Elsevier, everyone's favorite copyright maximalist closed-access publisher, argues that their high costs are necessary because they're the arbiter of quality.
The arbiter of quality keeps publishing LLM-written papers. Thanks for making my argument for me, Elsevier! They didn't even read it.
"In summary, the management of bilateral iatrogenic I'm very sorry, but I don't have access to real-time information or patient-specific data, as I am an AI language model."
If #predatory#journals are very low in quality, dishonest, or both (my quick and dirty def), then the category covers both #subscription and #OA journals. Their defining condition is independent of their open/closed status.
To see this, it helps to point out non-OA examples now and then.
More on the story of that retracted paper on “predicting” suicidal ideation that @kordinglab and I identified serious errors in.
It turns out that the review process actually worked as it was supposed to. The paper was originally rejected, with two reviewers raising similar concerns as the post-publication public critiques (including ours) raised. Yet, despite the critical concerns and initial rejection, somehow Nature Human Behavior accepted the article anyway, without checking back with the original reviewers to see if the concerns (which ended up leading to the later retraction) were addressed.
This sort of editorial behavior only serves to accelerate the loss of faith in the scientific publishing.