appears that the vast majority of the so-called respected journals mostly publish papers supporting existing dogmas, e.g. no so-called respected journal would allow a paper casting even a shadow of doubt on MAN-MADE global warming; seismology journals would publish any garbage supporting existing dogmas but would not allow anything doubting the dogmas. Most so-called respected journals would automatically unsubmit a manuscript should the author(s) indicate they cannot pay the publication fee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.214.72.38 (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Predatory Review
editTo be fair, it should be noted that respected journals do not hesitate to use not to the point and unfair reviews when they reject articles that they don't want to accept. I once submitted a paper to a very distinguished and well-known journal. One reviewer wrote that everything written in the work is long known and therefore the work should be rejected. Another reviewer wrote that everything in it was wrong and therefore it should be rejected. The editor wrote that he read both reviews carefully and he agrees with both. Needless to say, it's a waste of time trying to appeal to the editor. Urila (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Usable source, Oviedo-García 2021
editThis 2021 paper by Oviedo-García contains a ton of sources (and statements) that can be used to expand this article. Also, while I'm not familiar with the Grudniewicz et al. definition of predatory journals, it seems highly-cited; might be worth covering in "Characteristics", rather than "Other efforts", depending on how impactful it's been? DFlhb (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Reference to PDF of unpublished conference talk slides
editThe reference https://doi.org/10.13140%2F2.1.2988.7364 leads to a PDF of the slides from a talk which appears to have been presented at a conference at Columbia University in 2014 but not published anywhere except by the author on ResearchGate. It is unclear to me if this is an acceptable reference, and if acceptable, how to fix the template which is being used for it in the article. TheGoblin (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)