> It's my understanding that the hoax papers in the article were also published by predatory scam journals. If the hoax papers were published in "predatory sca

> It's my understanding that the hoax papers in the article were also published by predatory scam journals. If the hoax papers were published in "predatory scam journals," they're engaged in an entirely different type of predatory scam than the "get me off your fucking mailing list" computer science journal. Sort of like the difference between fake news and herbal Viagra spam/scams. > Even the "get me off your fucking mailing list" paper went through peer review. >> “They told me to add some more recent references and do a bit of reformatting,” he said. Obviously not any peer review process that deserves the name. That must have been an entirely automatic (or even automated) bit of feedback.