Beyond #FakeScience: how to overcome shallow certainty in scholarly communication

Recent media reports in Germany have brought renewed focus on predatory publishing practices and seen a notably increased use of the term "fake science". But to what extent is this a worsening problem? Lambert Heller argues that predatory publishing has never really become a big thing, and that it became a thing at all is largely attributable to the simple fact of publication in a scholarly journal coming to be seen as an instant “seal of approval” for a research article, as well as more widespread issues with the peer review process. Transparency is the best remedy for the harm caused by predatory publishing practices; when openness of peer review becomes a default, publishers would have a hard time faking it.