Talk:Predatory publishing

Active discussions

New source from COPEEdit

This new publication from the Committee on Publication Ethics looks like it might be useful for expanding this article. – Joe (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violation?Edit

  • @Nemo bis: What's the concern with copyright violation leading to this? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nemo bis: You'll need to contribute to discussion here and not simply revert. Your concerns are not apparent to me; I'm willing to listen, but not via edit summary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I had not seen your message here. I'll repeat myself: Beall's lists are potentially copyrighted works as they required creative decisions about the compilation of the information and they contain commentary above the threshold of originality. Unlicensed wholesale copies of that work are probably copyright infringement unless they're authorised by some copyright exception. Can you clarify why you think those websites may not be copyright violations? (Note, I said "may"; I know it's not realistic to "prove" they aren't.) Thanks, Nemo 13:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I'm pretty confident that was Beall's own website. It's not clear to me how his own website (as archived in the external link you've deleted) can be a copyright violation of his own website. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
        • Scholarlyoa was indeed Beall's site. Stoppredatoryjournals is an unmaintained mirror of the site list, and is pretty much a useless duplicate. The one on weebly is an archived version of Beall's original list, with addendum and notes, which has since moved to Stoppredatoryjournals should be removed as pointless, the others can be debated, but for reasons of WP:DUE, rather than of copyright. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
          • Although the Internet Archive has been sued for copyright infringement before [1], I think the archiving of content no longer present anywhere else on the web (e.g. this) is solidly fair-use. As an aside, it's desperately sad how StopPP became defunct in 2017. For anyone interested in wikidata coverage of predatory publishers: current discussion. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 02:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
            • StopPP was never a thing to begin with. They simply copied Beall's list and called it a day. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Relation to Research IndustryEdit

I've added a new entry to explain how diversion of resarch funds extends to many other related activities. Paragraph fully referenced to several many verifyable sources. Some hints already given in mentions to publication fees and predatory conference, and the previous section on "Relation to open access publishing". But some folks not convinced. Please help editing.Polilogaritmo (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

This article, and Wikipedia generally, is not the place to editorialize. See WP:SYNTH. XOR'easter (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear @XOR'easter:, it is not my intention to editorialize. My intention is to inform Wikipedia readers interested in Predatory Publishing that there are several other many activities which exploit the limitted research funds. I was however very careful not to qualify them as 'Predatory' as this could imply an opinion. I am expressing the matter of fact that they exist and feed on research funds. I also provide direct verifiable sources. I have never added whether this is good or bad. i.e. There is no opinion. Notice the whole point of this page is to point out that there exist Predatory practices, and some folks are actually deciding which journals are Predators. I never went so far in my edit. See below for further discussion.Polilogaritmo (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, I've explained this several times now. Original synthesis is not allowed on Wikipedia, and this material is not suitable for it. You can submit similar material to a peer-reviewed venue, and then we can include a distilled summary of it in Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is not the place to write original research. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. The intention is not to provide opinions, but to explain that there are several services payed by research funds that do not correspond to research activities. These includes fares for 1) mass media and social media dissemniation of results 2) promotion of author's work on social and mass media 3) grant application support and edition. Each of these claims are supported by verifiable sources. e.g. citation to The Guardian article with full details of the high benefits some of these services provide. Notice here that the benefits are removed from the research budget. A little less benefit to private investors would leave a little more money for research. I expect all editors interested in this post share this concern. Please provide references supporting the contrary in the talk page before deleting verifiable claims. I am somewhat surprised about all this fuzz, since the section right above under the name "Relation to Open Access" is written like a personal reflection according to Wikipedia, and it appears to upset anybody. Perhaps the dispute can be remedied by adding the same tag to 'Relation to Research Industry' if you feel its too personal. I dont' quite thing it is personal. But it serves to resolve the dispute and have readers informed about these services before we achieve full consensus. This is the fourth time a revision on this issue is fully deleted in the last few days, so I am quoting here plain text from Dispute resolution for your convenience:Polilogaritmo (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Follow the normal protocolEdit

When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polilogaritmo (talkcontribs)

Being original research, the text is not salvageable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry Wikipedia readers, I've let you down. I was seeking to inform about some practices in the Research community which consume part of the Research budget on activities not related to research. In my first edit definitively with some bias to my own personal opinion, then swiftly moved to the bare facts, verifiable sources and no opinions thanks to advice from experienced editors. But I was blocked today for one week. Of course some folks will not be happy that this bit of information be disclosed, and they will fight fiercefouly to avoid it be disclosed (my edits fully removed within one to five minuts each time). Regretably my attempt also lead to the full dissappearence of the section "Relation to Open Access Publishing" by @Nemo bis: in retaliation. Sorry for that. I trust Wikipedia readers arriving at this point will easily get the right conclusion from these bare facts. See "Relation to Open Access" below for further discussion.Polilogaritmo (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Relation to Open AccessEdit

A tag personal reflection was added to this entry by Headbomb a year ago. It has now been fully deleted by him. It appears as retaliation to my commentary above. Please avoid edit warring and colateral damage on long lived edits. Help editing for improvement instead.Polilogaritmo (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

"Fully deleted by him". A laughable claim, given I re-arranged most of that section at various, more relevant, places in the article. I've reported you for edit-warring, since you've reflexively reverted edits you didn't even understand and can't seem to break out of your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Please @Headbomb: read the 3RR rule in Edit warring before disturbing Wikipedia's administrators.
I do not quite agree in merging this content into 'History'. The issue that there could be a relation between 'Predatory Publishing' and 'Open Access' is very relevant. It merits its own section and has little to do with 'History'. Another concern is the motivation for making this change right now. It appears you could tolerate your own personal reflection tag for so long and cannot compromise on bare facts added under "Relation to Research Industry". It seems it was merged into the text so that your own tag could not become obvious to readers. These personal reflections alledged by you now appear as perfectly suitable and merged into text, while edits on "Relation to Research Industry" fully removed each time despite its a few lines paragraph with 10 verifiable references.
Still awaiting you to give any argument to my questions by the way. There does not seem to be any intention to compromise. It is not clear to me whether we are peer editors or you have some superior status. It seems edits on this page need your permision. Please clarify.Polilogaritmo (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Edits need to be compliant with WP:OR, which you still seem to be failing to even address in your arguments here, and they do not need permission of individual editors but they do need consensus of the other editors of the article. The reverts of your edits by Headbomb, Nomoskedasticity, XOR'easter, and Spyder212 show that you do not have that consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia: No original research before you make OR allegations. Here is some help "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist".
1. I make the allegation that some journals pay fees of several thousand dollars. Is that wrong?
2. I make the allegation that Research networks exist which promote author's research in social and mass media for a price. And I add several direct sources of verification.
3. I claim that companys exist which provide Grant proposal editing for a price. And I add several direct sources of verification. Please provide verifiable sources against these claims and avoid deleting verifiable content without any attempt for consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polilogaritmo (talkcontribs) 23:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Polilogaritmo, combining citations to make a point that none of them make individually is WP:SYNTHESIS, which is a common form of original research. The article can't suggest that any of the organizations you are naming are inappropriately profiting off research budgets without a citation that explicitly makes that point. MrOllie (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I never said its "inappropriate". There are no opinions whatsoever in that text. Just bare allegations linked to direct verifiable sources. Whether the charges I claim are charged are inappropriate or not is of course an interesting debate, but without those fact, the debate cannot take place in the first time. Readers need to know about it before they can decide. Do override any allegations of 'Inappropriateness' if you find them in the text you refuse to accept.Polilogaritmo (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
"Whether the charges I claim are inappropriate or not is of course an interesting debate, but without those fact, the debate cannot take place in the first place." Setting up the "debate" is what is inapropriate to begin with. That's synthesis, and is not allowed. Headbomb {t ·c · p · b} 01:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I do not debate. I provide the facts required for pelple to debate freely with the bare facts. With no facts, no freedom of speech, my friend.
Polilogaritmo, You're adding to an article about exploitive business models in publishing, the implication is clear. MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I take this as acknowledgement that there are no personal opinions on that edit. We need not assume the readers are stupid. Let us provide them the facts, they will work out the correct implications. Definitively they cannot without them. Providing unbiased information for reader to make decisions is what what Wikipedia is about.Polilogaritmo (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Polilogaritmo, You can't have it both ways - either your addition is implying that these providers have exploitive business models, or your addition is off-topic for this article and was misplaced. MrOllie (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks MrOllie, I appreciate that you are providing arguments. Not always easy in view of other contributions. I do not what to mean either that they are exploitive business models nor that they arent'. That would introduce my own personal bias on what an exploitative model is. We dont what that in Wikipedia. I am providing the information for readers to decide whether making substantial revenues from publications costing several many thousand dollars per paper is meant to help Research, or meant for profit. I whant readers to decide whether paying for promotional services on author's work is meant to help Research, or meant for profit. I whant reader to decide whether paying for a non-scientist to edit Grant proposals for 7000 € is meant to help research or meant for profit. Let them decide. But let them have this piece of information. Wikipedia is all about learned and critical readers with the right facts.Polilogaritmo (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
By the way, perhaps you whant to move all this thread into "Relation with Research Industry". I realize our discussion is misplaced. Here it is about the removal of section "Relation to Open access" which folks had been happy to have for one year since it was placed there. And suddenly all folks are unhappy about it.Polilogaritmo (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
It would be more accurate to say that it was flagged as problematic for over a year, and then someone decided to do something about it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Return to "Predatory publishing" page.