4 ms·

I was already on high alert when I saw that this was written in Frontiers, a potentially predatory journal publisher that makes it notoriously difficult to adeq

I was already on high alert when I saw that this was written in Frontiers, a potentially predatory journal publisher that makes it notoriously difficult to adequately review (and reject) bad papers. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontiers_Media#Editorial_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontiers_Media#Editorial_conc....

jostmey 5y ago
Meh, Frontiers is no worse than others. I've published in Nature. I've published in Frontiers. I have to say I had an easier time reproducing results published in "lower" tier journals than high impact journals. It is more a sign that peer-review is broken
- jwuphysics 5y ago
  Agreed, although with the caveat that Nature is not regarded particularly well in my discipline. In fact, most for-profit astronomy/astrophysics journals carry some stigma.
tpoacher 5y ago
"Predatory journal" is a bit overkill. Seems like an ok journal. https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100199831&tip=sid&clean=0 https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100199831&ti... The specific journals you refer to in the wikipedia article have dropped in popularity, but this particular one hasn't. Frontiers is a huge family of journals. Some are good, some are excellent, some not so good. I wouldn't call any of them predatory though. And even if there was controversy in 2015, 7 years can be a very long time in publication contexts. One thing that is interesting about Frontiers is that they encourage open reviews (i.e. the review is public and accompanies the paper). This is pretty far from predatory journal behaviour.
- jwuphysics 5y ago
  Thanks for the more up-to-date insight! I remember receiving requests to submit and review papers to their astronomy journal when I was a PhD student, and had decidedly avoided them since then.

4 ms·

I was already on high alert when I saw that this was written in Frontiers, a potentially predatory journal publisher that makes it notoriously difficult to adeq

by jwuphysics 5y ago

jostmey 5y ago
Meh, Frontiers is no worse than others. I've published in Nature. I've published in Frontiers. I have to say I had an easier time reproducing results published in "lower" tier journals than high impact journals. It is more a sign that peer-review is broken
- jwuphysics 5y ago
  Agreed, although with the caveat that Nature is not regarded particularly well in my discipline. In fact, most for-profit astronomy/astrophysics journals carry some stigma.
tpoacher 5y ago
"Predatory journal" is a bit overkill. Seems like an ok journal. https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100199831&tip=sid&clean=0 https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100199831&ti... The specific journals you refer to in the wikipedia article have dropped in popularity, but this particular one hasn't. Frontiers is a huge family of journals. Some are good, some are excellent, some not so good. I wouldn't call any of them predatory though. And even if there was controversy in 2015, 7 years can be a very long time in publication contexts. One thing that is interesting about Frontiers is that they encourage open reviews (i.e. the review is public and accompanies the paper). This is pretty far from predatory journal behaviour.
- jwuphysics 5y ago
  Thanks for the more up-to-date insight! I remember receiving requests to submit and review papers to their astronomy journal when I was a PhD student, and had decidedly avoided them since then.