4 ms·
Frontiers is a predatory open access publisher, and your first assumption should always be that anything in a Frontiers journal is pay-for-play bollocks.
by davidgerard 5y ago
Frontiers is a predatory open access publisher, and your first assumption should always be that anything in a Frontiers journal is pay-for-play bollocks.
- Pyramus 5y agoNot really. You fell into the trap of judging a book by its cover. That is not to distract from the fact that there were and are controversies surrounding Frontiers - you can't just lazily extrapolate from that.
- davidgerard 5y agolol, Frontiers is bad. It's literally first on Wikipedia's list of predatory publishers not to cite. Not everything in Frontiers is trash. However, that's absolutely the first assumption to make.
- Retric 5y agoIt’s fine to judge things in part based on journal because self selection is involved. That doesn’t mean anything is defiantly wrong with the paper, but it is a real signal.
- Pyramus 5y agoI should have been more specific - Frontiers being a predatory journal is more noise than signal. It's useful to have heuristics such as Beall's list, but they will never capture the subtle (and broken) complexities of academic publishing. In this specific case, in 2022, most researchers agree that the heuristic is misleading. For more information see e.g. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/124807/has-a-journal-ever-switched-between-being-a-predatory-journal-and-a-reputable-on https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/124807/has-a-jo...