Not all scientific journals are created equal. Some exist to advance knowledge — others exist to collect publishing fees. In this episode of Turfgrass Epistemology, we explore how to tell the difference.

I’ll walk through the refereed process and explain how it differs from standard peer review, why that distinction matters, and how the structure of editorial oversight determines the credibility of the science that reaches the public. We’ll also take a close look at predatory journals — publications that mimic legitimate science while bypassing or corrupting the review process in exchange for author fees.

But the story isn’t as simple as “good” versus “bad.” Even in a predatory journal, a paper may contain sound science — the key is learning how to weigh the evidence and evaluate quality for yourself. We’ll discuss:

What defines a refereed journal versus a peer-reviewed one.

How to spot red flags in a publication or website.

By the end, you’ll have a framework for evaluating whether a journal’s claims deserve your trust — and how to apply critical thinking before citing, sharing, or believing “published” results.

If you care about how we know what we know, and why evidence must be judged as well as gathered, this episode is for you.

🎓 Turfgrass Epistemology — How do we know what we know?

📌 https://www.gofundme.com/f/TurfgrassEpistemology

Thank you for being part of this community and for supporting evidence-based turfgrass science.

Join Turfgrass Epistemology to get access to perks:

Voicemail:

Apple Podcast

Spotify Podcast

iHeart Radio Podcast

Podbean

Online consulting

Twitter

Email

Turfgrass Programs and Extension Service Information:

Diagnostic Criteria for Turfgrass Bullshit Disorder:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y_GeVPQ237pzm0ImTP4eVij6I9D0PHPn/view