Talk:Heliyon

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

reply to Randykitty's deletions

Hi, Randykitty: it is always fun to bump into you. I usually agree with and thank you for some your reversals, but not with the two about Heliyon. 1) Who owns Scopus is important here, because both Scopus and Heliyon are owned by Elsevier, and the latter has been accused of unfair promotion of its journals: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elsevier&action=edit&section=17 . I feel, that instead of deleting the infor about Elsevier ownership, it should be expanded to mention the unfair promotion, such as Manipulation of bibliometrics. 2) mentioning the OA publishing cost is important here, because it is fairly high compared to other OA mega-journals, and because such high OA price motivates the Publishers to accept every manuscript, including those that resulted in Heliyon "delisting" by the Web of Science. Again, I feel that this topic should be expanded rather than deleted. If I do not hear back from you within the next few days, I will proceed with the proposed expansion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs)

Hi. 1/ Scopus: Whatever one may think of Elsevier, they're not stupid. Scopus must be a major investment for them. If ever someone would decisively show that Elsevier journals would get preferential treatment on Scopus, or, worse, would get artificially inflated scores, nobody would subscribe to Scopus any more and their investment would be lost. As far as I know, nobody has ever shown that Elsevier abuses Scopus. Also, there's UNDUE and SYNTH to consider. We have thousands of journal articles linking to Scopus, obviously it would not be correct to put this disclaimer in each of these articles, especially if there's no proof of anything untoward. 2/ As for the cost of OA publishing, WP is not a catalogue. Also, like the Scopus remark above, why putting that in this article and not in all other OA journal articles? And if we would ignore all that, just imagine the effort that would be needed to keep all those prices current. Finally, concerning that delisting of Heliyon by Clarivate, at this point it's pure speculation why it was delisted. (and to be a bit pedantic, strictly speaking Heliyon is not delisted but "on hold" during a re-evaluation, which is currently being carried out.) --Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]