"I’d say that canceling all subscriptions to prevent further funding of predatory publishers would be a reasonable next step, now that we know how to identify them". The sound you hear is the sound of a mike being dropped on the floor. bjoern.brembs.net/2019/12/elsevi… via @brembs.

How convenient! The definition of "predatory publisher" came with a handy cartoon! buff.ly/35et2SR pic.twitter.com/cbdOtMAi80

@MHendr1cks Absolutely! And some of those publishers fit the published definition perfectly and don't even have to necessarily do what you described

@jeroenbosman @agrudniewicz @dmoher I took it to mean that all criteria need to be met for anything to be called "predatory". At least Elsevier does fit all five of them

@Stephen_Curry Of course

@robertkiley Alternative facts. Just look at with whom they're in cahoots with: Evilsevier. Known, official predatory publisher

self-interest at the expense of scholarship, false or misleading information, lack of transparency. At least for this 3 behaviours (not to include others less obvious) Elsevier may be considered "predatory", according with the new definition in Nature

@Looptopper @MikeTaylor @gatesfoundation @wellcometrust There can be more than one indicator to look for when publishing in a journal. I do like deceptive publishing more. Otherwise there is a lot of truth in this post

A response from @brembs on news that a new definition of predatory publisher has been proposed.

@RickyPo You will probably appreciate that the definition fits legacy publishers like, say Elsevier, to a T: bjoern.brembs.net/2019/12/elsevi… I suspect that may even be intentional :-)