With the power to vote and flag journals comes the absolute necessity for clinical, data-driven integrity.
Moderators possess the power to flag a journal as 'Predatory' or 'Legitimate'. This binary evaluation requires absolute certainty. No accusation can be made without public, verifiable evidence of deceptive practices, such as fake editorial boards or hijacked domains.
You are allowed to post in support of journals that demonstrate exceptional integrity. However, support must be clinical and data-driven. Highlight specific peer-review wait times, indexing status, and transparent fee structures.
Personal vendettas or institutional rivalries have no place here. Using your moderator voting power to settle academic scores will result in an immediate and permanent ban from the network.
When flagging a publisher as predatory, you must cite specific violations of the ResearchSeed Code of Conduct. General 'feelings' are not sufficient; we require evidence of systemic integrity failure.
Moderators are the final line of defense. Your vote directly impacts the reputation and financial viability of journals. You must adhere to the following binary evaluation criteria:
Must prove lack of peer review, falsified impact factors, or hidden fee structures.
Must verify physical office locations, DOAJ indexing, and editorial board member affiliations.
If you have a personal conflict with a journal, you MUST recuse yourself from voting on it.
Every vote cast for a 'Predatory' status must be accompanied by a public evidence thread.