Identifying predatory publishers

Emrys

Emrys

This question is for those in academia - how do you identify predatory publishers/journals/etc? I administer a scholarship competition that relies heavily on the applicant's publishing record. The higher-ups really want to crack down on students who knowing publish with predatory journals, so I get the task of going through the applications and identifying the predatory publications. Of course, I haven't been given a lot of guidance on this, just the suggestion to start with Beall's and go from there, but I'm an administrator, not an academic, and I wouldn't know a predatory journal if it bit me on the arse.

So, I'm reaching out to the vast pool of knowledge that is Halforums. Can anyone help me with this?

I like the word "predatory". :)
 
Emrys

Emrys

Hailey Zero Mission said:
What do they mean by predatory though? On whom?
Click to expand...
Basically as defined in the Wikipedia link I provided:

"Predatory open-access publishing is an exploitative open-access academic publishing business model that involves charging publication fees to authors without providing the editorial and publishing services associated with legitimate journals (open access or not). The idea that they are "predatory" is based on the view that academics are tricked into publishing with them, though some authors may be aware that the journal is poor quality or even fraudulent. New scholars from developing countries are said to be especially at risk of being misled by predatory practices."
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Emrys said:
Basically as defined in the Wikipedia link I provided:

"Predatory open-access publishing is an exploitative open-access academic publishing business model that involves charging publication fees to authors without providing the editorial and publishing services associated with legitimate journals (open access or not). The idea that they are "predatory" is based on the view that academics are tricked into publishing with them, though some authors may be aware that the journal is poor quality or even fraudulent. New scholars from developing countries are said to be especially at risk of being misled by predatory practices."
Click to expand...
I suppose then look at the cited journals submission guidelines. If a reading fee is noted, that would qualify as predatory.
 
Tinwhistler

Tinwhistler

Emrys said:
Basically as defined in the Wikipedia link I provided:

"Predatory open-access publishing is an exploitative open-access academic publishing business model that involves charging publication fees to authors without providing the editorial and publishing services associated with legitimate journals (open access or not). The idea that they are "predatory" is based on the view that academics are tricked into publishing with them, though some authors may be aware that the journal is poor quality or even fraudulent. New scholars from developing countries are said to be especially at risk of being misled by predatory practices."
Click to expand...
There's a few websites for fiction authors to look these things up.
https://www.sfwa.org/other-resources/for-authors/writer-beware/
is a good one.

I'm unaware of whether anything similar exists for academic journals, other than Beall's
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

figmentPez said:
Have you noticed the icon for the rating? It's a "Do Not Enter" sign. Are you expressing the wish that Emrys cease to do the thing?
Click to expand...
Originally, the YADTT rating was created as a way to badge those posts where it appears a poster takes something SO out of context that the person giving the rating believes that misinterpretation to have been deliberate. It was intended as a way to call someone out for exhibiting behavior most commonly associated with (and commonly perpetrated by) one particular forumite (whom I shall not name).

However, through common usage, the YADTT rating has also gained an alternate definition, one where it is given to call out a forumite for exhibiting behavior most commonly associated with that specific forumite, such as when @GasBandit espouses Libertarian ideology, @DarkAudit rails against Big Coal, or when @Dave declares his distaste for deep-fried distal digits.

When encountering the YADTT rating "in the wild," both options should be considered before lighting the bonfires of indignation.
Also, if you can think of a better/more appropriate icon than the Do Not Enter sign, PLEASE suggest it, because I'm right there with you that it doesn't really fit, but everything I've come up with so far looks awful once shrunk down to rating badge size.

--Patrick
 
Last edited:
Dave

Dave

Staff member
Okay, I was thinking distal digits in general, not one that were specific to rodentia.
 
Gruebeard

Gruebeard

Emrys said:
So, I'm reaching out to the vast pool of knowledge that is Halforums. Can anyone help me with this?

I like the word "predatory". :)
Click to expand...
Sorry I can't help; when it comes to knowing things I prefer to stay where it's shallow. Cthulhu's lurking in the deep end.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
PatrThom said:
Yeah. I tried but couldn’t come up with a relevant rat-related word that started with the letter D.

—Patrick
Click to expand...
I'd have gone with Deep-fried Distal Digits, given that the food item in question are prepared thus.

But I don't know anything about predatory publishing. Sorry, Emrys.
 
IronBrig4

IronBrig4

I get emails from predatory journals every once in a while. I know to look for certain signs.

1. Really blatant ENGRISH. So many of these publishers originate from China.

2. They will say you presented a certain paper at a certain conference. Many organizations post their conference programs online so it's quite easy for these scammers to look it up. However, they cannot tell you anything specific about WHY they liked your paper.

3. They're a brand new journal that is JUST getting started and they need contributions from you.
 
Emrys

Emrys

PatrThom said:
Originally, the YADTT rating was created as a way to badge those posts where it appears a poster takes something SO out of context that the person giving the rating believes that misinterpretation to have been deliberate. It was intended as a way to call someone out for exhibiting behavior most commonly associated with (and commonly perpetrated by) one particular forumite (whom I shall not name).

However, through common usage, the YADTT rating has also gained an alternate definition, one where it is given to call out a forumite for exhibiting behavior most commonly associated with that specific forumite, such as when @GasBandit espouses Libertarian ideology, @DarkAudit rails against Big Coal, or when @Dave declares his distaste for deep-fried distal digits.

When encountering the YADTT rating "in the wild," both options should be considered before lighting the bonfires of indignation.
Also, if you can think of a better/more appropriate icon than the Do Not Enter sign, PLEASE suggest it, because I'm right there with you that it doesn't really fit, but everything I've come up with so far looks awful once shrunk down to rating badge size.

--Patrick
Click to expand...
I am Emrys, Queen of the Doomweasels! Bow down and cower before me, puny humans!

Do I get another "You're doing that thing again" rating? ;)
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
I'll never accept the forced-meme "secondary" meaning of
. That Pat tried to redefine it to something else was just him, yet again, doing the thing.

It's a "wrong way" sign. As in, you're going the wrong way. Again. On purpose, probably.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Emrys said:
@PatrThom evidently thinks I'm a predator. I can't imagine how he got that idea. </s>
Click to expand...
I said no such thing. I merely called you out for liking predators.
GasBandit said:
I'll never accept the forced-meme "secondary" meaning of
. That Pat tried to redefine it to something else was just him, yet again, doing the thing.
Click to expand...
We know and remember your intentions. But you’ve got to face reality. That little red ball is all grown up now and ready to strike out on its own, and it no longer feels bound by your expectations. I did not redefine it. We all did. Heck, I wasn’t even the first!

—Patrick
 
Last edited:
Dei

Dei

GasBandit said:
I'll never accept the forced-meme "secondary" meaning of
. That Pat tried to redefine it to something else was just him, yet again, doing the thing.

It's a "wrong way" sign. As in, you're going the wrong way. Again. On purpose, probably.
Click to expand...
I agree with the secondary meaning. You just don't like it because it gets used on you. :p
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

figmentPez said:
Citation needed.
Click to expand...
If you are serious and want me to go and find some for you, I will. It won’t be hard (unless a bunch have been depublished). If you like, I can even include the previous instance(s!) where Gas has complained that he never meant for the rating to be used that way. But not until I get home and off mobile.

—Patrick
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
PatrThom said:
If you are serious and want me to go and find some for you, I will. It won’t be hard (unless a bunch have been depublished). If you like, I can even include the previous instance(s!) where Gas has complained that he never meant for the rating to be used that way. But not until I get home and off mobile.
Click to expand...
Well, I was serious, but I'm fine with just siding with Gas and the original intent of the rating. I'm skeptical that people really do use it more in a "yes, you're doing what you're famous for" way, than they use it in a "please stop doing this thing that you do way too often". The fact that Dei cited Blots as an example proves my point. People want Blots to stop doing that shit.
 
Dei

Dei

figmentPez said:
Well, I was serious, but I'm fine with just siding with Gas and the original intent of the rating. I'm skeptical that people really do use it more in a "yes, you're doing what you're famous for" way, than they use it in a "please stop doing this thing that you do way too often". The fact that Dei cited Blots as an example proves my point. People want Blots to stop doing that shit.
Click to expand...
Um, you just made a third meaning to the emote if you think Pat is saying that people are using it to praise people. Gas's originally intent was to specifically call out Pat for taking things too literally on purpose. People spread that to using it whenever people did a thing that they usually did and became irritating.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
Dei said:
Um, you just made a third meaning to the emote if you think Pat is saying that people are using it to praise people.
Click to expand...
So, you're saying Pat doesn't like it when Emry's is the Queen of Doomweasels? Because that's what got this whole thread off-track.
 
Dei

Dei

figmentPez said:
So, you're saying Pat doesn't like it when Emry's is the Queen of Doomweasels? Because that's what got this whole thread off-track.
Click to expand...
Well fine, maybe it's Pat that is refusing to acknowledge the negative connotation behind the rating, but I still say the second usage is legit as long as it's meant in a "Please stop doing that annoying thing you do" way. But tbh, using it in anyway besides Pat (or anyone) being overly literal is contrary to Gas's pure vision for it, so he's still wrong.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Dei said:
Pat (or anyone) being overly literal
Click to expand...
Pat, Grue, and Bubble were the big three. I think it was some magical unholy perfect storm of them all replying to each other with deliberate misinterpretations that finally inspired me to create the rating.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
Pat, Grue, and Bubble were the big three. I think it was some magical unholy perfect storm of them all replying to each other with deliberate misinterpretations that finally inspired me to create the rating.
Click to expand...
Whoohoo! I've made my mark on history!
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

1) Doing The Thing
2) Doing Their Thing

I’ll also add that I never really saw it as “That thing you are doing is annoying and I wish you’d stop” so much as “You are again doing that thing you are famous for.”
The only real difference between #1 and #2 above is whether the “you” being referenced above is declared as a global constant (always referring to that one specific person who does The Thing) or as a local variable (referring to the person who received the rating).

—Patrick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top