Talk:List of scholarly publishing stings

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of scholarly publishing hoaxes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160605042104/https://scholarlyoa.com/2013/01/25/omics-predatory-meetings/ to https://scholarlyoa.com/2013/01/25/omics-predatory-meetings/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of scholarly publishing hoaxes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161106003123/https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/10/13/bogus-british-company-accredits-omics-conferences/ to https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/10/13/bogus-british-company-accredits-omics-conferences/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Anna. O. Szust hoax

The hoax was coined against predatory journals: http://www.nature.com/news/predatory-journals-recruit-fake-editor-1.21662 Xx236 (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

What's the Deal with Birds?

My favourite example of a predatory journal falling for a hoax article was the much-ridiculed (see, for example, Kathryn Krawczyk's April 15 2020 piece What's the deal with birds? This magnificent scientific paper examines) paper "What's the Deal with Birds?" published in the Scientific Journal of Research and Reviews in April 2020. I see it has been entirely deleted from the record by its publisher, Iris Publishers, which just goes to show that they can't even retract an article in the correct (i.e. honest and transparent) way. JezGrove (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Why not add it to the article? --ehn (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hatixhe Latifi Pupovci

This case does not sound like a sting to expose credulous or predatory reviewers. It is a simple financial 'sting.' Should it be included here? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The intro text states "the list does not include cases of scientific misconduct." I moved this case to a new 'Financial stings' section, but I'm thinking it ought to be removed under this criteria. Anyone agree? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)