> It does so happen that the principal author of the paper is the editor-in-chief of that journal however
So you mean to tell me that a person who does not need to fear harm to their reputation used their own science-focused business to take on the analysis of a phenomenon that is wrought with fallacious appeals to shame?
> and the publisher of the journal has been on-again-off-again the lists of predatory publishers for some years.
MDPI? I don't have time to research this thoroughly but aren't they just a multidisciplinary republisher from other journals who are ostensibly the responsible parties for ensuring proper peer review?
> MDPI was included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies in 2014[13][15] but was removed in 2015 following a successful appeal[14] while applying pressure on Beall's employer.[16] Some journals published by MDPI have also been noted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Norwegian Scientific Publication Register, two major scientific bodies, for lack of rigour and possible predatory practice.[
Jeffrey Beall has an obvious anti-open-access bias, and I believe that's why the "pressure on his employer" was successful. As an open-source developer, this makes it difficult for me to judge his claims fairly; the "ivory tower of accredited scientists working in secret and retaining sole access to prestigious journals while divvying out Truth From On High" is a model that I think needs to be put to bed (even if there are some drawbacks to that). What I can say is that capitalism does not seem to mesh well with basic science research and it can result in problems such as poor peer review.
So you mean to tell me that a person who does not need to fear harm to their reputation used their own science-focused business to take on the analysis of a phenomenon that is wrought with fallacious appeals to shame?
> and the publisher of the journal has been on-again-off-again the lists of predatory publishers for some years.
MDPI? I don't have time to research this thoroughly but aren't they just a multidisciplinary republisher from other journals who are ostensibly the responsible parties for ensuring proper peer review?
> MDPI was included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies in 2014[13][15] but was removed in 2015 following a successful appeal[14] while applying pressure on Beall's employer.[16] Some journals published by MDPI have also been noted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Norwegian Scientific Publication Register, two major scientific bodies, for lack of rigour and possible predatory practice.[
Jeffrey Beall has an obvious anti-open-access bias, and I believe that's why the "pressure on his employer" was successful. As an open-source developer, this makes it difficult for me to judge his claims fairly; the "ivory tower of accredited scientists working in secret and retaining sole access to prestigious journals while divvying out Truth From On High" is a model that I think needs to be put to bed (even if there are some drawbacks to that). What I can say is that capitalism does not seem to mesh well with basic science research and it can result in problems such as poor peer review.