Predatory Journals
@predatoryjournals.org
The #Predatory Journals List. Also in https://x.com/PredatoryReport
Website: https://predatoryjournals.org/
Website: https://predatoryjournals.org/
📉 Niche fields, early-career scholars, and emerging topics risk being sidelined — not for lack of merit, but for lack of reviewers.
🔧 Solution? Expand reviewer pools, give credit to reviewers, increase transparency — science must be evaluated on quality, not logistics.
🔧 Solution? Expand reviewer pools, give credit to reviewers, increase transparency — science must be evaluated on quality, not logistics.
November 9, 2025 at 11:33 PM
📉 Niche fields, early-career scholars, and emerging topics risk being sidelined — not for lack of merit, but for lack of reviewers.
🔧 Solution? Expand reviewer pools, give credit to reviewers, increase transparency — science must be evaluated on quality, not logistics.
🔧 Solution? Expand reviewer pools, give credit to reviewers, increase transparency — science must be evaluated on quality, not logistics.
🕵️♂️ Design isn’t just cosmetic. Visual cues can help flag low-quality or predatory journals—especially when screening large volumes. Content still matters, but the look tells a story too. #OpenScience #ResearchIntegrity
September 15, 2025 at 2:40 PM
🕵️♂️ Design isn’t just cosmetic. Visual cues can help flag low-quality or predatory journals—especially when screening large volumes. Content still matters, but the look tells a story too. #OpenScience #ResearchIntegrity
🧐 Predatory articles are statistically:
~half the length (fewer pages & characters)
Using “default” fonts (Arial, Calibri)
Standard A4 pages, little typographic variety
Simpler metadata, less polished
~half the length (fewer pages & characters)
Using “default” fonts (Arial, Calibri)
Standard A4 pages, little typographic variety
Simpler metadata, less polished
September 15, 2025 at 2:40 PM
🧐 Predatory articles are statistically:
~half the length (fewer pages & characters)
Using “default” fonts (Arial, Calibri)
Standard A4 pages, little typographic variety
Simpler metadata, less polished
~half the length (fewer pages & characters)
Using “default” fonts (Arial, Calibri)
Standard A4 pages, little typographic variety
Simpler metadata, less polished
🧵5. This is the future: humans + AI, safeguarding the credibility of research. Because science without trust is just noise. 🌍✨ #AIforGood #AcademicIntegrity #FutureOfScience
August 31, 2025 at 2:24 PM
🧵5. This is the future: humans + AI, safeguarding the credibility of research. Because science without trust is just noise. 🌍✨ #AIforGood #AcademicIntegrity #FutureOfScience
🧵4. About 24% false positives. Meaning: the AI isn’t a judge—it’s a first line of defense. Humans still need to verify. Think ‘radar’ not ‘verdict.’ 🛰️ #ResponsibleAI #AcademicTwitter
August 31, 2025 at 2:24 PM
🧵4. About 24% false positives. Meaning: the AI isn’t a judge—it’s a first line of defense. Humans still need to verify. Think ‘radar’ not ‘verdict.’ 🛰️ #ResponsibleAI #AcademicTwitter
🧵3. From ~15,200 journals, the AI flagged 1,400+ as questionable. Over 1,000 raised serious concerns. That’s a LOT of shaky ground for researchers to step on. 😬 #TrustInScience #AIethics
August 31, 2025 at 2:23 PM
🧵3. From ~15,200 journals, the AI flagged 1,400+ as questionable. Over 1,000 raised serious concerns. That’s a LOT of shaky ground for researchers to step on. 😬 #TrustInScience #AIethics
🧵2. Instead of reading papers, the AI checks websites: design quality, missing editors, dodgy language, weird citations. It’s not judging content—it’s spotting red flags in the ecosystem. 🚨 #OpenScience #FakeJournals
August 31, 2025 at 2:23 PM
🧵2. Instead of reading papers, the AI checks websites: design quality, missing editors, dodgy language, weird citations. It’s not judging content—it’s spotting red flags in the ecosystem. 🚨 #OpenScience #FakeJournals
🧵4: It's time to stop counting publications and start measuring trust, transparency, and societal value.
#OpenScience #ReformScience
#OpenScience #ReformScience
July 21, 2025 at 2:19 PM
🧵4: It's time to stop counting publications and start measuring trust, transparency, and societal value.
#OpenScience #ReformScience
#OpenScience #ReformScience
🧵3: Alternatives exist. Global South Is Leading the Way.
Latin America’s @scielo.org and the Diamond OA Alliance prove publishing can be free to read & free to publish. Science doesn’t need billion-dollar intermediaries. It needs public infrastructure and values over volume.
Latin America’s @scielo.org and the Diamond OA Alliance prove publishing can be free to read & free to publish. Science doesn’t need billion-dollar intermediaries. It needs public infrastructure and values over volume.
July 21, 2025 at 2:19 PM
🧵3: Alternatives exist. Global South Is Leading the Way.
Latin America’s @scielo.org and the Diamond OA Alliance prove publishing can be free to read & free to publish. Science doesn’t need billion-dollar intermediaries. It needs public infrastructure and values over volume.
Latin America’s @scielo.org and the Diamond OA Alliance prove publishing can be free to read & free to publish. Science doesn’t need billion-dollar intermediaries. It needs public infrastructure and values over volume.
🧵2: Open Access? More Like Open Wallet.
OA was supposed to democratize science.
Instead, universities now pay up to $10K per article in APCs—feeding publishers with profit margins over 35%.
The result? Pay-to-play research and rising global inequality in who gets to publish.
OA was supposed to democratize science.
Instead, universities now pay up to $10K per article in APCs—feeding publishers with profit margins over 35%.
The result? Pay-to-play research and rising global inequality in who gets to publish.
July 21, 2025 at 2:19 PM
🧵2: Open Access? More Like Open Wallet.
OA was supposed to democratize science.
Instead, universities now pay up to $10K per article in APCs—feeding publishers with profit margins over 35%.
The result? Pay-to-play research and rising global inequality in who gets to publish.
OA was supposed to democratize science.
Instead, universities now pay up to $10K per article in APCs—feeding publishers with profit margins over 35%.
The result? Pay-to-play research and rising global inequality in who gets to publish.
6/6
🧵 Bottom line:
📉 Springer Nature’s latest retraction is a symptom of a bigger crisis in academic publishing.
📚 Just because it’s a book doesn’t mean it’s science.
Retractions like this? More are coming.
🧵 Bottom line:
📉 Springer Nature’s latest retraction is a symptom of a bigger crisis in academic publishing.
📚 Just because it’s a book doesn’t mean it’s science.
Retractions like this? More are coming.
July 17, 2025 at 11:21 AM
6/6
🧵 Bottom line:
📉 Springer Nature’s latest retraction is a symptom of a bigger crisis in academic publishing.
📚 Just because it’s a book doesn’t mean it’s science.
Retractions like this? More are coming.
🧵 Bottom line:
📉 Springer Nature’s latest retraction is a symptom of a bigger crisis in academic publishing.
📚 Just because it’s a book doesn’t mean it’s science.
Retractions like this? More are coming.
5/6
🤖 In the age of AI-generated content, Springer must tighten up or become a publishing landfill.
The bar for book publishing should not be lower than journals.
But here we are.
🤖 In the age of AI-generated content, Springer must tighten up or become a publishing landfill.
The bar for book publishing should not be lower than journals.
But here we are.
July 17, 2025 at 11:21 AM
5/6
🤖 In the age of AI-generated content, Springer must tighten up or become a publishing landfill.
The bar for book publishing should not be lower than journals.
But here we are.
🤖 In the age of AI-generated content, Springer must tighten up or become a publishing landfill.
The bar for book publishing should not be lower than journals.
But here we are.
4/6
💸 Why does Springer churn out junk?
Because book chapters = easy academic points for authors.
It’s a publish-or-perish goldmine — for them, not for science.
Scientific rigor? Optional.
💸 Why does Springer churn out junk?
Because book chapters = easy academic points for authors.
It’s a publish-or-perish goldmine — for them, not for science.
Scientific rigor? Optional.
July 17, 2025 at 11:21 AM
4/6
💸 Why does Springer churn out junk?
Because book chapters = easy academic points for authors.
It’s a publish-or-perish goldmine — for them, not for science.
Scientific rigor? Optional.
💸 Why does Springer churn out junk?
Because book chapters = easy academic points for authors.
It’s a publish-or-perish goldmine — for them, not for science.
Scientific rigor? Optional.
3/6
🔍 Let’s be honest:
Many Springer books are glorified PowerPoint decks in hardcover.
Poor peer review, low editorial standards, and inflated prices.
Academic lipstick on a commercial pig. 🐷📚
🔍 Let’s be honest:
Many Springer books are glorified PowerPoint decks in hardcover.
Poor peer review, low editorial standards, and inflated prices.
Academic lipstick on a commercial pig. 🐷📚
July 17, 2025 at 11:21 AM
3/6
🔍 Let’s be honest:
Many Springer books are glorified PowerPoint decks in hardcover.
Poor peer review, low editorial standards, and inflated prices.
Academic lipstick on a commercial pig. 🐷📚
🔍 Let’s be honest:
Many Springer books are glorified PowerPoint decks in hardcover.
Poor peer review, low editorial standards, and inflated prices.
Academic lipstick on a commercial pig. 🐷📚