@egonw true.
Now, in a world with 💯 percent diamond journals, run by our various professional societies, the pressure would be on:
- from peers
- and economically too.
It is an individual choice. Yet not everyone is keeping up with developments like you.😉 When my collaborator chose MDPI, thinking that would still be ok, I didn't check the journal either. It wasn't my subject and you may call it utterly naive or worse. It would be true (and ignore the fact that I was in no position to object, either. Academia sometimes is a viciously convoluted environment.)
Thing with action towards the climate crisis is, that they are individual choices too. And we know that without our governments setting boundaries, we, as individuals, have only a little lever for change.
Not quite a good analogy, yet my point is that without adjusted peer pressure and economic pressure, individuals will all too frequently fall for the promises of predatory publishers.
@rupdecat and it would be so easy to take more control.
We can:
1. start adding editor information to #Wikidata (and #Wikipedia where missing)
2. adopt ranked voting to rank scientific journals
3. use platforms like PubPeer regularly (both positive and negative)
4. demand minimal standards from commercial publishers
5. ask something in return for free peer reviewing