It appears to be a pay-for-play "journal". I imagine the reviewers were the guy who cashes the checks and Mr. Sparky, his hand puppet.
-
-
Replying to @St_Rev
What led to this conclusion? Totally believable, but most journals charge page fees (and this one operates on “pay what you can”).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @St_Rev
Published by Taylor & Francis, who are reputable (but that doesn’t mean all their publications are, necessarily)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Three weeks between 'received' and 'accepted' is a big clue.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @St_Rev @Meaningness
Reviewing editor is real but his vita is...strange. https://www.hud.ac.uk/ourstaff/profile/index.php?staffid=767 …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
Jeeeebuz! And I thought *my* publication record was eclectic. Either he’s a genius, or most of these are fake…
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @St_Rev
“Fake” in the sense of no actual content. Takes one to know one, maybe?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @St_Rev
Can’t help noticing the word “Rotherham” in there…. in the context of “Mainstream Construction of English Muslims”….
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @St_Rev
He was there 2008-9 just before the scandal broke into public in a big way:pic.twitter.com/yadKOZLSjN
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
His 2007 publications were all on “English Muslims are oppressed” http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/16822/ and then there is a gap to 2010. Bad timing dude
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
