Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:MDPI/Archive 3) (bot |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
:::::::::::::::::* 60+ journals have an IF and around 80% are covered by Scopus. In my field, the journal Forests, is well respected. Comparison with Omics does not make sense. [[User:Kenji1987|Kenji1987]] ([[User talk:Kenji1987|talk]]) 20:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC) |
:::::::::::::::::* 60+ journals have an IF and around 80% are covered by Scopus. In my field, the journal Forests, is well respected. Comparison with Omics does not make sense. [[User:Kenji1987|Kenji1987]] ([[User talk:Kenji1987|talk]]) 20:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::::::::* {{u|Guy}}, if you think MPDI and Frontiers are comparable to OMICS, you are either extremely biased or completely uninformed on the issues.[[User:Youllneverwalkalone2019|Youllneverwalkalone2019]] ([[User talk:Youllneverwalkalone2019|talk]]) 09:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC) |
:::::::::::::::::* {{u|Guy}}, if you think MPDI and Frontiers are comparable to OMICS, you are either extremely biased or completely uninformed on the issues.[[User:Youllneverwalkalone2019|Youllneverwalkalone2019]] ([[User talk:Youllneverwalkalone2019|talk]]) 09:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
: You know what is seriously nonsense? Having a discussion on whether MDPI as a publisher is counted 0 or 1. The Nature Publishing Group is rated "0" (https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=14775&bibsys=false), but I don't see anyone adding this to the Nature Publishing Group wiki. Why is that? [[User:Kenji1987|Kenji1987]] ([[User talk:Kenji1987|talk]]) 02:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::That's because '[[Nature Publishing Group]]' is now '[https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=26805&bibsys=false Springer Nature]' since 2015 or so.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 03:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::: Not according to the Norwegian Index, the original source. They continue giving it a rating for each year. [[User:Kenji1987|Kenji1987]] ([[User talk:Kenji1987|talk]]) 12:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
==Author-pays== |
==Author-pays== |
Revision as of 12:07, 7 November 2020
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Academic Journals C‑class | |||||||||
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Chemistry C‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
MDPI downgraded to level 0 in the Norwegian Index for 2020
I see that this is now mentioned on the main page of MDPI. But isn't it a bit too early to mention this? As far as I know they hold evaluation meetings at fixed dates in which they discuss these scores. In 2019 they mention MDPI to be a level 1 publisher, could it be that after their evaluation meeting, MDPI will also be scored as a level 1 publisher? Hence, should we wait to mention this until all the scores are released for 2020? Kenji1987 (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- What happened last year is that the website of the NSD showed "0" for "2019" and the rating then moved to "1" after the evaluation meeting. So it is probably too early to assume "0" for "2020". Or is there a secondary source that confirms the rating is "final" for 2020? ErskineCer (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ill assume you guys will contact the NSD on this to confirm?Kenji1987 (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Correct, we contacted the NSD about the 2019 rating and will again reach out to them with regards to the 2020 rating.62.202.7.117 (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ill assume you guys will contact the NSD on this to confirm?Kenji1987 (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- What happened last year is that the website of the NSD showed "0" for "2019" and the rating then moved to "1" after the evaluation meeting. So it is probably too early to assume "0" for "2020". Or is there a secondary source that confirms the rating is "final" for 2020? ErskineCer (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Normally a publisher's rating is automatically renewed for each year. A publisher (or journal) isn't discussed in these evaluation meetings unless it is a new publisher/journal nominated for inclusion, or unless there is some other particular reason to discuss it (usually following a proposal to downgrade it). I've not seen any other examples of publishers that first got a 0 rating before having their previous rating reinstated, like it happened last year with MDPI. All the other publishers I looked into, including Routledge[1], OUP[2], CUP[3], Berghahn[4], Brill[5] and Princeton UP[6], all have 2 ratings for both 2019 and 2020. There is something weird and unusual going on with the MDPI ratings. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that there is something weird going on there, but now it is 1 again for 2020.Kenji1987 (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Funny, now it is clear that NSD did not give a 0 rating to MDPI, it is taken out of the lead. Not surprised though. Kenji1987 (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I removed it because you complained about inconsistencies between this article and the one on Frontiers in Psychology. As I explained elsewhere, this is a very marginal rating service and putting it in the lead (whether with a zero or other rating) is WP:UNDUE. --Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, due to lack of power, I can't challenge you on this, and we leave it like this (unless an admin can help me out here). Just be aware that when NSD changes MDPI back to 0 again (for whatever reason), I will make sure it won't be put in the lead, referring to what you state here now Kenji1987 (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I do have to say that the anti open acces bias by some wikipedia editors is shocking. People can claim that MDPI only produces shit journals (headbomb) or that the NSD is suddenly not that important (Norway is only a small country?), but we are expected to believe that all their edits are objective and neutral. If you already made up your mind that MDPI is shit, how on earth are you able to edit the page then? NSD only came to our attention when it rated MDPI 0 by mistake. Now that we now that there is literally no institution, metrics, committee, or university doubting whether MDPI is legit or not, Wikipedia seems to be the last bastion holding on to a deceased blog, who falsely recognized 1 out of 5 publishers as predatory (which is a fact). I have to share this, as it incredibly frustrating to deal with editors who first accuse you of COI, then threaten you wit bans, and then simply use their power to uphold what they see as legitimate. What is their COI? Can't we have a discussion on that? NSD is far as I know the only credible source on predatory and white lists. Once MDPI is rated 0 Ill be the first one to change this. I do think it needs to be mentioned in the lead, not to trick the reader to think that MDPI is predatory. Even Beall said that they appealed succesfully. Kenji1987 (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- For me it's the behavior of MDPI, not some obscure nordic ranking, that convinces me they are not fully legitimate. This behavior includes both the heavily promotional spin seen repeatedly and over the long term on this very talk page, as well as stunts like supporting student travel to conferences only on the condition that the student devote a whole slide of their short talk to an advertisement for MDPI. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- SAGE and Springer spam my inbox almost every week with promotional stuff and special issues and what not. It is almost the same calibre as "greetings from journal of management, social scienes and biology (JMSSB), we got an impact of 7 from Journal Impact Factor". But this does not reflect their reviewing and publishing practices. What happens here on the talk page is that people seem to realize that not everything is completely kosher with MDPI's wiki page, mind you their wikipage not MDPI perse. Was that also the reason you were the first one accusing me of having a COI? Because you are convinced that they are illegit and hence anyone who thinks different, must have a COI? This is by the way an excellent and critical analysis on MDPI: https://danbrockington.com/2019/12/04/an-open-letter-to-mdpi-publishing/. Id like to see how this can be integrated into this Wiki page. Ps. I also heard the Nobel Prize is some kind of obscure Nordic award. And if NSD was that obscure why werent you the first one to remove it from the lead when it was added to show MDPI had a score of 0? Kenji1987 (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Kenji1987: I see that after several months of editing, you are still directing baseless and unwarranted accusations of hypocrisy at other users. Such comments are a violation of our policy WP:NPA. If you continue, I will seek to have you sanctioned. --JBL (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm inquiring. People also do not really seem to understand how referencing works. Because it is for example decided that everything that what Beall writes must be trustworthy, he is uncritically referenced anywhere. For example, till date there is no single proof that MDPI falsely put nobel prize winners as editorial board members on their journals. Still it is mentioned on MDPI's wiki page. Why? Because of Beall. But when you check his claim, there is literally no source to support it. Still it is mentioned on this page. Hence, I'm inquiring. Kenji1987 (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Kenji1987: I see that after several months of editing, you are still directing baseless and unwarranted accusations of hypocrisy at other users. Such comments are a violation of our policy WP:NPA. If you continue, I will seek to have you sanctioned. --JBL (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- SAGE and Springer spam my inbox almost every week with promotional stuff and special issues and what not. It is almost the same calibre as "greetings from journal of management, social scienes and biology (JMSSB), we got an impact of 7 from Journal Impact Factor". But this does not reflect their reviewing and publishing practices. What happens here on the talk page is that people seem to realize that not everything is completely kosher with MDPI's wiki page, mind you their wikipage not MDPI perse. Was that also the reason you were the first one accusing me of having a COI? Because you are convinced that they are illegit and hence anyone who thinks different, must have a COI? This is by the way an excellent and critical analysis on MDPI: https://danbrockington.com/2019/12/04/an-open-letter-to-mdpi-publishing/. Id like to see how this can be integrated into this Wiki page. Ps. I also heard the Nobel Prize is some kind of obscure Nordic award. And if NSD was that obscure why werent you the first one to remove it from the lead when it was added to show MDPI had a score of 0? Kenji1987 (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Kenji1987 If you are basing the 1 in 5 figure on being able to spot papers with fake author names and "designed with such grave and obvious scientific flaws that they should have been rejected immediately by editors and peer reviewers" that is a very low bar to reach and does not imply that a journal is not predatory let alone of quality. --Haansn08 (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- For me it's the behavior of MDPI, not some obscure nordic ranking, that convinces me they are not fully legitimate. This behavior includes both the heavily promotional spin seen repeatedly and over the long term on this very talk page, as well as stunts like supporting student travel to conferences only on the condition that the student devote a whole slide of their short talk to an advertisement for MDPI. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Kenji1987, it's nothing to do with open access and everything to do with crappy standards (and abuse of Wikipedia for promotion of course). Guy (help!) 00:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Funny, now it is clear that NSD did not give a 0 rating to MDPI, it is taken out of the lead. Not surprised though. Kenji1987 (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that there is something weird going on there, but now it is 1 again for 2020.Kenji1987 (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok so Guy thinks MDPI has crappy standards. Fair enough, you have your reasons to decide when a publisher is crappy or not, and I respect that. NSD, Web of Science, Scopus, and other indexes and standards on the other hand think differently. I dont know whether you work in academia, but aforementioned criteria mean a lot Kenji1987 (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles are based on sources, not what editors "think", and trying to frame the discussion that way is unhelpful and disruptive. We have sources saying MDPI is a disreputable publisher (e.g.[7]) and we are bound to reflect them. Alexbrn (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well said, Im not disputing these sources either, but some editors are so convinced that MDPI is crappy that they refuse any source which claims otherwise. Scientific reports for example also had a massive resignation of editors. Does it make Science crappy? Of course not. Hence, why is Beall significant and NSD not? NSD is widely respected in the EU, and not a marginal index. Academics they know this, hence, my edits. When NSD ranked MDPI 0 it was placed in the lead. When it is factually proven that it is a legit publisher, then suddenly this information is deemed less important. Think about it. Kenji1987 (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Any sources supporting your claim that NSD is "widely respected in the EU"? --Randykitty (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Claiming to know what editors are "convinced of" is likewise problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- When an editor claims that MDPI is crappy, Im pretty sure they mean crappy Kenji1987 (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Claiming that assessment comes from conviction (rather than, as in the normal case, a neutral assessment of the sources) unhelpfully personalizes the dispute. Of course there can be other reasons why an editor's view is inappropriately slanted - conflict of interest for example. Alexbrn (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes I am also very interested in knowing why people think MDPI is crap or predatory Kenji1987 (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- If you want to know why people think MDPI is predatory or crap, you only have to look at the practices of MDPI. It is not as bad as OMICS, but their standards, reviewing process, and general practices are clearly not up to par for what people consider reputable standards and behavior. This view is not universal of course, and the article reflects that too. We do mention indexing in scopus and web of science for instance, as well as the NSD rating, and membership in various open access associations. However inclusion in Beall is significant, and has been the focus of widespread coverage. Therefore we would be in violation of NPOV if we fail to mention it, and when would be in violation of DUE if we did not mention it in the lead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- MDPI has its fair share of embarrasing controversies, and some journal's rejection rate is too low. But compared to other open access publishers, including the more credible ones, I don't see much difference. Would love to see more sources which support your claim. Beall is a good source, but even he removed MDPI from his list, after independent evaluation. Kenji1987 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- And we also mention that MDPI was removed after appeal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, and I put it in the lead. But there is literally no evidence that MDPI systematically has any real problems making them 'crappy' besides some embarrassing controversies, some which were solved, others unaddressed. Kenji1987 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- And since our article does not say "MDPI is crappy" nor anything like it, but instead reports (clearly, and with proper sourcing) on the situation broadly, there seems to be no problem. --JBL (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well some developments here are concerning. Hence, I edit to make sure the information is more balanced. For example, if the NSD decides that MDPI is 0 (there is a chance this might happen) we now decided this should not be in the lead Kenji1987 (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- A "1" rating just says that a publisher meets the minimum requirements to be considered an academic publisher. Most publishers get a "1" rating, it's an unexceptional rating. Just don't be SCIRP or OmniScriptum, and you'll get your "1" rating; before people had heard of predatory publishing basically any publisher that included some basic information about an editorial board and procedures for peer review on their website would get the "1" rating. A "0" rating expressly states that a publisher/journal does not meet the minimum requirements to be considered academic at all. In this context, a "0" rating would be much more exceptional and noteworthy than a standard "1" rating. In other words: "1" = nothing out of the ordinary; "0" = it's like SCIRP. So no, we haven't decided what we would do in that case, only that a "1" rating isn't very noteworthy. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- To elaborate a bit on my concerns. I first noticed that Mario Capecchi's case was still mentioned on the Wiki page, 4 years after the news was debunked. I tried to change it, but my revisions kept on being undone. Part of it was my fault, but every time the revisions were undone, Capecchi kept on being mentioned, until Randykitten finally deleted it. Then, I realized that the way Hindawi's page was organized was completely different from MDPI. Beall kept on being mentioned, even though Beall himself said that MDPI fulfilled all the requirements of being a reputable publisher. He never claimed later that MDPI was not, just that they were annoying. Which I understand, the Beall list does affect your income and reputation (unfortunately! I never understood why academics blindly followed Beall - literally a one man army - people are obsessed with lists and rankings, especially academics and even worse managers who run universities). NSD was mentioned in the lead only when it gave MDPI a 0 score (correct me if I am wrong!). But once they also established that they see MDPI as a standard publisher, it is suddenly this obscure Nordic ranking. What I also noticed that many editors accussed me of having a COI, up until this date (see the talk page of frontiers in psychology for example). I am not deleting any information to make MDPI look good - I just don't see any evidence that they are any different from other publishers in terms of reviewing procedures and so on. Scientific Reports and PLOSEONE each have rejection rates of 40-50% - very similar to MDPI's journals (I find it way too high, but that is my personal opinion). Hence, I would honestly like to know why editors personally find MDPI crappy, based on eligble sources and evidence. Once, knowing editors' point of view, I think we can have a more constructive dialogue to represent MDPI in a more balanced way. I have done my fair share, and I am planning to restructure the controversies page, at some point in time, as it is way too messy now. Of course, Ill mention it in the talk page first. Hence, these are my concerns. Kenji1987 (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well some developments here are concerning. Hence, I edit to make sure the information is more balanced. For example, if the NSD decides that MDPI is 0 (there is a chance this might happen) we now decided this should not be in the lead Kenji1987 (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Kenji1987, MDPI is a bottom tier publisher. Slightly better than OMICS or Frontiers, but a lot worse than reputable publishers. Guy (help!) 16:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- 60+ journals have an IF and around 80% are covered by Scopus. In my field, the journal Forests, is well respected. Comparison with Omics does not make sense. Kenji1987 (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Guy, if you think MPDI and Frontiers are comparable to OMICS, you are either extremely biased or completely uninformed on the issues.Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- And since our article does not say "MDPI is crappy" nor anything like it, but instead reports (clearly, and with proper sourcing) on the situation broadly, there seems to be no problem. --JBL (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, and I put it in the lead. But there is literally no evidence that MDPI systematically has any real problems making them 'crappy' besides some embarrassing controversies, some which were solved, others unaddressed. Kenji1987 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- And we also mention that MDPI was removed after appeal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- MDPI has its fair share of embarrasing controversies, and some journal's rejection rate is too low. But compared to other open access publishers, including the more credible ones, I don't see much difference. Would love to see more sources which support your claim. Beall is a good source, but even he removed MDPI from his list, after independent evaluation. Kenji1987 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- If you want to know why people think MDPI is predatory or crap, you only have to look at the practices of MDPI. It is not as bad as OMICS, but their standards, reviewing process, and general practices are clearly not up to par for what people consider reputable standards and behavior. This view is not universal of course, and the article reflects that too. We do mention indexing in scopus and web of science for instance, as well as the NSD rating, and membership in various open access associations. However inclusion in Beall is significant, and has been the focus of widespread coverage. Therefore we would be in violation of NPOV if we fail to mention it, and when would be in violation of DUE if we did not mention it in the lead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes I am also very interested in knowing why people think MDPI is crap or predatory Kenji1987 (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Claiming that assessment comes from conviction (rather than, as in the normal case, a neutral assessment of the sources) unhelpfully personalizes the dispute. Of course there can be other reasons why an editor's view is inappropriately slanted - conflict of interest for example. Alexbrn (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- When an editor claims that MDPI is crappy, Im pretty sure they mean crappy Kenji1987 (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well said, Im not disputing these sources either, but some editors are so convinced that MDPI is crappy that they refuse any source which claims otherwise. Scientific reports for example also had a massive resignation of editors. Does it make Science crappy? Of course not. Hence, why is Beall significant and NSD not? NSD is widely respected in the EU, and not a marginal index. Academics they know this, hence, my edits. When NSD ranked MDPI 0 it was placed in the lead. When it is factually proven that it is a legit publisher, then suddenly this information is deemed less important. Think about it. Kenji1987 (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- You know what is seriously nonsense? Having a discussion on whether MDPI as a publisher is counted 0 or 1. The Nature Publishing Group is rated "0" (https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=14775&bibsys=false), but I don't see anyone adding this to the Nature Publishing Group wiki. Why is that? Kenji1987 (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's because 'Nature Publishing Group' is now 'Springer Nature' since 2015 or so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not according to the Norwegian Index, the original source. They continue giving it a rating for each year. Kenji1987 (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's because 'Nature Publishing Group' is now 'Springer Nature' since 2015 or so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Author-pays
Kenji1987 now claims the term "author-pays" is "not neutral." It seems to me to be a well-established term, and author-pays open access is even used by well-respected publishers who (also) use this model[8] "Open access" alone is such a broad, vague term that it doesn't really convey much information on its own; it could be a non-profit journal run by some academics at a university with no article processing charges, or it could be SCIRP. I think it's useful to identify the form of open access. Interestingly, I've never heard of a predatory journal with platinum or green open access, and I wonder why all predatory or questionable publishers love the author-pays model and show no interest whatsoever in other open access models? Curiously, Kenji1987 just added author-pays to Frontiers[9] but then made a point of removing it; it seems like a WP:POINTy operation aimed at, in the end, removing the term from MDPI. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please check my edits for Plosone, Scientific Reports, and Frontiers. Im just standardizing all the leads. On plosone talk page arguments are given, and I agreed with them. Kenji1987 (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- And why predatory publishers dont like green oa or platinum? How are they making their money then, bit obvious no? Thats like mafia running an NGO, unless it is in Japan, it is highly unlikely. Kenji1987 (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- That's precisely the point, there is a big difference between the mafia and the NGO sector, and the vague descriptor that includes both predatory publishers and non-profit platinum open access publishers is conflating two very different types of publishing much in the same way that a term that included both the mafia and the NGO sector would. In the world of publishing, predatory publishers are the mafia. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- So plosone scientific reports and MDPI are predatory?Kenji1987 (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- If you continue your widespread habit of tedious and tendentious contributions, I will be forced to bring you to ANI. Wikipedia talk pages are not for showing off your oratorical skills: make an argument, based on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and quality sources; if it's a good one then you might actually be able convince someone to agree with you for once. Drawing out every conversation with endless rhetorical questions is a waste of the time of volunteers who are actually improving Wikipedia. --JBL (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) [Kenji asked for my substantive opinion but then deleted the query while I was slowly drafting a response; here it is.] The term "author-pays" strikes me as basically clear and not obviously pejorative. I find the different "colors" of open access a little jargon-y and hard to keep track of (what is the meaning of green vs gold, etc.) -- these terms are not widely used in my field, where author fees of any kind are rare, and I'm quite confident they are not meaningful to non-academics. If high-quality sources show a strong preference for one term over another, I would go with what they say. --JBL (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining and apologies for deleting. We keep it at this then. Kenji1987 (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- No apology necessary -- such things are bound to happen from time to time. --JBL (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining and apologies for deleting. We keep it at this then. Kenji1987 (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) [Kenji asked for my substantive opinion but then deleted the query while I was slowly drafting a response; here it is.] The term "author-pays" strikes me as basically clear and not obviously pejorative. I find the different "colors" of open access a little jargon-y and hard to keep track of (what is the meaning of green vs gold, etc.) -- these terms are not widely used in my field, where author fees of any kind are rare, and I'm quite confident they are not meaningful to non-academics. If high-quality sources show a strong preference for one term over another, I would go with what they say. --JBL (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- If you continue your widespread habit of tedious and tendentious contributions, I will be forced to bring you to ANI. Wikipedia talk pages are not for showing off your oratorical skills: make an argument, based on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and quality sources; if it's a good one then you might actually be able convince someone to agree with you for once. Drawing out every conversation with endless rhetorical questions is a waste of the time of volunteers who are actually improving Wikipedia. --JBL (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- So plosone scientific reports and MDPI are predatory?Kenji1987 (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- That's precisely the point, there is a big difference between the mafia and the NGO sector, and the vague descriptor that includes both predatory publishers and non-profit platinum open access publishers is conflating two very different types of publishing much in the same way that a term that included both the mafia and the NGO sector would. In the world of publishing, predatory publishers are the mafia. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- And why predatory publishers dont like green oa or platinum? How are they making their money then, bit obvious no? Thats like mafia running an NGO, unless it is in Japan, it is highly unlikely. Kenji1987 (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Headbomb would you be so kind to repeat your argument why author-pays adjective is misleading? Kenji1987 (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have not made that argument, so I will not repeat it. What I said was that framing APCs as "pay-to-publish" absent of sources describing the model as such was general unhelpful. And before you go on an indiscriminate purging of "pay-to-publish" on Wikipedia, no, this does not apply across the board, and exceptions exist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Concerning the "is a publisher of author-pays open access scientific journals" bit however, here and elsewhere, I find that mentioning APCs right before open access is loading the sentence necessarily. This is best covered in a separate sentence, if needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I was going to say that also -- in some cases it can be helpful to spread information over several sentences. (E.g. in math articles one sometimes sees things like "In mathematics, Euler's theorem (Fr: Pascal's Theorem, Farsi: Al-Khwārizmī's Theorem), named after Euler but first proved in an unnoted paper by Freud, is ..." and the right way to present this information is to not cover it all in a single sentence.) --JBL (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Concerning the "is a publisher of author-pays open access scientific journals" bit however, here and elsewhere, I find that mentioning APCs right before open access is loading the sentence necessarily. This is best covered in a separate sentence, if needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have not made that argument, so I will not repeat it. What I said was that framing APCs as "pay-to-publish" absent of sources describing the model as such was general unhelpful. And before you go on an indiscriminate purging of "pay-to-publish" on Wikipedia, no, this does not apply across the board, and exceptions exist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Lynn and alleged scientific racism
I see my edits got reverted. I'm not going to wage any edit war, and if slandering Lynn and MDPI is the hill you wish to die on, I don't much care. I'll just note that the text:
due to his promotion of discredited sexist and racist views, such as scientific racism.
is not what the sources say, and the only place I can find the term "scientific racist" in the sources, is Saini referring to Jensen and Rushton. BBC in particular, mentions his claims of differences in average IQ between different ethnicities, but apparently, a neutral reporting based on the sources would be too weak, so it needs to be embellished with a little slander to reach Wikipedia quality.
Saini pointed out that another paper in the same journal defends the work of notorious scientific racists, Arthur Jensen and Philippe Rushton,
This is described in the Article as 'defending scientific racism', which is also not an entirely accurate rephrasing of the source, but that's a minor thing. As far as I can tell, Saini bases her harsh assessment on their article in APA Psychology,_Public_Policy,_and_Law. This is not usually regarded as a racist rag, but I guess Saini is the authority on this - she may not have any scientific merits, but she has the right progressive mindset, which of course is the important thing.
Ketil (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Developed vs. developing, WASH
Yesterday Lingac45 added a section about a recent kerfuffle involving an MDPI journal, with a primary source; I reverted because it was undue without secondary sourcing. Today Retraction Watch published a piece about it, so my objection no longer stands; if someone wants to add something in based on the RW piece, be my guest. --JBL (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Request edit to "Preferential treatment of authors from developed countries"
Given the sources posted by Lingac45, the statement "a group of Water, Sanitation and Health researchers from the University of Leeds was informed by an MDPI representative that scholars from developed countries would be given priority for publication" is factually wrong. Instead, the subject of the email exchange was waiving the article-processing charges for some selected authors from developed countries. By suggesting to invite authors from a sub-group to publish for free, the journal editors were *not* influencing the editorial decision on whether or not to to accept any paper for publication. On behalf of MDPI, we request to update the entry accordingly. (this comment written by an employee of MDPI) Mdpi comms (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Please see WP:ROLE -- it is not acceptable to edit Wikipedia through a role account. --JBL (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Joel B. Lewis: I added a COI-username notice. Darth Flappy «Talk» 23:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Additionally, I think that it's disingenuous to say that it did not affect the editorial process when it manifestly did, both in preventing the editors from using these waived charges to encourage certain non-priviledged authors from submitting and in the eventual resignation of the editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Accepted: Not clear that it affected the editorial decision, typically fees are paid after acceptance and often some negotiation is possible after acceptance, This is relatively typical. PainProf (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Undone. The source explicitly says, in a quote directly from MDPI, "scholars from developed countries will be given priority". PainProf, perhaps you are unaware, but this article has had an enormously long history of editors trying to whitewash MDPI's misdeeds by using euphemistic wording to make them seem more minor. Please don't assist them with that goal. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- ? The source says that they didn't offer waivers to developing countries, however, it does not provide evidence that any editors from developing countries were actively discriminated against. Whilst not waiving fees would discriminate against authors from low-middle income countries, there is no evidence that it influenced the decision to publish. The decision to publish appears to remain with the editor, these are bad facts but they do not show that MDPI changed the editorial process, I think that's the companies complaint here. So you can say they are discriminatory financially, but not editorially. Editorial influence would be far worse which I'm guessing is why they're complaining about it. Maybe there's a way to word it where the horribly bad facts are clear but not allege editorial influence. At the moment it reads to me like MDPI's journal staff interfered during the publication process rather than applied discriminatory publication fees PainProf (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- They did interfere during the publication process, by preventing the editors from reaching out to the authors they wished to reach out to with an offer of waived publication fees and therefore affecting the likely balance of submissions to the issue. Their interference also had a very concrete effect on the publication process, in causing the editors to withdraw from the issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- I propose: In June 2020, MDPI sparked controversy when - while attempting to publish a special issue on failures - a group of Water, Sanitation and Health researchers from the University of Leeds was informed by an MDPI representative that only scholars from developed countries would be given publication fee waivers, effectively discriminating against contributors from developing countries. PainProf (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's probably an improvement. It is still a little inaccurate, though, in that it implies that any such scholar would be given such a waiver, when my reading of the story was that there were a limited number of waivers to be handed out by the editors. The gist of the story was that the editors were constrained by MDPI in which scholars they could hand them out to. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- I propose: In June 2020, MDPI sparked controversy when - while attempting to publish a special issue on failures - a group of Water, Sanitation and Health researchers from the University of Leeds was informed by an MDPI representative that only scholars from developed countries would be given publication fee waivers, effectively discriminating against contributors from developing countries. PainProf (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- They did interfere during the publication process, by preventing the editors from reaching out to the authors they wished to reach out to with an offer of waived publication fees and therefore affecting the likely balance of submissions to the issue. Their interference also had a very concrete effect on the publication process, in causing the editors to withdraw from the issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Additionally, I think that it's disingenuous to say that it did not affect the editorial process when it manifestly did, both in preventing the editors from using these waived charges to encourage certain non-priviledged authors from submitting and in the eventual resignation of the editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)