with all good intentions, the result is not very useful: "Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and .. 1/

... are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices.” 2/
one of mistakes I think the consensus model made is that it has too much circular bootstrapping. Something is predatory because what we do not find predatory is not. E.g. the point about transparency. Just check how "transparent" some major publishers are in @RetractionWatch. 3/
@RetractionWatch the "best editorial and publication practices" turns out to focus on same basic agreements, mostly among publishers, and not really about doing quality science. It's an administrative rule. 4/
@RetractionWatch "Aggressive, indiscriminate solicitation" is also a rule really hard to apply. Elsevier repeatedly breaks this rule, and other more traditional publishers do too, tho at a lower frequency. Do the authors want to claim Elsevier is a predatory publisher? 5/
@RetractionWatch defining criteria of what a predatory publisher is, is hard. Some of the "lists" before them have tried (and failed). Will this list do better? I do not know. But either you make crystal clear objective rules instead of subjective, or go subjective all the way. 6/
@RetractionWatch the latter is not too hard to implement: just ask many authors multiple times to rank two journals. Like ranked voting. Caveat: you'll find may orthogonal reasons why the ranking was made ("I know the editor", "it's my society's journal", etc). 7/
@RetractionWatch but hey, any attempt to collapse this complex behavior into a single "predatory journal" list suffers from this too. https://t.co/r4XOLc7WZQ 8/8
@threadreaderapp unroll

More from Education

Chicago Public Schools are supposed to open for some special needs and pre-K students Monday

The Chicago Teachers Union is now threatening to refuse to return to work in person.

https://t.co/MgDgNe6REj


Meanwhile
https://t.co/FIij8J3r7z

Dr. Fauci: "The default position should be to try as best as possible within reason to keep the children in school or to get them back to school [...] if you look at the data the spread among children and from children is not really big at


UNICEF: "Data from 191 countries shows no consistent link between reopening schools and increased rates of coronavirus
Our preprint on the impact of reopening schools on reproduction number in England is now available online: https://t.co/CpfUGzAJ2S. With @Jarvis_Stats @amyg225 @kerrylmwong @KevinvZandvoort @sbfnk + John Edmunds. NOT YET PEER REVIEWED. 1/


We used contact survey data collected by CoMix (
https://t.co/ezbCIOgRa1) to quantify differences in contact patterns during November (Schools open) and January (Schools closed) 'Lockdown periods'. NOT YET PEER REVIEWED 2/

We combined this analysis with estimates of susceptibility and infectiousness of children relative to adults from literature. We also inferred relative susceptibility by fitting R estimates from CoMix to EpiForecasts estimates(https://t.co/6lUM2wK0bn). NOT YET PEER REVIEWED 3/


We estimated that reopening all schools would increase R by between 20% to 90% whereas reopening primary or secondary schools alone would increase R by 10% to 40%, depending on the infectiousness/susceptibility profile we used. NOT YET PEER REVIEWED 4/


Assuming a current R of 0.8 (in line with Govt. estimates: https://t.co/ZZhCe79zC4). Reopening all schools would increase R to between 1.0 and 1.5 and reopening either primary or secondary schools would increase R to between 0.9 and 1.2. NOT YET PEER REVIEWED 5/

You May Also Like