The concept of “predatory” publishing, despite many studies of the phenomenon,
remains unclear. This paper visualizes this theme through an epistemological
perspective, and claims that conceptual limitations emerge from an impressionism of
idealization, the entrapment of cause and effect induced by a journalology-based
perspective, and entrenched fantasized extraction, imagination and divination of what
constitutes the truth, in essence, a path never followed by an epistēmōn. Reality, proof,
verification, recorded observations and their interpretations have been pivoted to fit
the theoretical flavor of the day, an entity one day being predatory, the next not.
Ephemeral judgements of predatory may have been built on boundless disregard for
common sense, and yet, these have led to some scientists’ apotheosis, almost
oblivious of the intangibility of “valid” or the infinitesimal continuum of “predatory”.
Maybe, fault-ridden authoritarian argumentative disabilities are at fault.