So no, there's no way of telling whether or not an editorial change in direction was made or a mistake. Instead we can just talk about journals in general, with

So no, there's no way of telling whether or not an editorial change in direction was made or a mistake. Instead we can just talk about journals in general, with nobody knowing what the hell was going on in this particular case. And all the other comments regarding other journals and their consistency of quality is where, exactly? I'm also missing any discussion of standards to judge quality articles and their application (or lack thereof) I must be missing it because to me it looks like a bunch of usual political crap. Assuming charitable intent, I understand that you might want to talk about honing one's ability to "read and evaluate journal articles" instead of what this turned out to be. That'd be cool. I'd like to read more of that. Sounds great.