Pokémon reference: 10/10
Scientific contribution: 3/10 (points awarded for fantastical anatomic diagram, solid use of sciency language)
Comedic value: off the charts
#PredatoryJournal#ScienceTwitter#AcademicTwitter
“I am writing to follow up on my previous email because I didn’t hear back from you.”
Creep Factor: 5/10
#PredatoryPublishingEmails are all stalker accounts.
When @fake_journals shares snippets of #PredatoryPublishing emails, we’re delighted to give them a rating 😂
We aim to be harsh, but fair. But mostly harsh.
Obsession w/ these stats is the main factor contributing to decrease in the quality of public/gov funded research in academia. It also provides fertile ground for predatory publishing which in turn undermines the academic world itself. #AcademicChatter
👉 https://t.co/gzdMRJBfYl
@MVGutierrezMD#GreetingsOfTheDay, Dr. Gutierrez! Here at 'Rate my Predatory Journal,' we absolutely think so.
If you'd be kind enough to DM or post the rest of the email, we'd be happy to provide a full rating.
In the meanwhile, we give your personality a 16/10 on eminentness and them 0/10.
Celebrity: 14/10
Importance: 7/10, only *one of* their important researchers
Friendliness: 9/10, wants articles from everyone you know, also
#GreetingsOfTheDay#PredatoryJournals#MedTwitter
"Being Aware of your eminence, we have a great pleasure to invite you to propose one or more papers towards the journal's upcoming issue."
If they were truly aware of my "eminence" I suspect they would not have contacted me.
#PredatoryPublishingEmails#PredatoryJournals
@jack_turban#GreetingsoftheDay, esteemed professor Dr. @jack_turban --
Please see your mediocre ratings below:
Praise: 0/10, didn't even call world-class.
Safety: 5/10, canceled but didn't encourage distancing.
Believability: 9/10, shockingly few typos.
#PredatoryJournal#MedTwitter