But who gets to say what's fake news and fake journals, who gets to be the gatekeeper? A few years ago the Beall-list added the Frontiers journals to its list

But who gets to say what's fake news and fake journals, who gets to be the gatekeeper? A few years ago the Beall-list added the Frontiers journals to its list of predatory journals, which generated quite the backlash: http://www.nature.com/news/backlash-after-frontiers-journals-added-to-list-of-questionable-publishers-1.18639 http://www.nature.com/news/backlash-after-frontiers-journals... There is quite a bit of 'regular' research published in Frontiers and they do have peer review, but also a lot of crap (a similar point can be raised for Nature's new Scientific Reports, but also for PLOS ONE, which all cost money to publish in). The border between 'predatory' and just 'kinda crappy' journal is hard to set. The big difference between most predatory OA journals and Frontiers is that Frontiers at least responds to criticism. Edit: Some similar criticism on Nature Scientific Reports: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/06/15/more-on-scientific-reports-and-on-faked-papers http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/06/15/mor... and for PLOS ONE: http://www.omnesres.com/blog/plosone/ http://www.omnesres.com/blog/plosone/