WikiProject iconAcademic Journals C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.
WikiProject iconChemistry C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Downgrading to "non-academic status (level 0)"

((request edit)) has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to ((help me)). Information to be added or removed: Reverse recent edits by user Bjerrebæk with regards to the alleged downgrading to "non-academic status" in the Norwegian Science Index.

Explanation of the issue: The only indication for this is a "0" on the following webpage next to the year 2019: https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=26778&bibsys=false. However, I did not find any other publisher yet with a 2019 rating on the NSD website, so this is most likely an error in the database / webform (see for example the ratings of Karger and SpringerNature by the NSD via the links below). There is also no announcement or further information by the NSD with regards to this change on their website. To conclude that MDPI has a “non-academic status” is very far-fetched and would require more information / sources. There are services such as Publons that now provide additional transparency and information in terms of the peer review process of individual journals/publishers, see: https://publons.com/journal/?order_by=reviews

References supporting change: There is no "2019" field available for other publishers, for example see SpringerNature (https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=26805&bibsys=false) or Karger (https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=18410&bibsys=false). The “0” next to the 2019 on NSD page about MDPI is likely an error and further sources would be required to confirm that MDPI is rated "non-academic" (https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=26778&bibsys=false). Regards, ErskineCer (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The material could be better presented (ideally wih some secondary commentary) but I can see that the site does indded categorize MDPI as "Level 0" for 2019. The claim that this is "likely an error" seems pretty desperate. Alexbrn (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no error on the website. As the website plainly shows, MDPI is rated as "Level 0" from 2019 onwards. The claim that there is no "other publisher yet with a 2019 rating on the NSD website" is wrong; this is the entry of Cambridge University Press with a "2" (highest) rating. And here is Oxford University Press. It seems to be the case that next year's ratings have not been published all at once, but I found ratings for all publishers I looked for specifically, and the ratings have mostly been published at least a few weeks in advance in previous years. As with all such decisions, the decision to rate MDPI as "0" from 2019 has been made by the National Publication Committee, a government-appointed body (more here) following a thorough review of MDPI, after the committee had received numerous reports of concern regarding MDPI from academics, based on the publisher's inclusion in Beall's list and its dubious reputation in general. The review of MDPI actually took place two years ago and the minutes from the committee's meetings, which mentioned Beall's list, were made public, but they appear to no longer be available on the Internet. All changes in ratings take effect with a two-year delay.
The Norwegian Scientific Index is published by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD) on behalf of the Royal Ministry of Education and Research (which also owns NSD), and is the world's most comprehensive index of academic journals and publishers. It is now emulated by other countries and is a sister project of the European project ERIH PLUS, which is also maintained by NSD. It rates journals and publishers as 0, 1 and 2. Level 0 means that the journal or publisher does not meet basic scientific/scholarly quality standards, including peer review of sufficient quality, and more particularly that publications don't count in the academic career system or public funding of research institutions. Predatory publishers are also routinely excluded. Level 1 status is given to any journal or publisher considered to meet basic academic standards (and following the recent interest in predatory publishing, to be "non-predatory"), which is thus pretty non-selective, as it only implies that the journal or publisher is regarded as a real/serious academic publication channel. Level 2 is a selective status given to the top journals and publishers following recommendations by specialist committees in the relevant disciplines. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 08:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We called the NSD and they confirmed that there is no error on their website and the rating was recently changed for 2019. So the edit to the WP article from user Bjerrebaek with regards to the rating is correct (apologies for assuming it was incorrect). We have asked that the committee re-assesses MDPI in January based on a broader set of data and the quality of the published content. Bjerrebaek mentions the change may have been a result of Beall's comments. However, if a government funded institution makes decisions based on the opinions of a single person who is not a citizen of that country and who is critical of open access in general, then this would be very troubling. What is already troubling is that edits made to the WP page about MDPI appear to be almost exclusively negative. It is quite peculiar that open access publishers do not find more support on WP, as the reusability and openness of scientific content bring advantages that - I thought - would be supported by WP editors. Regards ErskineCer (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest misconception about Wikipedia: We aren’t democratic. Our readers edit the entries, but we’re actually quite snobby. The core community appreciates when someone is knowledgeable, and thinks some people are idiots and shouldn’t be writing.

Quoted from [1]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NSD themselves don't make decisions about ratings, the decisions are made by the National Publication Committee, an independent body of academics. If MDPI's most recent complaint leads to a change in rating again, the article should of course reflect that if and when it happens, but considering that it took some five years from people started complaining to the committee about MDPI (in 2014 when Beall drew attention to the company) until the publisher had it its rating changed to "0" (and for the change to take effect), I suspect the rating isn't likely to be changed again anytime soon. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just for your info: The NSD 0-ing of MDPI was a mistake, they only really assign meaningful "grades" to book publishers. MDPI now is back to 1. The publication committee will evaluate MDPI in their June meeting, I believe. (Info from a telephone conversation with the secretary of the publication commitee.) Janeriks (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia works with WP:VERifiable WP:SOURCES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MDPI becomes the largest contributor to articles in DOAJ in 2018

((request edit)) has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to ((help me)).

Information to be added or removed: Add to the lead that, as of 2018, MDPI is the largest contributor of peer-reviewed open access articles to DOAJ with 63’116 published papers.

Explanation of the issue: MDPI journals grew rapidly in recent years and it is significant that MDPI is now the leading open access publisher with 63’116 articles in DOAJ. Compared to this, for 2018 DOAJ has 30'156 papers from BMC, 28'349 papers from Frontiers, and 24'702 papers from Elsevier. Despite the rapid growth, the Impact Factors of the vast majority of MDPI journals increased year-on-year.

References supporting change: https://doaj.org/search?source=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22filtered%22%3A%7B%22filter%22%3A%7B%22bool%22%3A%7B%22must%22%3A%5B%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22index.publisher.exact%22%3A%22MDPI%20AG%22%7D%7D%5D%7D%7D%2C%22query%22%3A%7B%22query_string%22%3A%7B%22query%22%3A%222018%22%2C%22default_field%22%3A%22bibjson.year%22%2C%22default_operator%22%3A%22AND%22%7D%7D%7D%7D%2C%22from%22%3A0%2C%22size%22%3A10%7D — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErskineCer (talk • contribs) 13:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 1-FEB-2019

  Unable to implement  

Regards,  Spintendo  13:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The concern raised by Guy was about the use of primary sources. However, in this case we are referring to DOAJ, which is a trusted database. The fact that MDPI is now (by some distance) the largest contributor of OA open access articles to DOAJ is, in any case, worth mentioning to the reader. Regards, ErskineCer (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the year *2018* -- MDPI is the largest open access publisher in the world with 63’116 articles in that year. As you mention PLOS, they contributed 17,011 articles to DOAJ in 2018 (https://do--Randykitty (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)aj.org/search?source=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22filtered%22%3A%7B%22filter%22%3A%7B%22bool%22%3A%7B%22must%22%3A%5B%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22index.publisher.exact%22%3A%22Public%20Library%20of%20Science%20(PLoS)%22%7D%7D%5D%7D%7D%2C%22query%22%3A%7B%22query_string%22%3A%7B%22query%22%3A%222018%22%2C%22default_field%22%3A%22bibjson.year%22%2C%22default_operator%22%3A%22AND%22%7D%7D%7D%7D%2C%22from%22%3A0%2C%22size%22%3A10%7D#.XFR5LS2ZN24). There are comments on this Talk page from WP editors that MDPI is publishing "crap", has a "toxic" reputation, publishing questionable papers, etc. This is definitely not what we hear from our editors, reviewers and particularly authors, who submit more and more papers to our journals. ErskineCer (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm sure if you ask the authors and editors of Journal of Cosmology, they would all tell you that they too are real scientists that do good work, and aren't crap. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time I hear of the Journal of Cosmology, but as you are obviously an expert in that field, please compare that journal to the content published in /Universe/, which was recently accepted for coverage in SCIE: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/universe. The fact that MDPI is now publishing more open access papers each month compared to any other publisher is a significant piece of information (like it or not) and should be mentioned. ErskineCer (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to you, an employee of MPDI. If it's a 'significant piece of information', as you say, then there would be reliable independent source discussing it.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Several good papers for you to read in /Universe/, for example: https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/2/4/23 ErskineCer (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, we would need a better source for this factoid. A search result is not an acceptable source. --Randykitty (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So if on the NSD website a "0" appears in connection with MDPI that is immediately jumped upon (because negative) and added to the lead, despite almost all MDPI journals having a "1" (although it is not clear the ratings mean, how they are decided, what control mechanisms exist, etc.), and the fact that most MDPI journals have a "1" is conveniently omitted, whereas data from DOAJ is not considered a solid source - strange! ErskineCer (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is amply documented what the ratings mean and how they are decided, and this has been discussed before. The ratings "0", "1" and "2" are related to funding and based on quality. A "0" rating simply means that the publication channel doesn't count, funding-wise or otherwise, because it is not officially regarded as scientific/scholarly in the national research documentation system of Norway. As far as the official academic career system or public funding of research institutions in Norway are concerned, a level 0 publication is the equivalent of a blog post or a letter to the editor in a newspaper, and not an academic paper or book. 0-level publication channels aren't even systematically included in the database, so a 0-rating usually means that the publication channel was either nominated for level 1 status and failed to be approved as such, or that it has been downgraded. In any event it is a clear statement that the publication channel isn't regarded as academic in Norway. If you, for instance, wanted to submit a doctoral dissertation in Norway consisting of a collection of articles, a "0-level" publication wouldn't be regarded as an academic publication that could be part of a dissertation.
Level "1" and "2" on the other hand are both designated as "regnes som vitenskapelig i rapporteringssammenheng" (regarded as scientific/scholarly for the purposes of research documentation) in the CRIStin database and generate different degrees of funding. The criteria and procedure are described here. As you can see the criteria for level "1" status are very basic and only implies that the publication adheres to academic minimum standards. Any respectable publisher, even the most obscure ones, should be able to be designated as "level 1". Over the last years some MDPI journals have had (journal-level) "1" ratings and some have had "0" ratings. This was all in a situation where MDPI as a publisher was under review as a result of the negative attention surrounding the company following its inclusion in Beall's List.
Although they are automatically renewed unless they are changed, ratings are in principle valid on a year-by-year basis. A rating for 2018 is of no use after 2018. Ratings are given both at the publisher level and the individual journal level. Four weeks ago, a publisher-level rating of "0" for MDPI was implemented. I expect the journal-level ratings to follow suit soon. If you look at MDPI journals individually, you'll notice they all only have ratings for 2018 with no rating valid for this year (2019). All non-MDPI journals I looked at had ratings valid for 2019. So the situation is that MDPI has a publisher-level rating of "0" and it seems that all its journals have no currently valid ratings. It is therefore not true that MDPI journals have "1" ratings; what is true is that many MDPI journals had "1" ratings last year and that they don't have it this year. The list that you obviously looked at only shows their last valid ratings, but not ratings that are valid in 2019. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update: At least MDPI's Arts journal is now level 0, compared to level 1 in previous years.[2] I didn't find any other MDPI journals with journal-level ratings valid for 2019 (compare with the entry on e.g. Nature which has a "2" rating for 2019[3]), so there is clearly something going on with MDPI's journals in the Norwegian Scientific Index. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As you mentioned a rating of "2" for the publisher of Nature (Springer Nature), this blog post by Frontiers is quite interesting as it shows average citations across publishers. For the period 2015-2017 MDPI journals received more citations (3.10 on average) compared to Springer Nature (2.35 on average), see:
https://blog.frontiersin.org/2018/07/11/scientific-excellence-at-scale-open-access-journals-have-a-clear-citation-advantage-over-subscription-journals/
If MDPI journals were so poor (="0"), then why are average citations higher in comparison? Elsevier's average is marginally higher than MDPI's at 3.15. It is not clear what data the NSD used as basis for their decision, or what the reason(s) was/were for the change. As there is no publicly available information available about the rating at this time, and due to the fact that MDPI publishes relatively few papers from authors in Norway (642 out of 67'384 in 2018, less than 1%), the issue should be discussed in the "Controversies" section and not in the lead of the article. Regards, ErskineCer (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Frontiers is pretty much a canonically unreliable source, but even so, citations are a completely unreliable measure when comparing open access with closed sources, due to FUTON bias (which predates predatory open access publishing by a long time). Guy (Help!) 15:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"It is not clear what data the NSD used as basis for their decision" what you have to understand is that we don't care and we are not allowed to care. The NSD is a reliable and reputable organization, so we report where they stand on it. If external sources called the NSD's evaluation into question, sources not affiliated with MDPI, then we would have a reason to debate inclusion. But absent of those, the NSD's evaluation stand as is.
Want MDPI to gain standing? The best way to do that is improve your game and stop publishing shit journals with ludicrous acceptance rates. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The NSD issue should be covered, I am not arguing that it should be removed. I am just requesting it to be first covered in a separate section under the "Controversies" section, and, if it turns out to be a bigger issue, it should then be added to the lead. At the moment, there is a "0" on a website of the NSD, but all journals are still showing as "1" and there has been no announcement yet by the NSD, or any further information. At present, we are reaching out to the NSD and have requested clarification - so until it turns out to be a major issue for the publisher, the point should be covered in the main body of the article.
You mention the rejection rate: in 2018 the rejection rate across our journals was 61%, see page 3 of the 2018 annual report: https://res.mdpi.com/data/2018_web.pdf. I do not know if 39% is a "ludicrous" acceptance rate. The decisions on which papers are accepted and which papers are rejected is decided on by the members of the editorial board. While Entropy is perhaps not the leading journal in its field, the JCR rank is 22 out of 78 (so in Q2, see: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/entropy/stats). Of course it depends on where you consider the "shit" starts: Is any journal that is covered by SCIE "not shit", or anything that is not in the top 10? ErskineCer (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except the NSD coverage isn't "controversial" in the least. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once again: It's patently false that "all journals are still showing as '1'". Most journals have no rating valid for 2019 at all. Last year's ratings aren't relevant for a discussion that is based on the fact that MDPI as a publisher was downgraded to "0" status on 1 January 2019. The only MDPI journal with a journal-level rating valid for this year has a "0" rating[4]. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For 2019 to date, 119 out of 130 MDPI journals have received a "1", and 11 newer/smaller journals rated "0" (several of which have not yet released their first issue). So I would still stand by the fact that the vast majority of MDPI journals are rated "1" by the NSD in 2019, which should be mentioned if in the lead mentions the NSD rating so prominently. There is clearly a mismatch between the journal rating, and the publisher rating. The data with the ratings by journal can be downloaded here: https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/AlltidFerskListe.action?request_locale=en. To filter, it is best to apply "contains=MDPI" in the column "AI" (URL information), as the data in the column "Publishing Company" is not yet complete. Regards, ErskineCer (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I may add to this discussion, Scientific Reports, published by Nature has an acceptance rate of whopping 56% (https://www.nature.com/content/scirep-facts/index.html), and Plosone 48.4% (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information). These acceptance rates are higher than most MDPI journals! Additionally many good journals in my field are rate "1" by the Norwegian Index, such as Applied Geography. It is simply not true that a "1" stands for mediocre. Kenji1987 (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rating Changed by NSD of MDPI

((request edit)) has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to ((help me)).

Information to be added or removed: We were notified that the rating of MDPI was erroneous and has been corrected back to "1" by the NSD.

Explanation of issue: There were previous discussions on this Talk page about the 2019 rating of "0", which lead to the information being added to the lead. As the rating was corrected, it makes sense to remove the information about the rating from the lead.

References supporting change: https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=26778&bibsys=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErskineCer (talk • contribs) 11:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request is invalid, the text already states that MDPI rated a level 1. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 1-APR-2019

  Specification requested  

Change x to y using z
x A verbatim description of the old text to be removed from the article (if any)
y A verbatim description of the new text to be added to the article (if any)
z A reference which verifies the requested change
Example edit request:

Please change:

  • The Sun's diameter is 25 miles.
 ↑This is x↑ 

to read as:

  • The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles.
 ↑This is y↑ 

using as a reference:

  • Harinath, Paramjit (2018). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1.
 ↑This is z↑ 

Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed. Please remember to sign all posts.
Regards,  Spintendo  13:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claim that Mario Capecchi was put on the editorial board of MDPI unjustly

Information to be added or removed: Dr. Capecchi's Office later contested this and stated that he was indeed aware of being an honorary editorial board member of the MDPI journal Biomolecules. eCampus News, the website which Beall based his information on[7], posted a correction on this issue in which they stated that "eCampus News regrets the error".[27]

Explanation of the issue: In the section "Inclusion in Beall's list", it is stated that "Among the reasons Beall gave for adding MDPI to his list of questionable publishers was the accusation that the company listed Nobel Prize–winning geneticist Mario Capecchi in one of the editorial board without his knowledge.". However, the reference [7] (https://web.archive.org/web/20140306052944/http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/02/18/chinese-publishner-mdpi-added-to-list-of-questionable-publishers/) does not mention this name (Mario Capecchi). However, it was clear that Jeffrey Beall (from his comment on that page [7]) referred to an article of eCampusnews stating in the comments section: "This news story backs up what I said about the Nobel Laureates (at least one of them) not knowing about being on the editorial board: http://www.ecampusnews.com/research/open-access-publisher-566/2/". However, in the new version of this article (http://www.ecampusnews.com/research/open-access-publisher-566/2/) the name Mario Capecchi is also not mentioned at all. In the archived link of eCampusnews (https://web.archive.org/web/20140310085753/http://www.ecampusnews.com/top-news/open-access-publisher-566/3/) the name Mario Cappechi was mentioned, but the news outlet removed it and posted the correction notice: "Correction 2/21/2014: An earlier version of this article stated that Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Mario Capecchi was not aware he was listed as a member of the editorial board for the MDPI journal Biomolecules. At the time, Capecchi’s assistant, Lorene Stitzer, told eCampus News that “he was not aware of the fact that he had been included on the listing.” After being contacted by MDPI, Stitzer now says Capecchi is in fact aware of being an honorary board member. eCampus News regrets the error.". However, when I mentioned this [Dr. Capecchi's Office later contested this and stated that he was indeed aware of being an honorary editorial board member of the MDPI journal Biomolecules. eCampus News, the website which Beall based his information on[7], posted a correction on this issue in which they stated that "eCampus News regrets the error".[27]], my contribution was removed due to the lack of references, which is odd as I base myself on the references ([7] + eCampusnews) already mentioned in the article. Hence, therefore the suggestion to (1) keep my contribution, (2) remove the name Mario Capecchi all together (where are the references mentioning Mario Capecchi?), or subsequently (3) provide a reference in which the name Mario Capecchi is mentioned.

References supporting change: http://www.ecampusnews.com/research/open-access-publisher-566/2/; https://web.archive.org/web/20140306052944/http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/02/18/chinese-publishner-mdpi-added-to-list-of-questionable-publishers/; https://web.archive.org/web/20140310085753/http://www.ecampusnews.com/top-news/open-access-publisher-566/3/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenji1987 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC) — Kenji1987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

After doing research, several Nobel Prize Laureates confirmed on their academic CV that they are an editorial board member of an MDPI journal. They include Mario Capecchi (http://capecchi.genetics.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Capecchi-CV-11.02.18.pdf), Eric S. Maskin (https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/maskin/files/curriculum_vitae_e._maskin_july_2019.pdf), and Steven Weinberg (https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/~weintech/CVSW0416.pdf). As Jeffrey Beall claims that several Nobel Laureates have been unwillingly added as an editorial board member, shouldn't we actually mention the other side as well in order to maintain neutrality? I will await the reply of a Wikipedia editor before I make the edit, as I do not want to be blocked for edit-warring Kenji1987 (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Above question has not been answered. Are we or are we not able to add that several Nobel Laureates have confirmed to be on editorial boards of MDPI? The paragraph heavily relies on one single source (ref 7), would it benefit the article to show that several Nobel Laureates added their editorial membership of MDPI on their respective CVs? If yes, have we reached the consensus that I can add the names, if no, may I kindly request you to explain, instead of claiming that you have 'helped' me, but in fact you did not? I am now following the advice Wikipedia editors gave me (kindly see my edit page). This is not referring to my previous discussion. This is a genuine question to the editors. Or should I open a new section, asking this question?Kenji1987 (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about adding this as a separate section? Jeffrey Beall does not provide any evidence that MDPI has done this. In his web-blog (isn't this a WP:OR issue btw?) he refers to one investigation (I kindly advise you to re-read his post - he really says it). We do not know which one that is. In the comments section he mentions eCampus News, but that website already retracted its claim. On the other hand, academic CV's from the Nobel Laureates websites themselves show that they are MDPI editorial members. Wouldn't it be misleading the reader? Judging from the Wikipedia page, it seems no Nobel Laureate is on MDPI's editorial board. Thank you by the way for replying. Evidence supporting my claim, from ref [7]: "1. The publisher cleverly uses the names and reputations of legitimate scholars, including Nobel laureates, to make the operation look more legitimate and accepted than it really is. The publisher claims that that several Nobel Laureates serve on its editorial boards, but one investigation found that they didn’t realize they were listed." & "This news story backs up what I said about the Nobel Laureates (at least one of them) not knowing about being on the editorial board: http://www.ecampusnews.com/research/open-access-publisher-566/2/". I understand that all of you see Jeffrey Beall's blog as impeccable evidence, that whatever he claims true is, but the reason I have these discussions now, is exactly the reason why my students are not allowed to cite Wikipedia. Kenji1987 (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting it in a separate section does not change the fact that it would be SYNTH/OR. Citing Beall's blog is not OR: like it or not, but Beall's blog is considered a reliable source and obviously independent from MDPI. We can only write what such independent reliable sources say, not what we think of conclude. See also WP:NOTTRUTH. --Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Therefore, we can conclude that academic institution websites of the respective Nobel Laureates are not reliable sources? I do not challenge the idea that Jeffrey Beall is a reliable source or not (discussion for another time), I do ask you to read his blog. Why can't we mention that he bases himself on ONE investigation, which is unnamed? Kenji1987 (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon investigating the respective Wikipedia pages of the Nobel Laureates, exactly the same domains are cited as legitimate sources! Why does someone's official website not count as a reliable source about themselves?Kenji1987 (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really have to read the policies and guidelines that I linked to. Somebody's official website can be used as a source for non-controversial information, such as their list of publications, research interests, etc. for an article about those people. If both the MDPI site for a certain journal list somebody as board member and that person also lists this on their official website, that information is considered reliably sourced. However, saying "John, Joe, and Sam are Nobelists and therefore Beall was wrong" is a synthesis based on original research. What you need is a reliable source independent of those Nobelists and MDPI that says "Beall was wrong". Without such a source, you can't say it. It really is all very simple (and again, please read OR/SYNTH/RS). --Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Randy, this: “If both the MDPI site for a certain journal list somebody as board member and that person also lists this on their official website, that information is considered reliably sourced.” is exactly the case. Both MDPI and respective Nobelists show this on their websites. Could I add this now to the MDPI page, not to prove that Beall is wrong, but to show that Nobelists do connect themselves with MDPI? I have all the references with me. We could do this in a seperate section, not right besides Beall. Kenji1987 (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be reliably sourced to mention in a person's biography. However, "Nobelists do connect themselves with MDPI" is a conclusion that you draw from the fact that these people are on these boards. The OR is that you went out to find this info from primary sources, the SYNTH is your conclusion. Unless you have a reliable independent secondary source discussing this, it's not admissible (and even if such a source can be found, it really has to be an in -depth discussion, otherwise it's just puffery to make MDPI look good. --Randykitty (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Puffery to make MDPI look good", I think this is what it is all about. The reason why we can't mention the fact that Nobelists are indeed MDPI editorial members is all because it would make MDPI look like, you know, your regular academic publisher. With its fair share of controversies but also achievements (in my field the journals Sustainability and Forests are well respected and published in). There is no logical explanation why a biography has more value than someone's academic CV. Rather, the claim from Jeffrey Beall (which is, I should add， based on ONE investigation (most probably eCampus News)) is more valuable than Nobelists official website content (yes I simply found it on their official websites). I can live with the fact that Beall's blog is considered to be a reliable source, but what I find more dubious is that no one reads this valuable source (hence, you and others initially did not find it a problem that Mario Capecchi was mentioned on MDPI wiki page for a long time, while it was not backed by any source - hence David Eppstein kept on undoing the change and threatened me with a ban). And even if I would find a secondary source mentioning the fact that MDPI has Nobelists amongst its editorial board members, it would still be dismissed as probably not "indepth" enough (lets face it, I am probably never able to state the fact that there are Nobelists among MDPI editorial boards). Then, I'd like to know why we are not able to state where Beall got his information from (you know that one unnamed investigation?)? Or would that make Beall look bad or MDPI look good? (which seems to be the real reason why we are having this discussion). Kenji1987 (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. You really seem not to want to understand the issues here. I've spend a lot of effort trying to explain things to you, but apparently I'm not clear enough. I repeat, read and try to understand the policies about OR and SYNTH. Have a look at other articles on publishers. Most Nobelists are on many editorial boards, yet we hardly ever (if ever) mention this in those articles (nor in the bios on these people). Because it's mostly trivial and good sources are almost never available. I've done my best, I won't continue this conversation any more. Good luck. --Randykitty (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would have been something trivial if it was not claimed that MDPI falsely added Nobel Prize Winnners on its editorial board. The CVs I am referring to are published on the institution's website. Hence, this is not a case of own research. Furthermore, adding this information is not a case of SYNTH either, if it is not placed to discredit Jeffrey Beall. Hey while we are at it, why don't we call MDPI a Chinese publisher, as Jeffrey Beall claims that it is? Kenji1987 (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim "eCampus News, the website which Beall based his information on" is dubiously supported at best. eCampus is not linked anywhere in Beall's original post. It was merely added later in a comment thread as additional supporting evidence. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the name Mario Capecchi is not mentioned in the respective reference either: "https://web.archive.org/web/20140306052944/http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/02/18/chinese-publishner-mdpi-added-to-list-of-questionable-publishers/". Hence, there is no reference regarding Mario Capecchi being placed on the editorial board of MDPI unjustly. The only reference that did mention it (and therefore I felt compelled to address this issue) was eCampus News, which later retracted its statement and is now being discredited as a dubious source. Therefore, I felt it justified to remove the name Mario Capecchi all together, until a source or reference could prove otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenji1987 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After some research, Prof. Mario Capecchi lists being an editorial board member for MDPI on his CV (please see here: http://capecchi.genetics.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Capecchi-CV-11.02.18.pdf - please search for "MDPI"). It is extracted from a reputable website: http://capecchi.genetics.utah.edu/. Hence, I will update it accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenji1987 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, Beall said "several Nobel Laureates". So the concentration on a single person, who might not even have been one of those several, seems spurious to me, more designed to discredit Beall by synthesis than to make a valid argument about the legitimacy of MDPI. I should also remind you (since you have only edited on this topic) that if you have a conflict of interest you are required by Wikipedia policy to disclose it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mario Capecchi is not mentioned in this respective reference. His academic CV lists him to be an editorial board member of MDPI: http://capecchi.genetics.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Capecchi-CV-11.02.18.pdf. Regarding potential conflict of interest, note taken, but there are none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenji1987 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If he's not mentioned, why are you edit-warring to mention him? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because his named is linked to a reference, which simply does not mention his name. Kindly show us where Mario Capecchi is mentioned, and why I am not allowed to show that his academic CV proves otherwise. Either add the proper reference, or remove his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenji1987 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have received an official warning that if I continue to edit the page, I will be blocked. Hence, I will not edit the page any longer, but everyone is able to see that Professor Capecchi is an editorial board member of MDPI (http://capecchi.genetics.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Capecchi-CV-11.02.18.pdf) and that Jeffrey Beall never referred to Mario Capecchi in the reference material which cited on the Wikipedia page which claims otherwise (https://web.archive.org/web/20140306052944/http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/02/18/chinese-publishner-mdpi-added-to-list-of-questionable-publishers/). If my edits are reversed, David Eppstein and other need provide a solid justification why they think they did the right thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenji1987 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Laureates and Jeffrey Beall

My apologies for repeating myself, but this needs a serious discussion. It is now written on MDPI's page that Jeffrey Beall claims that MDPI put Nobel Laureates on its editorial boards without their knowledge. This is based on the sentence: " "1. The publisher cleverly uses the names and reputations of legitimate scholars, including Nobel laureates, to make the operation look more legitimate and accepted than it really is. The publisher claims that that several Nobel Laureates serve on its editorial boards, but one investigation found that they didn’t realize they were listed." & later in the comments section: "This news story backs up what I said about the Nobel Laureates (at least one of them) not knowing about being on the editorial board: http://www.ecampusnews.com/research/open-access-publisher-566/2/" (ref [7]). Hence, in the web-blog, Beall claims that he bases himself on "one investigation", and later in the comments section he mentions the eCampus News website. This is problematic because of three reasons. Reason 1: we do not know which investigation he refers to. Reason 2: if it is the eCampus News website, then we could dismiss this source, as they themselves already retracted their statement regarding this issue. Reason 3: Several Nobel Laureates add on their own academic CV, that they are an editorial board member of an MDPI Journal. They include Mario Capecchi (http://capecchi.genetics.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Capecchi-CV-11.02.18.pdf), Eric S. Maskin (https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/maskin/files/curriculum_vitae_e._maskin_july_2019.pdf), and Steven Weinberg (https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/~weintech/CVSW0416.pdf). Hence, the question, why can't we mention these Nobel Laureates, and also acknowledge that Jeffrey Beall bases himself on ONE INVESTIGATION?

I leave it up for the Wikipedians to resolve, but this deserves a new section. Kenji1987 (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is this post being ignored? If a blogger claims that MDPI falsely puts nobel prize winners on their editorial boards, but the websites of all MDPI's Nobel prize winners say something else, then why do we keep the bloggers claim there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenji1987 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Beall removed MDPI after a succesfull appeal

Jeffrey Beall argues the following after removing MDPI from his list: "UPDATE 2015-11-13: MDPI has been removed from the list following a successful appeal". (https://scholarlyoa.com/chinese-publisher-mdpi-added-to-list-of-questionable-publishers/). The wording here is important as MDPI succesfully appealed for being removed from the list. Now with not mentioning this, it looks like a SYNTH case by adding Beall's comment in 2017 that he had been pressured to remove the list, by organizations like MDPI. As Jeffrey Beall's blog is considered a reliable source, we need to add the following: MDPI was removed from Beall's list in 2015 due to a succesfull appeal.Kenji1987 (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish your requests from those of the many MDPI-affiliated and self-serving sockpuppets previously afflicting this article, or to believe your protestations that you are not one of them. How do you think this continued behavior makes us feel about the supposed reform of MDPI from their predatory past? In any case, the language you request is already in the article. I can only presume that you want to move everything that serves to promote MDPI into the lead from the rest of the article, since the lead is the only place where this is mentioned without the wording you suggest. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly don't understand the purpose of your first sentence. You have warned me about the potential conflict of interest (fair enough), I said that I have none (which I did in good conscience), and now you repeat your suspicions (clearly ad hominem), while I am just trying to generate a discussion here (I do not dare to self-edit, otherwise you might block me, hence I am using the Talk page to improve the quality of this C-graded Wiki page). I do not have to accept this, and I politely ask you to adhere to Wikipedia's own rules. To refer back to the rest of your reply (and yes, thank you for coming back to me), yes, I do think this information should be in the lead or remove the reason why Beall resigned all together. Scholars who search for MDPI on Google, often only read the lead, which they then automatically assume that MDPI must be predatory. But the fact is, Jeffrey Beall, classified MDPI as non-predatory (the reason he resigned was because of his own conflicts with his university). MDPI is also not on Cabell's blacklist nor on any other credible black list. But the publisher is on plenty of white-lists, including DOAJ, OASPA and their impact factors gradually increase every year. Let's highlight this for a change, no one with any authority thinks MDPI is predatory. Therefore, it is strange that Wikipedia is suggesting or hinting, through using this wording, that MDPI is predatory. This does not do any justice to its purpose as an encyclopedia. The reason why Beall removed his list, 2 years after it deemed MDPI as not predatory, should be placed in his Wiki-page or perhaps moved down to the controversy section of MDPI. Therefore, who decided whether this information is relevant? I only see a few editors heavily "guarding" the MDPI page. Kenji1987 (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hindawi's Lead versus MDPI's

Hindawi's lead writes: "[..] all of Hindawi's journals have been open access and published under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY).[7] It is a founding member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association[8], a participating publisher and supporter of the Initiative for Open Citations,[9][10] and a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).[11][12]". Actually, this is also the case for MDPI (not sure if it is a founding member, but definitely a member). It is a member of the aforementioned initiatives. Hence, we should streamline how we present academic publishers on Wikipedia. Hence, the request to add this information on MDPI's page. Therefore the question: can I add this to the MDPI page? If no, should we delete it from Hindawi's lead as well?

Source: https://publicationethics.org/taxonomy/term/584; https://i4oc.org/; https://oaspa.org/membership/members/

(my apologies for the many sections, I really do think the MDPI Wiki page should be improved). Kenji1987 (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Ill assume you guys will contact the NSD on this to confirm?Kenji1987 (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Categories