SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The first solid indication of how widespread this problem really is came with last year's Federal Trade Commission (FTC) action against one of the largest and most profitable of the alleged predators, the prolific journal publisher and conference organizer OMICS, which publishes 785 titles generating over $50M in annual revenues. The FTC alleges that OMICS makes false promises of peer review in return for article processing charges (APCs), assesses those charges without disclosing them up front (then refuses to let authors withdraw their papers from submission), and lies about both the membership of its editorial boards and the names of presenters at the many conferences it sponsors - all classic examples of predatory publishing practices.
Now comes a small flood of even more alarming reports [...]
(source)
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday August 08 2018, @07:29PM
Those journals allow giving a “scientific” justification for some industry's agenda. The actual scientific community will immediately recognize the paper as bullshit anyway (which is why you wouldn't be able to publish it in a truly reputable journal), but the general public will be fooled if you can tell them that the study “Health Effects of Snake Oil”, published in the “peer-reviewed” Journal of Snake Oil showed that snake oil improves your health. Oh, and cyanide is absolutely not poisonous, as shown in a paper in the Journal of Totally Non-Poisonous Stuff, so don't complain about it being in our waste water!
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.