It is actually Ars Technica that should be ashamed of this article. There is nothing at all newsworthy about a predatory journal publishing garbage, there are s

It is actually Ars Technica that should be ashamed of this article. There is nothing at all newsworthy about a predatory journal publishing garbage, there are soooooo many of these. The fact that the journal says it's "peer-reviewed" is meaningless - they can say that and mean whatever they want it to mean. There are loads and loads of BS predatory journals that are "peer reviewed" but will print anything on their web journals. They charge authors page charges and make money off scammy folks who want to list "publications" on their own websites for credibility points. There is no way real scientists are "aghast" - they are just rolling their eyes. Source: my partner is a scientist and was the managing editor for a legit journal for seven years. She gets hilarious predatory journal spam ALL THE TIME. Page charges are normal for academic journals, so unfortunately it's a scam that's not likely to go away any time soon.