7

In the following question, I describe how I believe to be the target of a possibly predatory journal:

Can an academic journal with low reputation be a scam?

I was informed in the subsequent answers about several online lists that mention predatory journals and publishers, and the journal and its publsiher were not listed there.

Should I and could I mention the publisher and the journal name from my case in this academia.SE question? It was mentioned that this could perhaps help me clarify the situation for me, if someone on here knows specifically about this journal, and also help others, but that I should first discuss this publication here, on meta.

6

Please don’t. This would degrade your question into a shopping question, i.e., the evaluation of an individual journal, which is something we really do not like to here. The information you give completely suffices to answer your question.

Given the plethora of journals out there, it is very unlikely that somebody here is familiar with that specific journal even if it is reputable. Thus all we can do, is to study its website and make a judgement from this. Answers based on this are dangerous, since they can become invalid once the journal turns bad or is similar – and this site is not suited to be a database for the reputability of journals.

On the other hand, your question without the specification of the journal is much more general and useful to future visitors.

  • +1. I think it would be more useful to share other pertinent information about the journal rather than just its name, since that information would be more generalizable. – Bryan Krause Jun 6 '18 at 16:59
  • I don't see the evaluation of a given journal as a shopping question. Asking for recommendation for a better journal could be seen as a shopping question. – Cape Code Jun 20 '18 at 8:25
  • @CapeCode: Unless I am mistaken, this goes all recent Meta consensuses on this topic, and particular contradicts the close reason and FAQ for shopping questions. If you think that this should be different, please ask a separate meta question. – Wrzlprmft Jun 20 '18 at 9:10
2

Yes. There is no reason not to include additional pertinent information.

0

To answer the question in the title ("Can I [...]?"): yes.

To answer the question in the text ("Should I [...]?"): probably not.

The answer from @wrzlprmft gives an excellent reason not to (it turns it into a shopping question). Another is that a journal publicly accused of being predatory would probably have grounds to sue for defamation, and several have tried. For example, the OMICS group tried to sue a librarian in the US for $1 billion for including them on a blacklist of predatory journals he curated. Although the legal article under which the case was brought has since been struck down by the Supreme Court of India, other countries may have similar laws allowing such cases to proceed.

@wrzlprmft also mentions that journals may 'turn bad' - I'd suggest the opposite is more likely; a journal with low standards and flawed reviewing processes which charges high fees might not be intentionally 'predatory', it might just be managed badly, and could potentially tighten things up with a new editor etc. I can't think of many examples though - and in line with my own advice above would be reluctant to name them anyway :)

  • 1
    I'd suggest the opposite is more likely – For low-quality journals, this may apply. For predatory publishers, I consider this extremely unlikely. They do not even have real editors to begin with and even if, anybody within their right minds would rather set up a new journal than continuing with that reputation. – Wrzlprmft Jun 7 '18 at 11:55

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .