Talk:Frontiers in Psychology

The claim that three editors "resigned from the journal"

I have removed this statement, originally added by Robofish, from the Controversy section regarding the Recursive Fury article: "Three editors resigned from the journal in protest of the retraction of the study." I'm not sure whether the people named in the citation were actually editors of the journal. But the larger problem is: the statement depended on a blog post, see WP:SPS. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• And I have put it back. Some all blogs are RS and this one seems absolutely reliable and notable (one of the top 25 blogs in 2011 according to Time Magazine). Frontiers have a weird journal structure, with each journal having dozens of "review editors". Especially Björn Brembs is an OA advocate of some stature, by the way. I would certainly consider his blog to be authoritative on the subject of OA publishing, so if you like we can add his own blog post on this affair to the article, too. --Randykitty (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed a few blogs are reliable, and Wikipedia:Verifiability describes those exceptional circumstances: certain newspaper and magazine blogs, and articles by "an established expert on the subject matter". I don't see how that's the case here. However, rather than merely removing again, I've changed to wording that lets readers know the source so they could evaluate for themselves. Rather than "Three editors resigned from the journal in protest of the retraction of the study", it's now "A blogger named Graham Readfearn reports that three Frontiers editors resigned in protest of the retraction of the study." (Notice that I also removed the words "from the journal" because there's no evidence that they were editors of Frontiers in Psychology.) Is that getting close to an acceptable compromise? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Promotional content

So not only did this edit and its even more concentrated restoration here remove sourced content, but it added the following promotional content about which I want to say two things:

The 2015 Journal Citation Reports found Frontiers in Psychology to be the world's largest and second most cited psychology journal, with an impact factor of 2.463.

References

First of all, looking at the source, it does not say that JCI found FP to be " the world's largest and second most cited psychology journal". JCI just gives the IF as far as I know, and the journal itself made these two claims. Second, this kind of promotional content cannot be sourced to the journal itself. Jytdog (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

These are fair points. The JCR publishes a wide range of data including IF as well as number of publications per year, so it is trivial to compare these to other journals in the category to confirm the statements from the third-party source. Just because it is positive does not make it promo, though I acknowledge that citing the journal blog is not ideal (the JCR source is not publicly accessible; and you can find an even more hyperbolic version on Nature (journal) that cites their own journal blog in the same way). I have gone ahead and added the formal third-party source, but this has again been reverted by Alexbrn. I really don't want to continue an edit war here, but I am genuinely trying to bring some balance to the highly negative presentation of this article. I appreciate your help in finding consensus. geordie (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• 3rd insertion. Which ranking parameters in JCI are you using to support each of a) "world's largest" and b) "world's second most cited" claims? Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The basic scales: number of articles published per year and number of citations per year. It should be noted that these are quantitative, not qualitative statements (i.e. no one is claiming that this is the "best" journal, or even that being a large journal is necessarily a good thing). geordie (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

My issue is that the raw statistics can be misleading, e.g. If many cites are in unreliable sources. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. The question is Which ranking parameters in JCI are you using to support each of a) "world's largest" and b) "world's second most cited" claims?. I looked at the JCI source and found nothing to support this. You made the edit - you own it. Please answer the question. If you cannot answer it, and have simply stuck the JCI ref under Frontiers claims, please say so. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Here are some of the stats from JCI.

• sorted by ""total cites" Frontiers is ninth with 9,540 - for scaling the 1st, American Psychologist, has 19,240 and the 2nd, Abnormal Psychology, has 14,875.
• Sorted by IF, Frontiers is 29th with 2.463; #1 is Psychological Science in the Public Interest with an IF of 19.286.
• Sorted by "eigenfactor", Frontiers is second with .04731; the first is Psychological Science with .06478

Please do answer the question. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frontiers in Psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161222020349/https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ to https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Should referencing to inclusion in Beall's list be in the lead

I don't think that the fact that the publisher (Frontiers) of this journal was once included in Beall's list should feature in the lead. The list was questionable to begin with, has been closed for years, this particular journal (Frontiers in Psychology) has grown substantially since the its inception and has a larger IF than many psych journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking this to the talk page. Beall's list was very influential, so I see no reason to emove this sourced information. Frontiers Media is still quite controversial. --Randykitty (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Beall's list was influential but it is now defunct and was itself very subjective and controversial. Again, the sourced information is already linked elsewhere in the article, so there is no loss of information here. I do not have a problem with the information being there, I just think it should not feature in the lead as if it were the defining characteristic of the journal. I am a psychology researcher and can attest that the journal has sufficient quality to be considered reputable by active researcher in this field, not to mention that the editor in chief and the specialty editors (at least for the sections I am familiar with) are very accomplished scientists. Anyway, it is ultimately a matter of opinion, and obviously with you being an administrator I am guessing yours is the one that will prevail.--Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Whether I'm an admin or not has nothing to do with this. What is more important is that your deletion of this info has now been reverted by two different editors. In addition, this info has been in the lead for quite some time, so the onus is clearly on you to show that it should be removed. You can start a request for comment (you already got a third opinion), but people here generally have little patience for whitewashing of shady publishers. --Randykitty (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Just scrolling through this discussion, I can't help to make this remark. With all due respect, I find it a bit concerning that you are so convinced that this is a shady publisher (if I interpret it correctly - I do not want to be banned for "attacking other editors"). Just because they have their shares of controversies does not necessarily mean that they are shady. Beall's shutdown will celebrate its 3 year anniversary soon, a lot of things have changed in these 3 years. Especially, if you look at the quality and reputation of Frontiers in Psychology now. It is a highly respected and highly cited journal. It is ranked 45 out of 193 journals on general psychology in Scopus (https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/21100216571). I know that when I keep on commenting on this, there might be another editor expressing their concerns of my potential COI (see below for the latest one). But if I am not keeping an eye on these publishers' wiki's, who is? Tens of thousands respected scholars publish in these outlets. At the same time, Wikipedia is consulted mostly to inquire information about these journals, but if all editors are convinced that these publishers and journals are shady, it could potentially affect the reputation of all these scholars. Hence, I see it as my mission to make sure that information is balanced, and as objective as possible. Therefore, is there a way to consult a third opinion about this page? I do think we have some fundamental different opinions about this journal, and I do not think we can solve it together. Thank you. Kenji1987 (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• You are responding to a comment that is 9 months old. Furthermore, please see WP:NOTFORUM. —JBL (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• I know it is 9 months old, but it is still relevant today. As you are very helpful in guiding me through Wikipedia rules and lingo, could you be so kind to tell me how we can ask a third opinion for help? Thank you Kenji1987 (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• See WP:3O. However, as much more than just 2 editors are involved, 3O is not really applicable. WP:RFC may be the way to go, or any other of these options. --Randykitty (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you Randy, very helpful, and my apologies, but I do think we have a fundamental different view here. Kenji1987 (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• • I do not know which third opinion you are referring to. In the article history I can see others had observed this in the past, so I am not the only or even the first person to have observed that. I do not know what evidence I would need to show that it should be removed. I argued that Beall's list was controversial and defunct, and that in my expert opinion Frontiers in Psychology as of today (2019) is definitely not a predatory publisher. Your retort did nothing to address that other than saying that the lead had been that way from some time - not really a great argument. Your choice of words ("whitewashing of shady publishers") gives away that you are very biased so I doubt you can see reason with this, and frankly I do not wish to spend any more time on this.--Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Youllneverwalkalone2019, that whole "you are very biased so I doubt you can see reason" is a bunch of BS, of course, and one of the weakest of arguments. Now I appreciate your comment about the journal, but that Beall's list was "very subjective and controversial" is simply not true and certainly not verified. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Drmies, "biased" isn't an insult. The discussion pertains to whether Frontiers in Psychology is a predatory journal or not. If she calls it "shady publisher" I take it she has already an opinion on the matter. If you don't think Beall's list was subjective and under controversy (among other things, after the inclusion of Frontiers) I doubt you are familiar with the subject. Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Struggling with a virtual keyboard , see [1] and [2] both from last year . Doug Weller talk 16:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Also [3]. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Youllneverwalkalone2019, "you are very biased so I doubt you can see reason" is at the very least a violation of WP:AGF. As it happens Randykitty knows what they're talking about, and I am not sure that you do if you have to resort to such attacks. "...she already has an opinion on the matter"--sure, but it happens to be an opinion based on something real, namely inclusion on Beall's list, and Beall's list happens to be very much respected. You can look it up. So that's not really an "opinion" on Randykitty's part as if it were a matter of taste: it's a well-founded position, and the links given above by Doug Weller only confirm that. 16:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Drmies (talk)
      • Ok, go ahead, have the last word. I already had more than enough of this discussion. Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC))
• Randykitty, I wonder if you'd be OK with the inclusion of the word "controversially", based on this citation from Frontiers Media, Bloudoff-Indelicato M (2015). "Backlash after Frontiers journals added to list of questionable publishers". Nature. 525 (7575): 613. Bibcode:2015Natur.526..613B. doi:10.1038/526613f.. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, that sounds fine to me, it was indeed controversial. --Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Randykitty and Drmies, I want to apologize for my abrasiveness in our previous interactions. It was my first day on WP and I didn't quite get why my edits were systematically reverted, then another admin gave me a warning for "vandalism" which got me even more irked and defensive. I can see now it was due to me not really understanding the rules and the general culture around editing. Now, coming back to this with a cool head, I still feel you did not quite engage with my point. To reiterate, I don't have a problem (at all, even with the previous wording) with the inclusion in Beall's list being mentioned in the article, my point was that it being placed in the lead gives undue weight to this aspect, given the fact that the list is now defunct and (especially) the current standing of the journal. It is fine if you disagree with this, but I'd appreciate if you could engage with this point specifically . Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• I am going to give it a couple more days to see if you guys are still interested in discussing this. If not then I am gonna be bold and move the sentence from the lead to the body of the article. Have a nice weekend. Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• I still think that this belongs in the lead. Beall's list was (and actually still is) tremendously influential and very well respected. --Randykitty (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not questioning the value or the significance of Beall's list. My criticism is strictly within the scope of this particular article. You already conceded the inclusion of Frontiers was controversial at the time, so the "predatory" status of this journal is dubious at best. The article also notes that "both COPE and OASPA have stated that they have no concerns with Frontiers' membership of their organizations", and one could also note that successors to Beall's list, such as Cabell's blacklist do not list Frontiers as predatory [4] (not even among those under review [5]). So, all in all, I find that this being placed in the lead gives really doesn't sit well with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Why should Beall be in the lead and NSD ranking not?

What makes the now defunct list of Beall more relevant than NSD? In the MDPI page, NSD is also mentioned in the lead. I changed it. Kenji1987 (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Beall's List was a very respected website that received enormous coverage. The noise about Frontiers being included is ample evidence of that. In contrast, the NSD has hardly any international coverage (if at all), which is not all too surprising for a local rating service in a small country (just over 5 million inhabitants) with only a handful of universities. Hence, mentioning it in the lead is WP:UNDUE and this indexing service belongs in the indexing section. --Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • This is more a personal opinion than a convincing argument why a 1 man blog is more authoritative than Norway's national scientific council. Kenji1987 (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• My "personal opinion" is based on the plethora of high profile sources on Beall's List and the virtual absence of such sources for the NSD. --Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Beall was an individual blogger and his list is 3 years defunct now. I believe that new publishers like Frontiers have matured a great deal since then, but admins like you decide that the Beall list needs to be mentioned in the lead forever. Kenji1987 (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Also why mentioning Beall three times (2 times in this article, and in the Frontiers Media page) is beyond me Kenji1987 (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• Beall was much more than just a blogger, he was an internationally-recognized expert on this subject. WP has no date limits. A reliable source from 1973 is still a reliable source. If in the interim new information is added (for example when reliable sources independent of the subject investigate Frontiers and conclude that they are not predatory any more, that can be added. But just because Beall's list is now 3 years old does not mean that we can ignore it. Remember, we write what reliable sources say, nothing more, nothing less. --Randykitty (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• May I remind you that NSD just did that, but you decided that the national science council of Norway (the list is also relevant for horizon2020 funding) isnt simply important enough. Kenji1987 (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• By the way everyone knew that Beall was a one person blogger, adding and removing publishers as he pleased. His university criticized him for this and thats why he retired. I think you are greatly overstating his reliability. He for instance thought that MDPI was a Chinese publisher, just because the CEO has a Chinese ethnicity. But I cant challenge you on this. You and other admins decided that Beall is reliable, and we just have to accept it. Hence, I will never allow my students to make use of Wikipedia for scientific referencing. Kenji1987 (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

First of all, the Norwegian index is not "NSD." NSD, or the Norwegian Centre for Research Data, is the technical operator of the database on behalf of the government, but inclusion and level 2 status are decided by the national publication committee that consists of representatives of universities, and its field-specific subcommittees.

Secondly, the Norwegian Scientific Index is not a "minor" index or anything of the sort. It's certainly not a "minor rating website" as also claimed in another discussion. The NSD's website is just one of several interfaces where you access a part of this national-level system that is integrated with research funding and so on in Norway and linked to a database of all academic publications by Norwegian researchers. To my knowledge it is the first government-backed effort to create such an index, one of the most comprehensive, and certainly the most influential in its field.

Thirdly, the Norwegian Scientific Index isn't just used in Norway, and it has inspired similar indices in other countries. The Danish index for example is largely a copy of the Norwegian Scientific Index. The Norwegian Scientific Index is rapidly becoming a Nordic index, with slightly diverging versions in the different Nordic countries.

Fourthly, the index has indeed received attention, at least in specialist circles, such as those concerned with creating similar indices in other countries. As a result, the European Science Foundation transferred its own database ERIH to Norway, to be operated by NSD due to Norway's experience and even dominance in the world of government-backed indices of academic journals/publishers.

Fifthly, the Nordic countries are, and have always been (at least in the modern age), great powers in the world of science/academia, are the world's most highly developed countries in general (Norway in particular is the world's most highly developed country), and have some of the world's best universities and research and other academic institutions, so the number of inhabitants there isn't that relevant to whether the Norwegian Scientific Index should be included. The influence of the Nordic countries in science, and other areas of society, is greatly disproportionate to their number of inhabitants, compared to any random region of e.g. the US with a similar number of inhabitants. An argument that a Nobel prize shouldn't be mentioned because of the number of inhabitants in Sweden or Norway, and because only Swedes and Norwegians get to decide who gets the prizes, would seem odd. The world certainly seems to place great importance on the science prizes in the Nordic countries, so there is no reason that an index of academic journals – now essentially a joint Nordic project – should be dismissed only based on the number of inhabitants in Norway as the originator of the index.

Personally I think it's strange and unfortunate that this journal has been given level 2 status. However the status is not awarded by NSD, but by the scholarly community of psychologists who have been appointed to a national body as representatives of well-respected universities such as the University of Oslo. I think Beall deserves much credit and agree that his list is very influential; the Norwegian Scientific Index is a more bureaucratic endeavour that hasn't raised the same level of passionate discussion, but it's also influential in its field, and with far more official authority than Beall's list ever had.

Overall, level 2 status is more selective than having a Clarivate impact factor, so level 2 status alone would for example clearly establish notability for a journal. While a bunch of MDPI journals have been assigned impact factors by Clarivate, not a single MDPI journal is level 2 in the Norwegian Scientific Index, and I don't believe it's likely that an MDPI journal will get level 2 status anytime soon. (Clarivate has also assigned an impact factor to this journal, so if we believe Frontiers is predatory – I have often warned people against publishing with them – a number of other well-established indices/databases are also at fault for including them in supposedly selective indices, so it's not like the level 2 status is just a Norwegian anomaly). --Bjerrebæk (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk) I agree with you that the NSD is much more valuable than Beall's list. Beall's list had 0 transparency, we had no idea why certain publisher were added to a list, and there was no independent committee who would judge this. The guy was just lucky that he was the first one to start a list, and academics love lists. Hence, the unhealthy obsessions with rankings, impact factors, and whatever in academia. Many editors here also have an unhealthy obsession with Beall's list, but don't forget the list is 3 years defunct already, it holds little value, besides his published criteria why some publishers are predatory or not (I do see some merit in these criteria, but that's all positive I can say about his blog). I also wonder how many editors here are really academics, or just hobbyists. Anyhow, back to the NSD. I think you are the only one pushing the view why the NSD should be so important, and I agree with you on certain points (and in my opinion this one and Cabell's are the only legitimate indices, as the 2 other famous ones are run by "anonymous postdocs" from one of the most "famous European universities" (which I think is just very funny, it makes me think he or she is not from an European university, but more an obscure one somewhere in Eastern Europe or South Asia), but besides that to discuss every little journal ranked 0 on publishers' pages is a bit redundant. I think that it remains a matter of time before MDPI journals will join this list of level 2. A journal such as Remote Sensing is highly respected, and I think soon they will join the ranks. Other journals like Sci or J, or whatever the name is, seem to be like a complete joke. It's just waiting for a journal to be called Nat. Just my two cents. Kenji1987 (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Kenji1987, as a tireless promoter, of course you do. But I think everyone else here disagrees. Guy (help!) 13:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG I actually agree that such collective initiatives are intrinsically more trustworthy than Beall's list, as any reasonable person should. This includes Beall's successor (Cabell's list) which, crucially does not list Frontiers as a predatory publisher. If you are strictly referring to media coverage/notability, then admittedly nothing yet has come close to Beall's list.Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Believe it or not, but I am critical of MDPI, many of their peer reviews are not up to standard, and I do think that some of its journals are a joke, at the same time I believe the company has also matured in being a legit publisher, and some of its journals are fine outlets. They started out somewhat dodgy, but they are maturing. There is a huge market for open access publishing with high acceptance rates, like MDPI (acceptance rates around 40%), Scientific Reports (50%), Ploseone (also 50%, Frontiers (also 40-50%). The point is MDPI publishes pretty fast, some of the traditional journals take more than a year, and I guess many academics dislike this. Why am I telling you this? Just to let you know that my opinion is way more nuanced that you portray it to be. I even added a controversial article on the MDPI page (but was later deleted, due to other restructurings of mine), but I prefer not to edit as I was accussed of propagating ideas I dont agree with, but that is what the article was about. Just another two cents of mine. Kenji1987 (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Oops sorry I didnt know this was the talk page of Frontiers Media, I dont keep track of which publisher someone accuses me of being a promoter of. In terms of Frontiers Media, I made the controversies section a separate section. Not really wise of a "promoter" to do this. Id assume we all initially think of other editors to edit in good faith untill proven guilty. But I feel that I am constantly proving my innocence. And yes, I do understand where the suspicion comes from, me being an editor with an opposite opinion, but Id be more than happy to exchange ideas on open access publishing on my talk page, if you give me the opportunity to. You'll might learn a thing or two, and I might learn from you. Cheers.Kenji1987 (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Nordic index in its variants is certainly more relevant than Beall's list. However, any such indexing information is irrelevant for the lead. Nemo 06:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Nobody really cares about the Nordic index, it's one of several dozen evaluations. But Beall was unique in being the first to draw attention to Frontiers' bullshit practices. Respectable publishers don't sack their editors when they are 'too rigourous' and don't meet 90%+ publication quotas. That they keep bribing their way into respectability does not actually make them respectable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Selective perception at its best whatever happened to WP:NPOV?). The "sacking of editors" stuff while clearly remarkable is old news and by all reasonable accounts the exception rather than the rule. Nevermind the fact that it did not even involve the specific journal we are discussing in this talk page. You'll find similar instances involving all major publishers if you look hard enough.Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing mention to Beall from the lead

As the title suggests, I have three reasons for this. 1) it is already mentioned in the controversies section. Mentioning it twice is redundant. For example reference to NSD was removed from MDPI's lead, because it was also mentioned somewhere else on the page.

2) this is widely documented in frontiers wiki page. Its better if this particular article focusses on the journal.

3) frontiers in psychology was not included in beall's journal list. Hence, this information is relevant to know about the publishers. Individual journals, and their qualities, vary.

Randykitten, guarding this page very well, suggested me to start this section. Hence, Id welcome your views, especially in relation to these three points. Kenji1987 (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Your point (1) is a lie, as anyone who has read the discussion can easily determine. This makes it difficult to take seriously the idea that you are editing in good faith. --JBL (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is a lie? That Beall is mentioned twice in this article? That NSD mention has been removed in MDPI's lead as it is mentioned in a different section as well (check the history of MDPI)? Or that mentioning something twice is redundant? Regarding editing things in good faith, check my personal page. I do not want to have this discussion again. Kenji1987 (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The assertion "reference to NSD was removed from MDPI's lead, because it was also mentioned somewhere else on the page" is flatly untrue. --JBL (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Please tell me how to interpret "minor rating website, has its own section, does not belong in lead per WP:UNDUE" then. And once you did that, please provide me convincing arguments why Beall should be mentioned in the lead. As the journal is not individually listed in Beall's now expired list, its mentioned in the controversies section already as well as extensively discussed on the publishers page. The NSD has ranked this journal among Science and Nature. In Europe the NSD is hugely respected and used. Kenji1987 (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The sentence you quoted ends with the phrase "per WP:UNDUE". That is the explanation for the removal. It is not related to whether "it was also mentioned somewhere else on the page". (This page is a completely inappropriate venue to discuss whether that explanation is correct.) --JBL (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I do think we need to discuss this a bit, because you discredited this whole section by accusing me of lying, as I interpreted "has its own section" as that it was also removed, because it was mentioned in the controversies section (if I interpreted it wrongly, then my bad, but I do think I made a valid point here). Hence, I also thought that in this case, it should either be mentioned in the lead or its controversies section (of which I think the latter is most appropriate). But while we are here, and we established that I an not blatantly lying, what are your views on this particular issue? Kenji1987 (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

A lead is supposed to summarize the main points of an article. In this respect, there's a big difference between the NSD and Beall's list: the former is a minor rating site that has received hardly any independent (or even dependent) coverage, whereas the latter was a hugely influential list, that received coverage in outlets varying from Nature to mainstream media. Hence, mentioning of the NSD in the lead is not warranted while mentioning Beall's list is. --Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Randy, NSD is used as an evaluation tool not only Norway but entire EU. Besides that Beall is mentioned twice, and its about the publisher not the journal. Could you address these points? Kenji1987 (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Any source for that claim? This is the first time I hear that people outside of Norway may even be aware of that list. --Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Kenji1987, FWIW I agree with you and have argued for removing this from the lead a few months ago, though to no avail.Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I think I saw somewhere that the NSD is the basis for ERIH+ or similar. I'm on my phone right now so it's hard for me to verify if my memory is correct. However RK is right that Beall is worth mentioning in the lead. We do this for all publishers (and all journals from said publishers) on Beall's list because the lead needs to summarize the article. Redundancy is expected. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/erihplus/ thanks headbomb. Kenji1987 (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The Norwegian Centre for Research Data hosts ERIH, nothing says that their own database is the basis for ERIH. Besides getting listed in ERIH is not that difficult (see the criteria listed at the link that Kenji1987 has provided). --Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss whether or not it is easy to getting listed in EIRH or not. You asked me whether NSD was used beyond Norway, and I gave a source. Even NSD's Wiki page provides sources. Kenji1987 (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

And that source you gave only says that the Centre hosts ERIH, not that ERIH is based on their database. I still don't see anything indicating that this is a major database important in the EU. --Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/Forside?olds=true - NSD works with DOAJ, is part of a Nordic list, signed a MOU with ERIH, South Africa uses it, etc. etc. It is not an obscure ranking. Kenji1987 (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Plenty of major Anglo-saxon rankings also include this journal, including WOS, SCOPUS, and it is a Q1 journal in SJR (https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100216571&tip=sid&clean=0). It is a top psychology journal. All major rankings endorse it - but of course only Beall's now defunct list should be in the lead.Kenji1987 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

And here Beall particularly significant, given how controversial Frontiers is, as well as the debate within academia concerning if it should be considered predatory or not. I also have COI concerns for an editor who seems particularly interested in MDPI and Frontiers, given these are two most argumentative / lawyery of the publishers on Beall's list. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I guess this is about me? Should I answer this? Is this the right section? Kenji1987 (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I've attempted to remove it from the header. I do wonder why the Beall list is on the header here and not in any other journal. What's concerning is that IJEPRH doesn't have this statement, even though it lost its impact factor for being predatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.157.77 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

If it is is missing elsewhere, feel free to add it to those other articles. MrOllie (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sold on that. What is the purpose of the header? Does every single journal have the publisher's controversy in there? Does Cell have comments on Elsevier's rent seeking behavior?

I don't think it's relevant. Specific discussions on the specific journal's controversy belongs in the header, but not the publisher. 71.94.157.77 (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This type of argument is so common on Wikipedia that we have a canned response to explain why it is wrong, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. It is hard to imagine what could be more relevant to an article about a journal than credible accusations that it is a predatory outlet. MrOllie (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie I disagree, based on the same page. if every publisher has accusations of impropriety, but only one is singled out for a single journal under their brand in the header, that's bias. the other frontiers journal wiki articles don't have this. even then, it fails the fact that Beall removed Frontiers, and the list is fairly old at this point. I believe that when talking about a single journal, you talk about that specific journal, not the publisher as well, otherwise that belongs in the body or in other areas.

convince me otherwise. why is a defunct list from years ago, where the journal itself wasn't mentioned, in the header, relevant to include if no other journal wiki page does so? it's unusual, inaccurate, and biased. 2600:1012:B129:6106:0:33:4D33:9101 (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't really need to WP:SATISFY you. I might as well ask you to convince me that it isn't all those other hypothetical articles that need to be changed. MrOllie (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie you don't. but there are compelling points raised on Beall's list in this thread, making it a less than reliable source. there is also an issue of neutrality that goes against Wikipedia's ethos in that a single journal in a publisher is being singled out. if you do not which to answer a pretty specific question, that means you're not willing to clarify your point despite reverting every edit.

I think we should let the broader community decide as to whether this information belongs in the header. with that, I'll flag it to the Wikiproject: Academic journals as a task. 71.94.157.77 (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia-wide consensus that Beall's list was/is quite reliable, and despite your repeated claims, I do not buy your repeated suggestion that a single journal in a publisher is being singled out. I am willing to answer questions, but I am not willing to repeat myself. MrOllie (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Would you be willing to consider evidence?

Evidence that only one journal in this publisher is being targeted:

None of any of the Frontiers journals these have it in the header, despite all these journals being owned by Frontiers:

Frontiers in Physics

Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine

Frontiers in Plant Science

Frontiers in Public Health

Frontiers in Endocrinology

Evidence that this is unusual for "sound science publishers":

Then we have a publisher who isn't Frontiers, but was included in Beall's list, one of which that even lost its IF because of predatory behavior (publishing stuff wildly out of scope), which is MDPI. I searched all of the journals and none had it in the header:

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (lost its IF)

Algorithms (journal)

Journal of Clinical Medicine

PLoS also doesn't have this, despite having similar business models to the others, and having some controversy for gender dysphoria research:

PLOS Biology

PLOS Medicine

PLOS One

Evidence this is unusual for large publishers:

We can go one step further and look at another publisher that wasn't on Beall's list, Elsevier, with some pretty heinous controversy like forcing researchers to take down their preprints, manipulating IFs, racism, and more:

Personality and Individual Differences

Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences

Current Opinion in Cell Biology

Current Opinion In Food Science

Journal of Logical and Algebraic Methods in Programming

And one in Elsevier with a lot of controversy in the news lately:

NeuroImage

And finally, a mega journal published by Nature, with some interesting controversy:

Scientific Reports 71.94.157.77 (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Once again, feel free to add mentions of criticisms elsewhere. This list does not mean that this article should be whitewashed. MrOllie (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

it's not whitewashing when it's inconsistent as a policy in terms of content of information in the lead, as instead, this is biased as it's targeted. Unless you have some specific evidence that shows why this journal in this publisher needs this in the header, please remove it, or engage with the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals task. 71.94.157.77 (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is inconsistent by design. That this article is different from another is not evidence of bias, no matter how much you might personally disagree. I don't need to WP:SATISFY your arbitrary remands for evidence. I'm done responding here unless something/someone new comes up, since we're just repeating ourselves. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

You don't have to of course, it's not arbitrary because we're talking about bias, and you seem to be very intent on reverting edits. But this was @Randykitty's suggestion, as you can see from the first comment, and I believe this is a case of bias in WP: STRUCTURE due to Wikipedia:UNDUE weight on a specific thing that isn't as relevant. We will wait for task review to settle this. 71.94.157.77 (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Waiting a bit and then blanking again isn't going to work. MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Then we shall continue to escalate to third parties until clarity is reached through an examination of the evidence. 71.94.157.77 (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Frontiers' inclusion in Beall's list does not belong in the lead. This journal in particular is not named in the list, so it does not fit in a concise overview of the topic. A passing mention in the article's body is sufficient. As a note, this discussion became uncivil surprisingly quickly, and I would suggest everyone involved cool off a little bit, regardless of the next steps for this discussion or the article. WPscatter t/c 21:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. @MrOllie, do you accept this third opinion? If so, please revert the edit. 71.94.157.77 (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

No. The third opinion process requires a neutral description of the dispute. By using it as an opportunity to make your case unopposed you improperly biased the process. MrOllie (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

So, what third party resolution process would you accept? 71.94.157.77 (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I've just opened a case at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Hopefully some uninvolved editors, notified in an unbiased way, can help reach consensus here. WPscatter ^t/_c 00:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

DRN is for moderated discussion, it is not a place to gather uninvolved editors. MrOllie (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The first thing that ought to be done is to summon those still active editors who have previously commented here back to the discussion to see if they would like to update their positions: @JayBeeEll: @Randykitty: MrOllie (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie thanks. a good move, I agree. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Beall's should be mention in the lead here, and in other Frontiers journals too. That an individual journal isn't 'mentionned by Beall' is a red herring because Beall never mentioned individual journals when the entire publisher was dubious. The wording "published by Foo, which was listed on Beall's list until 2017 when it was taken down" is relatively standard, and applies here as it does elswhere. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb I agree that if it's on one header, it should be on all. But it's not, and it's the only place I can find this phrasing. It's been specifically singled out. furthermore, no other publisher has this phrasing in the header.

Can you please direct me to where that phrasing is standardized anywhere else in the header? I could not find it. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of publishers and journals have this wording in their lead. (Many variations exist, e.g. [6], so those aren't the only ones). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb that list seems like the exception that proves the rule that it shouldn't be in the header. That list is extremely short in extremely small journals, from what I can see, with 6 examples total being actual journals, not publishers, and none of those publishers, nor those journals are large. I searched variations and found nothing in larger publishers.

Frontiers in Psychology is easily in the top 10 journals by number of papers published, so it's a high profile example that is a glaring exception amongst large journals. It seems like a fairly specific, targeted case here, with not even other journals in the same publisher being targeted in this way.

I mean, can you point to examples amongst large publishers where controversy is included in the header of a journal's page? MDPI? Elsevier? Springer Nature? Or even in Frontiers? I searched and could not find anything to match. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Like I said this isn't an exhausitive list. If you want 'large' journals, there's Man in India, though keep in mind that most journals on Beall's list won't be large because they are complete shit. If you want one from MPDI, there's Entropy (journal). Elsevier and Springer Nature don't have journals on Beall's list. For Frontiers, well, there's this one that is now trying to be whitewashed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb, first, may I say, thank you for being vigilant and also providing me with examples. I really appreciate it. This is the first wikipedia article I've edited, so I appreciate your patience and explanations.

I strongly disagree with the idea that this is white washing. It's a question of uniqueness and bias through specificity, or WP:UNDUE. You pointed out the phrasing is standard, but then most journals that have this phrasing in the header are the exception, not the rule (being small, no impact factor journals), and most of the journals which are predatory according to Beall don't have it in the header.

I am sorry, but I cannot see how what you have stated supports the view that mentioning Beall's list belongs in the header for a large journal. Man of India seems tiny to me, 400 papers over the lifetime of the journal? Frontiers in Psychology is in the thousands, I believe, per year.

Entropy also doesn't have Beall's list in the header.

Your are correct on the idea that Nature and Elsevier have no journals on Beall's list, but as stated before in this thread, it's a question of how much controversy belongs in the header. For example, if the entire editorial board resigns from a journal publically with anger with the publisher over a high profile journal, covered by international news , you'd expect that to make it in the header. And yet, Neuroimage, published by Elsevier, doesn't have the in the header.

To make it clear: I firmly believe that the discussion on Beall's list does belong in the article, and I believe this journal's controversy section should be expanded. But not in the header because it makes it look like there is WP:BIAS compared to other journals in the same publisher, and other journals in other publishers. I initially came to the page with the intention of adding to the controversy section from my encounters with Frontiers years ago (as this is missing a news story about it), but didn't want to appear biased myself. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Once again, if consistency is really your issue, feel free to add criticism to the lead sections of other articles. MrOllie (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Man in India has way more than 400 papers in it. It's a journal that dates back to 1921. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie I believe that would be firmly knocked back as, ironically enough, biased. If I do so, and I'm knocked back for all the journals above, would you be willing to concede that adding critique in the header is incorrect to do? Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

No, I tend not to barter with what I think is correct. I do think it is interesting that you're willing to edit war to whitewash this article but unwilling to even attempt editing other articles, though. MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie as I've stated elsewhere on this thread, this is the first article I have ever edited, and I went to do so to add to the controversy section. But I notice that it was in the header, and read the discussion here. that's when I edited.

I am a scientist. And in that ethos, I am always willing to change my mind with evidence. Here, evidence was presented and you stated that you don't want to listen and don't want to provide evidence of your own because you say that I don't have to WP:SATSIFY you. I would say that from my perspective, your actions of immediately reverting edits and then refusing to provide evidence is a bigger issue. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You have produced a lot of irrelevant lists and misstatements of policy, but those are not actually evidence. I am willing to discuss and provide evidence in general, but I am not willing to repetitively respond to the same mistaken arguments over and over, nor am I willing to satisfy arbitrary demands for evidence that are irrelevant to the issues or based on misunderstandings of Wikipedia and its policies. MrOllie (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie if you are unwilling to provide evidence or even tell me what evidence would change your mind, while also saying my edits are biased whitewashing, then I don't know what to say.

I can tell you what would change my mind- clear pointing to either guidance or evidence that this is not unique for a large journal to mention the publisher's controversy in the header, or that it fits with the guidelines, or an uninterested third party showed why. I have done all three to show the opposite.

But each time I asked you what would change yours, you said you don't have to WP:SATISFY me.

I don't think the edits I've proposed are whitewashing. If anything, it's fixing bias. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That, right there is the problem. All your arguments are based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's neutrality policy, so you see 'bias' where none exists. I'm not going to spend my time gathering evidence that conforms to your personal standard - I follow Wikipedia's standard. MrOllie (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie I am willing to change my mind, and explained how, clearly, showing evidence I believed to be correct based my understanding of the evidence.

But, if I interpret your statement correctly, there is nothing I can present you with because you believe your knowledge of Wikipedia policy here is absolute, or you don't care enough to try to give your knowledge to others- which to me, is very odd if you're editing things on wikipedia for public knowledge. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

No, I simply don't care enough to repeat myself to people who clearly don't want to listen. MrOllie (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie okay. I'm sorry we couldn't agree. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb that is my error. I apologize. I found a less than reputable site that suggested that's how many they had, and my institution has no subscription to it so I can't check.

the site says it's quarterly and that they only have a few books online... so I believed it. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The very first point raised to argue that Beall should be taken out of the lead is fundamentally misguided: the lead is there to summarize what follows, so repetition is not just allowed, but desired. The rest is just irrelevant. No doubt the intro could be rewritten into something better, but I see no reason to remove the mention of Beall's list from it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@XOR'easter that very same article says that it should be a neutral point of view. If this is the only one that has this critique (and I believe my comment above highlights how unusual and unique this header is), then that's not neutral. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not unique, and it doesn't even read as unusual. Neutral, in Wikipedia jargon, does not mean saying one good thing for every bad thing, or omitting every datum from which a person might draw a conclusion. XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@XOR'easter

Putting aside the uniqueness argument here, controversial topics for specific journal are warranted because it's specific to the journal. but to discuss the publisher in the header is not warranted because it's not controversy within the journal, but rather the publisher.

I'm not saying we add praise, but I am saying a simple summary of a journal should be who is the chief editor, when established, what it does, and what field it's on. If someone wants more info than that, they should read the rest of the article because any more than that is not needed, based on that same article you posted. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that a journal is operated by a sleazy publisher is more important than whoever the figurehead editor-in-chief happens to be. XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@XOR'easter I respectfully disagree. editors in chief have massive power in their journal and can direct the entire journal's quality, which is why it's more relevant than the publisher, with the publisher being less relevant, if at all. I would be shocked if that wasn't the case at Frontiers.

For example, MDPI is probably predatory (many of their journals fell to the Clairvite purge this year), but a few of their journals are not, precisely because the editor in chief fought fiercely to follow their own policies. The reverse is also true; some journals under a reputable publisher fell too. eg: Wiley shuttering multiple journals in their brand because the editors were just not paying attention in their journals, and they were compromised by paper mills.

Beall himself (I believe) argued that with MDPI you'd just have to exercise caution, and therefore the editor in chief is a good signal to that. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Frontiers ended up on the list in part because they override their editors - editors aren't allowed to reject papers[7] , nor are they allowed to write what they like in editorials[8]. So how could they be more important than the publisher? MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, Frontiers have sacked editors for being too selective, and censor their editors. This is header material, not footnote material. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb but did that happen on one journal or all of them? if it's one journal, then it's relevant to that journal, and thus belongs in the header for that journal. If it happened in all journals then it belongs in the header. Indeed, I can't find any documentation that says that this happened in Psychology. Again, relevance is the issue. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

If it happens at one journal, it happens at all journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe you phrased this in reverse but I understand what you were trying to say. What Drthorgithecorgi is saying (and I happen to agree with) is that, per MOS:LEAD, unless this was targeted specifically at this journal, it does not belong in the header. WPscatter ^t/_c 00:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb I'm not convinced of this as a strong enough argument to keep Beall's list in the header. For example, Neuroimage is published by Elsevier, and the entire board resigned because of the actions of Elsevier. But that didn't happen in other journals, despite arguably this behavior likely occuring elsewhere. without specific evidence, I think you'll agree that specific controversy doesn't belong in other journals under Elsevier's flag. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

NeuroImage editors resigned to protest against the high APCs for open access models. That Elsevier charges fees isn't secret, nor is it a compromise of editorial integrity. Similar fees are likely in other Elsevier journals, but fees aren't lead material. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb So do you believe that this controversy for NeuroImage belongs in the header of that journal? After all, who is the editor is agreed upon to be in the header. I do think so as it's for the same reasons that Beall has been argued to belong in the header for this journal- widespread media coverage, notable, important to know, affects editorial board.

in other controversies that are relevant to the statement that "if it happens in one" in relation to editorial boards... in the recent purge by Clairvite, 9 journals in this publisher were removed in 2020 due to self citation. In one journal this year, papers were rejected for not citing enough papers from the same journal. other issues include: Peer review manipulation. The failure of some of the journals that accepted the fake paper in the sting. The fake journal incident. The racism in accepting and rejecting papers. The dodging of peer review by an editor.

Should there be a statement on every Elsevier journal like this?

"The Lancet, published by Elsevier, who recently had an entire editorial board resign due to extremely high fees and continues to have multiple COI issues, like forcing authors to cite the journal itself". the latter half is the publisher's controversy.

Controversies that *may* be happening in one journal doesn't always apply to a header in another journal by the same publisher. Controversies in a specific publisher do not belong in the header of a specific journal. It can be included in the body, but not in the header. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

See WP:WAX, but if you ask me, yes the NeuroImage resignation should be part of the lead for that journal, but no, not for the Lancet because the protest against fees is a general issue, not one that affects editorial independence or review standards. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb the other issues do. Self citations, mass resignations, review manipulation Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on inclusion of Beall's list in lead

Should the article say in the lead that the publisher of the journal (not the journal itself) was considered predatory by Beall's list(2017)? Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

WITHDRAWN, NO ACTION

Withdrawn due to stronger lean in one direction. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Overall, the consensus here amongst more active, senior editors is that it does belong in the lead, with very little in the opposite direction. While I still disagree, I can recognise when I'm overruled and there's no chance to attract a greater variety of responses. No changes are required to the lead.

Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, per standard best practice across all journal articles (which may differ from actual practice on specific articles). When the publisher (and therefore all its journals) is flagged as potentially predatory, we mention that fact. Here it's particularly relevant given how litigious Frontiers is, and how hard they pushed against Beall to the point of shutting down his list in large part because of them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. It is hard to imagine what could be more relevant to an article about a journal than credible accusations that it is a predatory outlet, and per [9] it was controversy associated with this journal that helped raise concerns about the publisher in the first place. - MrOllie (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• No.

The inclusion of this in the lead violates the guidelines of MOS:LEAD in that it includes more information than would be expected.

It also violates WP:UNDUE in that this is highly unusual and unique, suggesting a non neutral POV. Some evidence, cited by myself above:

This is the only major journal where the publisher's controversy is included in the lead.

It is unique in that all other journals under the same publisher do not have it in the lead.

it is unique in that no other major journal by any other major publisher has controversies in the lead.

Recent controversies in similar journals (Neuroimage) are not included in the header. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

"This is the only major journal where the publisher's controversy is included in the lead." This is not. I gave you examples above. Man in India, etc... There's also a sampling bias in that most journals on Beall's list are complete shit, so will not be 'major'. That 'major' journals are rare it not unexpected. "It is unique in that all other journals under the same publisher do not have it in the lead." See also WP:WAX. That's easily fixed by also meantionning Beall in the other articles. For NeuroImage, etc... see WP:SOFIXIT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb the purpose of this request for comment is to gather outside commentary. I have already described the difference between Man in India- a specific journal with no impact factor-vs specifically mentioning one publisher. We have come to an impasse, although I respect your view, your evidence is insufficient to change my view. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that a WP:3 request was made to remove it from the header, with a 3rd party stating it should be removed. This solution was rejected by the broader talk page under a belief of bias in the initial request. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

NB: not defending Frontiers, have never published/edited/reviewed with them (I have cited evidence there).

I just don't think it belongs in the header, and the stiff resistance to removing the specific statements in this article- despite the mountain of evidence that this statement in the header is unique, not as relevant as other areas, and specifically targeted- makes me think that the most of the people editing here really have a grudge against this specific journal.

The tone of the argument is also rather... weirdly aggressive. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I have no grudge against this journal, nor much interest in it at all, really. I think you are misreading the room. XOR'easter (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yes I agree with Headbomb and MrOllie's comments in full. A statement about the controversial status of the publisher is entirely in line with MOS:LEAD, given that everything in the article which is not boilerplate is about the journal's controversies, which have contributed to the reputation of the publisher. Different articles have different requirements, so the fact that page A doesn't do exactly the same thing as page B is not binding precedent. Perhaps the situation of B is genuinely different, or perhaps instead of changing A to resemble B, it is A that is right and B that is wrong. XOR'easter (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. I'm not going to repeat the arguments presented by Headbomb, MrOllie, and XOR'easter, with which I completely agree. --Randykitty (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. Among other things, one of the uses of our articles on journals and their publishers is to inform readers (and other Wikipedia editors) of how reliable that journal is generally considered to be. Putting that information front and center advances that purpose. The information is relevant, properly sourced, and lead-worthy. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  @David Eppstein Disagree on lead worthy and relevant. Controversies about the specific journal are warranted in the header, but not the publisher because there is much variety even within the same publisher.

  Reliabity of the journal should be about specific controversies within the journal, not the publisher (echoing what Lakens said when Beall put it on his list). Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Reliability of the journal includes the reliability of the publisher. You cannot separate the two. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Headbomb Not enough that it belongs in the header, as journals often operate with minimal oversight, and specific journals are treated differently by publishers.

  This is especially true as editors in chief do have considerable power, including the ability to reject papers. This is clearly stated on the website for this specific journal. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  "Not enough that it belongs in the header" when the published sacks editors for being too selective, that is the opposite of "minimal oversight". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Headbomb but again, not in this specific journal, therefore the relevance is questionable at best. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  This specific journal is one of the main reason why Frontiers was listed on Beall's list to begin with (doi:10.1038/526613f). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Headbomb then that should be the statement on the header, not about the publisher- amendment- I did not see the DOI- I think that as a source for the header is appropriate. What say you I edit it accordingly? can you please link that? I honestly can't find mention of this- his statement on the inclusion was quite vague, referencing the opinions and experiences of academics, without reference to specific journals. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  PS this journal claims to have an editorial board with 10790 editors! Is that normal for this field? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  That's fucking insane. Someone talk to Retraction Watch or something. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's not normal for the field, but it is normal for Frontiers. It's because they list everyone who has done a peer-review (or even anyone who has expressed they are willing to do a peer review) on the editorial board. Many of their journals have a number of 'editors' that exceeds the number of papers published over the lifetime of the journal. MrOllie (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  @MrOllie I believe it's not that simple.

  The difference is that Frontiers calls people who consistently do peer review as a contracted agreement as "peer review editors".

  You have to sign up to be a peer review editor, with an agreement of at least 4 papers reviewed a year. People who agree to a one off are not listed as peer review editors.

  But yes, I agree the editorial board is FAR too large. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  How do you know this? Do you have a WP:COI here? You've exclusively edited on this article and topic, always pushing for the whitewashing of the article. This brings very strong WP:SPA concerns here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Headbomb they tried to recruit a colleague to be an associate editor in Frontiers in Neuroscience. Then they tried to ask her post doc to be a review editor, who accepted. He accepted, and because he's rather inexperienced I asked to see the contract. His is custom, but most of it is standard which I found via google:

  [10]

  This was my first encounter with Frontiers.

  I've already explained: I've never published, edited, or reviewed for Frontiers, although I've cited work there, which is really hard not to do in my field.

  I could ask you the same question: what is your extent of involvement with Frontiers? You seem really intent on this discussion. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• No. As much as Frontier Media's practices were repulsing, we normally limit details of controversies to company articles. For instance, controversies surrounding Amazon are not (and should not) be added to articles about Amazon products, such as Amazon Echo, Amazon Fire TV or Amazon Web Services. The reason is, we are WP:NOTADVOCACY nor are here to right great wrongs. Here, I support simply describing Frontiers Media as a "controversial publisher", and a wikilink will encourage the interested reader to discover more information in the company article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Amazon Echo has a pretty substantial section about privacy concerns, which by rights ought to be incorporated into the lede. That's a controversy surrounding Amazon which is directly pertinent to the article in question. This article does it right, and Amazon Echo does it wrong. XOR'easter (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Disagree, and please don't conflate concerns with controversies. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's in the "Criticism of Amazon" article you linked to. Call it a concern, controversy, or whatever: it's a thing about the product which is both described in depth in the product's article and a contributing factor to the manufacturer's reputation. I can imagine some other situation where a concern about the manufacturer would be out of place in an article about a product, but here, any way I slice it, this article is the model to follow, and Amazon Echo ought to be fixed. XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yep. In contrast, there have been no concerns about Frontiers in Psychology – only about the publisher. Hence my vote. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Kashmiri, the difference here is that the criticisms of Amazon don't concern its products. If there were a concern that would affect all Amazon products, then that would justifiably be listed in the lead of the articles on the products. In contrast, the criticisms of Frontiers are not, for example, their treatment of their employees, which would belong in the company article, but not in the articles on its products. Rather, the concern with Frontiers is the way their journals are set up and this concerns all journals of this publisher. Hope this is clear enough and didn't get too muddled... --Randykitty (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Randykitty Frontiers Media should be rightly criticised for all their editorial practices. However, a suggestion that these practices affected specifically Frontiers in Psychology requires sources. To bring up the IT analogy: even though Google's overall privacy practices have been controversial, a suggestion that, say, Google Sheets suffers from privacy concerns will require sources.

  In absence of sources, tainting by association would be a poor editorial practice of Wikipedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The concerns about the publisher stem, in part, from concerns about Frontiers in Psychology. XOR'easter (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yes - Agree with User:kashmiri that we normally limit details of controversies in a company's or entity's lead. That said, I think the exception is if a company's or entity's notabililty is primarily or largely due to some contraversy. I looked breifly for references that gave Frontier's direct coverage. It's sorta hard to find sources that talk about the journal itself as opposed to articles that appear in the journal. When you strip out stories about articles within the journal this Nature piece about Frontiers being questionable is one of the first to appear. I realize this isn't a particularly scientific way of examining this question, but it makes me think that the journal is largely notability for its predatory behavior. NickCT (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think that that's just an issue with SEO, rather than Frontiers in Psychology itself (Frontiers puts its brand ahead of the journal, so it's bound to happen).

  For example, searching Cells (journal) (a journal by MDPI, a possibly predatory publisher) will not get you much. But searching MDPI's Cells will get you results about the predatory nature of the journal. On the flip side, searching Neuroimage will bring up specific controversy with that journal because it's most notable at this point for that particular reason.

  In my view, almost no pure open access publisher is particularly ethical so you'll likely run into this problem in most journals. I don't see why Frontiers should be singled out. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Drthorgithecorgi:, You should have a look at WP:BLUDGEON. MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is a different point on an interpretation of notability, not the same point repeated. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  The community looks poorly on editors who reply to a large fraction of RFC responses. You're not doing your cause any favors here. The die is more or less cast now, it would be better to wait for the RFC input to roll in - and experience has shown there will be more and better outside input if the RFC isn't turned into a mess of threaded discussion. MrOllie (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  @MrOllie Fair enough, point taken. I'll step back for a while unless I'm specifically tagged, or it's time to close it. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Cells (journal)? Never heard of it. Somekind of Cell (journal) knock-off? Anyway, looking over our Cells (journal) article it looks like a bit of a stub. Plus, I'm not seeing higher-quality sources referring to it as predatory. I'm not sure Cells (journal) and Frontiers in Psychology are equivelant in stature or predation. NickCT (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  With the key difference that MDPI was taken off Beall's list in 2015 after an appeal, unlike Frontiers. MDPI would likely be back on there if the list was still up, due to the proliferation of special issues (as high as 3000 per year per journal), but that's neither here nor there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Soft no. It would be different if there were more secondary coverage of the journal's issues in this regard. It should be mentioned in the article in general. I've read all of the discussions on the talk page and I don't think it's obvious either way.Chamaemelum (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Note that Chamaemelum was site banned for disruptive editing. It appears this originated with edits related to WP:MEDRS, which would potentially apply to this article. Grayfell (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I move to close this RFC with the resolution of Yes (it should be included in the header). No change to the page is required.

As a summary:

Most comments from people who have engaged with this page before including @MrOllie, @Headbomb, @XOR'easter, @Randykitty, and @David Eppstein say that it should be included.

New comments from external individuals, like @kashmiri and @Chamaemelum garnered no votes, like me. @NickCT voted yes.

• • • addendum: new comments from those who didn't interact with my first commentary on the topic, not external Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• No. per WP:SPS and the objections mentioned in the Nature article which indicate Beall was not a well-recognized subject expert. The failed attempts to remove this in September 2016 and April 2019 and February 2021, and the threads above this, indicate opposition has been persistent. The additional "No"s here might make a closer conclude there is insufficient consensus for the addition. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Peter Gulutzan I'll leave it for another week or so. Overall, I don't think enough outside commentary (especially from people who didn't already engage with me) has been reached to this specific RFC. However, ultimately it would require quite a bit of consensus to make the change, especially as the people who wish to keep it as is outnumber (and dare I say, outrank) those who wish to change it. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Restating my oppose. As much as Frontiers' deplorable editorial practices should be rightly called out, the lead section exists solely to provide a concise overview of the article subject. Here, the subject is only remotely related to the company's internal process. More generally, we don't routinely stick complaints about manufacturers in articles about their products, nor complaints about parliaments in articles detailing, say, legislative acts. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• An incident at this journal was cited as a reason it ended up on the list. In this case this is the defective product that garnered the complaints. MrOllie (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Plenty of respectable journals have had, as you call it, incidents, starting with The Lancet and The BMJ. As you can see, these incidents are mentioned in the respective sections there, not in the lead. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drthorgithecorgi If you call me an editor who "has never engaged with this page before", I suggest you learn how to use the page history tab. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri I apologize. I am still learning. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes - per reliable sources this is significant, and the lead should summarize significant facts about the topic. The article itself is far, far too short to justify a spin-off article about this controversy (which, unfortunately, has lead to WP:CSECTION articles like Criticism of Amazon and similar in the past, but that is a very different issue). Grayfell (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. Frontiers in Psychology publishes a lot of articles, many of which are good but some of which are questionable. I wondered about the mix but I naively assumed I must be too critical or something. Guess where this psychologist learned that his impression—that Frontiers in Psychology publishes some dodgy articles—was spot on? Here on the talk pages of Wikipedia! (especially from Headbomb.) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 04:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.