I think it should be called "Pi and the rise of pay-for publication" or perhaps "Predatory journals and miscomputing pi". If a predatory 'journal' is more inter

I think it should be called "Pi and the rise of pay-for publication" or perhaps "Predatory journals and miscomputing pi". If a predatory 'journal' is more interested in taking submissions' money than presenting science, then the thought of peer review doesn't enter into the picture. The journals that are mentioned are present on Beal's list of predatory journals [1], and so are even widely acknowledged to be crap journals. [1]: http://beallslist.weebly.com/ http://beallslist.weebly.com/