Talk:Oncotarget

	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.

Threats of retraction

The consensus is that this material is suffiently relevant to include and sufficiently well-sourced to include. Editors noted that The Scientist article noted these are "allegations" so Wikipedia should use similar language instead of using the narrative voice.
Cunard (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2017 (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.

Some anonymous editor is repeatedly removing the claim that this journal's editor, Mikhail Blagosklonny, "threatened Beall's colleagues at the University of Colorado with retraction of their papers over Beall's listing of his journal", sourced to the same Retraction Watch link that we are also using in the resulting version of the article to source the journal's de-listing from MEDLINE. The anonymous editor claims that Retraction Watch is too unreliable to support such claims against a living person, but the consensus of the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 197#Retraction Watch (on unrelated cases) is that Retraction Watch is a reliable source for BLPs (and there are quite a few other BLPs with negative claims sourced to Retraction Watch). Can I please get a sense of other editors (1) whether this material is sufficiently relevant to include, and (2) whether this material is sufficiently well-sourced to include? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~No, unless we can get more sourcing.~~ Neutral, given the new The Scientist source.[1]
The biggest problem is that the proposed edit isn't actually supported by the source. Retractionwatch makes a rather damning series of statements that imply that Blagosklonny made a retaliatory threat, however if you read it very carefully it doesn't actually assert motivation or cause-and-effect. I suspect that they deliberately avoided tying it together into an actual allegation.
As noted in the ReliableSourceNoticeboard discussion on Retraction Watch, Retractionwatch is not merely a "self-published blog". There is a significant foundation behind it, and reputable expert oversight. As noted in that discussion it is definitely reliable for retractions. And as noted in that discussion, there is case-by-case consideration when it reports surrounding information. In this case the information is pretty strongly goes against a living individual. Even if Retractionwatch had made the allegation directly, or even if the edit were fixed to match the source, we should keep a higher standard before echoing this sort of thing. Retraction watch is a Reliable-but-small source, reliable for it's purpose, we need more before reporting this feud involving individuals.
For what it's worth, I'd be more than happy to see additional sources turn up. The situation looks sleezy based on the (inadequate) information we do have. Alsee (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alsee: is this the more sourcing you're looking for? It's based on the Retraction Watch piece, but published in an independent and reliable source (The Scientist), and writes "Retraction Watch alleges that the editor-in-chief, Mikhail Blagosklonny, has threatened to retract the research papers of Beall’s colleagues after the journal had been added to Beall’s list." —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - David Eppstein, it's a great source for Oncotarget being considered a predatory publication, chuckle. It certainly raises the profile of Retraction Watch's allegations, although the "he said he said he said" reporting is weaker than if The Scientist had been less indirect. I'll strike my "no" !vote for a "neutral", and see what other responses we get here. Alsee (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support w/ caveat - The Scientist article qualifies the statement by noting that they are "allegations". We should be sure to use similar language, and we should not make the statement in narrative voice. NickCT (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support w/ caveat - Support with the same caveat as Nick above--to be sure language is tweaked to properly qualify the nature of the allegations. Since this page is about the journal more than the specific editor, we might also think about not mentioning the editors name here and just noting that the journal editor was accused of this. Pengortm (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Beall's list

All evidence points to the fact that Beall's List is a WP:SPS and in violation of WP:BLPSPS. The source is written, edited and published by Jeffrey Beall. Kingofaces43 or Oshwah, please remove the material while the discussion continues or a better source is found. I will refrain from reverting, but the current version should not be up until consensus can be reached.40.134.67.50 (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

40.134.67.50 I have reverted the latest edit. Per BLPREQUESTRESTORE policy the content should not be restored until the RFC is resolved. Alsee (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alsee - Thank you for doing that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE can we also err on the side of caution at Mikhail Blagosklonny, Michael Silbermann and K. K. Aggarwal. I am trying to refrain from making any further reverts myself. But they are all connected to the same Beall's List.40.134.67.50 (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Oshwah and Alsee 40.134.67.50 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of examining the Mikhail Blagosklonny situation when I got the ping. I am considering adding a cite to The Scientist for "predatory journal", and removing the the more more personal allegation pending result of the RFC. I'll take a look at what's happening at Michael Silbermann and K. K. Aggarwal as well. Alsee (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added it as a second source for the MEDLINE delisting, but not yet for anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beall's list has generally been considered reliable when discussed at RSN althought there are those who disagre. See[2] and [3]. Retractionwatch likewise.[4] If there are special concerns about using it here I suggest going to WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller - please do bring it to the RSN? or you want me to? and David Gerard there are at least half a dozen editors I have found that do not accept it as a reliable source - in the spirt of eventualism - you are saying this is not open for discussion and has already been decided? E Eng and Cullen³²⁸ please read below and let me know where you think I am repetitive or not coherent? Would be greatly appreciated!

Here is some basic information you can/should be using:

Reliable Source Criteria - The following criteria are established guidelines for Wikipedia per WP: IRS (Wikipedia: Identifying Reliable Sources)

Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Information must come from a verifiable source.
The source must be in the form of previously published information.
It must present a neutral point of view.
Majority and significant minority views should be covered in an article.
When there are disagreeing reliable sources, both sides should be presented, and the article should maintain a neutral point of view.
There is a higher standard for articles about living persons.
“Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.”

Good sources

Reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form).
Source directly supports proposition in article.
University-level textbooks.
Books published by respected publishing houses.
Magazines.
Journals.
Mainstream newspapers.
Academic and peer-reviewed publications.
Sources usually not reliable.

Questionable sources

Poor reputation for fact-checking, lack meaningful editorial oversight, have conflict of interest.
Sources with extremist or promotional views.
Sources that rely on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion.
Self-published sources are largely not acceptable and self-published sources are not acceptable as third-party sources on living people, regardless of whether the author is an expert
Exception: Self-published expert sources are reliable when from an established expert on the subject matter, “whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications”

Always bad sources

Unpublished materials.
Comments on blogs.
Other Wikipedia articles or circular sources.

Now, lets apply it to the facts at hand:

Beall’s List does not meet Wikipedia’s own standards to be a reliable source:

The source is not verifiable.
The list is so controversial that the author of it removed it from the Internet without explanation almost a year ago.
The only current citations are to archived versions that are no longer reviewed, edited or updated in any way.
Just as outdated textbooks lose credibility, archived copies of this outdated online publication should not be considered a current, credible source.
Whether a listed journal can be considered predatory is impossible to verify because, by definition, the list includes “potential, possible, or probable” predatory journals with no comprehensible distinction between which are merely “potential”/”possible” and which are “probable,” and what specific criteria was applied to each specific listed journal.
The source lacks meaningful editorial oversight to eliminate Beall’s biased personal opinion as the basis of inclusion on his list
The source relies on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion
Beall’s list was always self-published (problematic in its own right, as discussed more below), but it is now even more unreliable because no one is managing, updating, or revising the content as circumstances may change.
Exception: Self-published expert sources are reliable when from an established expert on the subject matter, “whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications”
There is no indication Beall has experience publishing scientific journals or was recognized as an “expert” in scientific journals prior to the publication of his infamous list.
Application of the “established expert” exception is based on circular logic – Beall was not considered an expert in anything until he started publishing his self-published list. The existence of his self-published list cannot be the sole credential of expertise to rely on the self-published list.
Wikipedia’s guidance states: “Never use self-published sources as sources about any living people, except for claims by the author about himself or herself. This holds even if the third-party author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.” Thus, all citations to Beall’s List in the Blagosklonny entry must be eliminated.
Beall’s List is a self-published source that does not meet the established expert exception

The source exhibits extremist, promotional and biased view about open access (“OA”) journals and actively promotes an anti-OA agenda:

Beall wrote an article in 2013 calling the open-access movement “anti-corporatist, oppressive and negative movement, one that uses young researchers and researchers from developing countries as pawns to artificially force the make-believe gold and green open-access models to work.”
He also writes, “OA advocates want to make collective everything and eliminate private business, except for small businesses owned by the disadvantaged.”
He contends, “But a close analysis of the discourse of the OA advocates reveals that the real goal of the open access movement is to kill off the for-profit publishers and make scholarly publishing a cooperative and socialistic enterprise. It's a negative movement.”
The article is full of biased, misleading and incorrect information about OA publishing. An author with these views cannot be a credible source for what is and is not predatory publishing. http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514

Consider some published criticism of Beall and Beall’s List:

“A big problem with this list is it was academically classist and biased towards journals in non-English speaking countries.” http://www.science20.com/hontas_farmer/bealls_list_and_what_we_need_to_replace_it-224844
“Beall is falsely accusing nearly one in five as being a ‘potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open access publisher’ on appearances alone.” https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/10/04/open-access-sting-reveals-deception-missed-opportunities/
“Unfortunately, as he has gained some degree of notoriety, it turns out he isn’t just trying to identify bad open access publishers – he is actively trying to discredit open access publishing in general. There were signs of this before, but any lingering doubt that Beall is a credible contributor to the discourse on science publishing was erased with an article he published last week. The piece is so ill-informed and angry that I can’t really describe it.” http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1500

Other reasons given by Wikipedia editors: Editors have discussed Beall’s List on Wikipedia’s Noticeboards on multiple occasions. Some discussions center on the reliability of the list.

Noticeboard 216: A large number of well-respected researchers protested the list.
Noticeboard 197: Inclusion on Beall’s List is solely a matter of Beall’s judgment.
Noticeboard 261: The source is a self-published blog.
Noticeboard 205: The list itself is controversial, overinclusive, and not updated to reflect if a journal no longer meets Beall’s criteria for being including on the list.

MakinaterJones (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

How do I call for independent disinterested admin review on this issue?

Administrators are not moderators, they do not render "judgment" in disputes. If you seek further discussion on content, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Regards So Why 07:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear So Why,

Thank you for your response, its called an RFC - do you have thoughts on this?

MakinaterJones (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You asked above what I think of what you're saying here. In all seriousness, it's indigestible. You seem to be saying that Beall isn't an RS because there's been criticism of him. But a source can still be an RS (I say can be -- not necessarily)) even if it gets criticism -- it's a question of balance. The presence of a journal on the list is worth noting in the article; if there are some RS's with opposing views, those can be included as well. E Eng 04:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E Eng

THANK YOU for your insight and joining the discussion - can you please be more specific about whats indigestible? This is a standard policy analysis - I tried to break it down into bullet points rather than a narrative - can you help me by telling game how I can reformat it it or contextualize it better for you?

I am not only saying that there has been criticism of him (his list), but I am seeking for editors to view the totality of the circumstances surrounding the BLP and his RS from day one until today - it began as an agenda against open access, it continued with a blog that for a variety of reasons fails to meet RS guidelines, went on to the point where several wiki editors do not believe it is RS and it finalized with it being unpublished and not being updated for over a year. Criticism is only a small part of the vastly reckless nature of applying the BLP's list to other BLP pages or any wiki page at all - I am under the impression that the editor above is bringing this to the RSN where I will be happy to continue this discussion is a broader context with disinterested editors.

As to your point about criticism, I hear you - and that makes a lot of sense. However, please seek a greater understanding of what was indigestible to you.

MakinaterJones (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

STOP addressing and formatting your posts like personal letters. What's indigestible are you giant posts of 8K at a time e.g [5]. I have no idea what you mean by stuff like "the BLP and his RS". This is beginning to strongly resemble sea-lioning [6]. E Eng 05:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E Eng

Sure, I can simply respond - please take a look at this - you seem to be stuck between ad hominem and responding to tone, can you make an effort to at least get to the contradiction level??? I would enjoy actually getting to the refutation point if at all possible...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Randykitty#/media/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg

MakinaterJones (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More sea-lioning. E Eng 19:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about BLP on Academic Journal Page

Wiki guides us on this by stating that when talking about a person with BLP status we must use the highest quality sources, and if you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out

The burden is on the editor who adds or restores the contested material - I firmly believe no one has proven that these are high quality sources and there are not multiple third-party sources making the same claims.

Overall, all of these sources present little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines which are exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering and sensationalism attributing material to anonymous sources and using weasel words: (sign of poor source)

1. Both Retraction and Beall cite anonymous sources for their claims on this BLP subject this gives me a reasonable doubt as to their authenticity (sign of poor source)

2. Beall's List uses nothing but weasel words i.e. Possible, potential and probable. (sign of poor source)

3. The article from the Scientist contains multiple inaccuracies and it is apparent that the article involved no independent reporting. The writer has merely incorrectly paraphrased portions of a Retraction Watch article and placed an outsized reliance on a defunct website. Since it was published they have issued corrections on their article.

1 2 and 3 show that these sources are miles away from "high quality" sources needed for BLP references - if good sources at all, they are an excellent example of circular reporting and basically repeating gossip. Ivan Oransky, a founder of Retraction Watch is also the deputy editor of The Scientist and the coverage of Retraction Watchlist article was a poor attempt to create a third party source. Overall, the body of these three sources present little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers and are exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering or sensationalism.

Moreover, even if I agree with you that Beall, Retraction and Scientist are of the highest quality of sources, there are still not multiple third-party sources making the same claims.

1. Beall is claiming (from an anonymous source) that Oncotarget peer review is questionable and BLP subject is gaming the system - noone else has ever claimed that. (sign of poor source)

2. The Scientist is not making the same claim as Retraction - it was literally two different claims all together (albeit due to the fact of thee poor editorial quality of the Scientist article which is highlighted by the subsequent correction on the scientist article)

To momentarily step away from BLP policy - one of Wiki's five main pillars concludes that to remain neutral an editor must cited notable sources especially when controversial, and goes on to specifically say about BLP that we must remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (The Scientist) relies on self-published sources (Beall) or relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards (anonamoys sources in Retraction and Beall's post) - however, Wiki makes perfectly clear Never use self-published sources as sources of material about a living person

Putting comments like these from such bottom end sources in relation to people with BLP status is reckless

I will take it a step further to encourage the discussion around how these specific sources do not belong on Academic Journal pages in general (Except Retraction talking about retractions) due to the variety of issues that stand out n the above discussion regarding these sources.

I will be creating a Wiki account and continuing to monitor this issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.102.133 (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beall is an RS, per the above - David Gerard (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments: Firstly, a journal is not a living person. There is no BLP issue here. Secondly, as WP:TPO explains, please don't remove others' talk page comments, nor your own if someone else has replied. Huon (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Huon,

2. Thank you for letting me know - 1. if you reviewed the history on the page before making this comment you would see the BLP was mentioned on the page - and it is still in discussion above. It is what cause this entire issue and brought BLP to noticeboard - if you are not familiar with the issue or have not comprehensively reviewed why are you commenting here?

Thats why I moved this to the BLP noticeboard conversation - I don't want to be accused of forum shopping and the comment from David Gerard is just false - there are just as many questioning this as a RS as there are people saying that it is - there is no consensus.

But we can leave it here too if you think its necessary ;)

MakinaterJones (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MakinaterJones and friends

This article and the closely related article Mikhail Blagosklonny have a long history of single-purpose accounts whose only goal seems to be to remove or minimize negative sourced material about the journal and its editor. They include Leendett, Sdsharma20, Thomasrighthand, James1347, and, most recently, MakinaterJones, who has previously mass-removed negative material from both Oncotarget and Mikhail Blagosklonny and is today pushing to minimize Oncotarget's delisting from MEDLINE by instead writing about how all its former articles are still listed, using only primary sources for this material. Is it time for a WP:SPI? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein

Hi David, my name is Stacey. I have been doing small edits on wiki for a year or so now. When I saw this issue on the BLP noticeboard (which I mainly pay attention to) I saw Mikhail Blagosklonny BLP page needing the most serious attention. After I made a contribution to the BLP noticeboard, I made some small edits based on wiki policy and they were reverted with little or no explanation (one was reverted because I had an IP and no account)

So, I created an account ;)

I have put considerable time into this and I would like to have the discussion on the talk page and noticeboards rather than you constantly edit war with me.

I do not know what you mean by "minimizing" delisting - I am making every effort to simply make the page more explanatory - as the publishing frequency was wrong, the MEDLINE delisting comment was very short, and not even a complete sentence.

I am done with my edit warring report on you at the edit warring noticeboard - please engage in the discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:_reported_by_User:MakinaterJones_.28Result:_.29

MakinaterJones (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Lets point out that one of these so-called "sock puppets" Leendett disagreed with this and requested their name be not used by David Eppstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by MakinaterJones (talk • contribs)

That is not an accurate description of what happened. What actually happened was that an IP editor claiming to be Leendett edited my comment here to remove Leendett's name, making it look like I had never even mentioned Leendett. Editing other people's comments in this way is not acceptable behavior, and if repeated may lead to the editor doing so being blocked. See WP:TPO. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure this is just another attack by you David Eppstein, Leendett does not want to be attacked and accused just as I don't - please change the name of this section and stop the personal attacks and get to the policy and facts - I have invited you to discuss 5 times now and stop reverting and attacking users here.

MakinaterJones (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calling legitimate observations about editing behavior "attacks" does not make them attacks no matter how many times that charge is repeated, MakinaterJones. The truth is that "This article and the closely related article Mikhail Blagosklonny have a long history of single-purpose accounts whose only goal seems to be to remove or minimize negative sourced material about the journal and its editor," as David Eppstein said above. Several highly experienced editors are aware of this and are monitoring the situation to ensure that all these article stay neutral and fully informative. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cullen³²⁸,

The number of edits a Wiki editor makes does not reflect the value of their contribution to the discussion - claiming sock puppet is not a defense to ignoring the facts in dispute and refusing to take part in a factual policy based discussion about the issues.

Naming this section my Wiki handle is a personal attack, as well as some other comments from editors about me - I have only been editing a couple weeks now - the way I am being treated is highly aggressive - and the issues are being ignored. How else would you describe an attack?

I am a real person and I have already made clear - I could care less about anything besides proper and articulate application of wiki policy to facts. It is where I find interest in this volunteer work. We just need to get to the facts and stop all the other hub bub.

MakinaterJones (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If MakinaterJones is hoping that others are going to show up here and be persuaded to do what he/she wants, I predict keen disappointment. It is entirely normal for Wikipedia articles to include the kind of material being discussed. It won't be deleted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity

No, I am primarily concerned with section one "threats of retraction" which I believe was decided very fairly.

The section "Talking about BLP on Academic Journal Page" I created was supposed to help the first section (because I believe it was more about not using the BLP's name on the page in connection with this content rather than just the language or sourcing about the threats of retraction) Due, to the consensus they found in the first section to not include the BLP's name near this content, I believe speaks volumes about and leads to a prima facia consensus that this shouldn't be on the BLP page itsself...If we won't allow his name to be said near it, we are going to keep it on his page? Pengortm NickCT Alsee do you disagree? (I more specifically applied analysis to BLP pages here [[7]])

However, I admit to have raised the issue of Bealls List as a RS in general - and I agree that the threshold is lower for an academic journal page than a BLP page, none-the-less, I have cited several instances where wiki editors did not agree with consensus and I have cited changes in the availability and updated nature of the referenced material. Is this not relevant in the spirt of eventualism?

These changes should spark a "re-visit" of our community to ensure consensus is still valid (or ever was) - I think Doug Weller will be bringing this to the RSN

MakinaterJones (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sea lioning. E Eng 11:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E Eng

Please take a look at this link - E Eng seems to be stuck between ad hominem and responding to tone, can you make an effort to at least get to the contradiction level??? I would enjoy actually getting to the refutation point if at all possible...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Randykitty#/media/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg

MakinaterJones (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More sea-lioning. E Eng 19:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: - Were the accounts you've pointed to active at the same time? Can you provide edits? NickCT (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NickCT: You can check the history. They didn't edit at the same time but they and others (eg October twentieth and Gustinamedia) are single person accounts created only to edit this and related articles. And then there are the IPs. Beall has been a frequent target. Either we have socks or an organised campaign. @MakinaterJones:, I can't imagine why I'd be going to RSN. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant to ping: NickCT. What articles, other than those here [8]? E Eng 19:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller and EEng: - Well I don't want to nit pick, b/c I'm not sure this editor's activity is particularly helpful, but I'm having difficulty seeing an example where two sock-like accounts are "tag teaming" the same article at the same time. SPI's have to meet one of the WP:ILLEGIT criteria, or else you might end up going after someone who is simply creating a new account every 4 or 5 months when they come on to edit. I don't think simply creating new accounts is really malicious... NickCT (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I do think it's likely there's some organized effort going on. This has been a problem in the area of "anti-aging" quackery for years. E Eng 21:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: - Fair enough. I worked at the National Institutes of Health briefly in an aging related field. There was a pretty thin grey line between quacks and serious folks. NickCT (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about e.g. American_Academy_of_Anti-Aging_Medicine. E Eng 22:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: - What are you talking about? Those guys look totals legit. Here's a picture of Goldman and Klatz standing next to Arny. Can you get more legit than that? NickCT (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NickCT, creating a series of throwaway accounts in order to keep battering articles in the exact same way, is indeed a way to avoid scrutiny and a violation of SOCK. Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: - If you're avoiding sanctions sure. That's covered in WP:ILLEGIT. But you don't know whether someone is creating new accounts because they're doing something nefarious or because they simply can't remember their old username. If we're assuming good faith, we'd assume the latter. NickCT (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter why. Part of how WP works is that we ask people to very clearly work here under one identity. If people forget their password they should disclose that they edited as X before - there is no CLEANSTART if you go right back to the same topic. And in this case the disdain for WP is already clear in the tendentious editing by each of the throwaway accounts. I am not going to reply further on this. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jytdog. There comes a point when "Duh... I can't remember my username" over and over and over and over (so that the community immune system has to develop a new set of antibodies each time you come back to push your old agenda) becomes disruptive, even if we assume they don't mean it to be. E Eng 15:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

re "It doesn't matter why" - Really? Odd given the first line of WP:ILLEGIT is "Editors must not use alternative accounts to.....". It's not enough that people are simply creating multiple accounts. They must be doing so with some ill intent. And "work here under one identity" seems to scorn the poor IP's....

@EEng: - Agree it can be disruptive. Just don't think it's really "sock puppeting" until you've created multiple account with the express intent of doing on of the activities called out in WP:ILLEGIT. NickCT (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried about the nomenclature at this point. If it keeps up and we need to do something, then we can pick the right name. E Eng 22:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Just trying to explain my rationale for answering the original question (i.e. "Is it time for a WP:SPI?"). I don't think this is really SPI material.... NickCT (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be content to let MakinaterJones have the last word. Otherwise there won't be one... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted from Clarivate Analytics

Someone should likely update the entry with this information: http://retractionwatch.com/2018/01/19/indexing-company-praises-cancer-journal-kicks/ Derek Pyne2 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations Withdrawn?

As a novice Wikipedia editor, I usually just fill in missing data/references or make really obvious edits. One edit I made yesterday on this page was in regards to the allegations reported by The Scientist in October about the editor of this journal. When I read the entry "Allegedly, journal editor Mikhail Blagosklonny responded by threatening to retract the papers of Beall's colleagues at the University of Colorado", I was pretty shocked. I knew some things may be fishy about the editor because of the Retraction Watch mailing list I'm on, but this seemed beyond the pale. However, when I read the two references for the sentence, neither one substantiated the claims. There is clear context given in the Retraction Watch article which in no way supports the allegation in question, and the Scientist article had a correction on November 15th making it very clear that Beall "alerted Oncotarget to possible problems in his colleagues’ papers, and that Blagosklonny had considered retracting them".

I couldn't locate anything about the allegations originally reported by The Scientist in October, so I thought I'd make the obvious edit. However, the edit was reverted by David Eppstein, with the comment "Mealy mouthed whitewashing" (I had to look up what "Mealy Mouthed" meant).

It seems to me that this is an obvious case of there being no supporting reference for a statement on a Wikipedia. Am I wrong? I've misunderstood Wikipedia rules before, but this seems like a statement that is directly contradicted by the presented supporting references. Love to hear from anyone who knows why this statement is still up on the journals page. Mannan369 (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the retraction watch source again and reconsider what you wrote here. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm glad we can start by agreeing that the TS article does not support the statement as presented. I believe you're referencing the sentence in the Retraction Watch article "In a series of emails, Blagosklonny told the researchers that Beall had tipped him off that their work might be fabricated, and Oncotarget was going to have to retract their papers". That doesn't rise anywhere near to the allegations being described in the statement, which implies that the editor was going after a whistle-blowers colleagues for revenge. Granted there is some room for interpretation. But that's not what the wiki page should be about. I really think we need a source, preferably a quote from the actual person making the allegations, to include the sentence in question. Again, I go back to neither reference makes the claim presented on the wiki page. I tried rewriting it to better reflect the references, but it was reverted.Mannan369 (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody agreed to any such thing. The Scientist source still clearly says that Oncotarget threatened Beall's colleagues with withdrawals after Beall indicated that there was a problem with the journal and its publications. It has now been worded in a weasely way that tries to pretend that the story was a completely different one, that Beall helpfully found problems with only his colleagues' papers and that Oncotarget responded appropriately by investigating only those papers, but what it says is completely consistent with the original story. The new correction also makes clear that the weasely wording came directly from Oncotarget and can no longer be considered a neutrally worded description of what happened. Frankly, the blatant manipulation on show makes me more likely to believe that the original version was accurate, not less. Also, our article does not say anything about "revenge" or other (unknown) motivations of the editor, it merely states what the source said (and still says), that the journal responded to Beall by threatening withdrawal of his colleague's papers. Or, in the exact words of the source, Oncotarget "considered retracting" "his colleagues’ papers," after Beall "alerted Oncotarget to possible problems" (presumably, by listing the journal as predatory). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we have to respect the fact that the article was corrected? The journalists at The Scientist would not have corrected their initial report if they had corroborating evidence or sources. Just because we feel a certain way about the editor in question, doesn't mean we can make the above statement about him without a source. An editor threatening retractions from a critics institution is different from an editor being alerted to possible malfeasance at an institution. That's not made clear with the statement as is.Mannan369 (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think it's possible that the journalists merely got fed up with the never-ending whining from the Oncotarget employees and changed the wording without changing the meaning in order to make them go away? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really up to you to decide? The article in the Scientists states "The third paragraph clarifies that it was Beall who had alerted Oncotarget to possible problems in his colleagues’ papers, and that Blagosklonny had considered retracting them. The Scientist regrets the errors." The original source material disputes their own claims. That Beall's colleagues might have been threatened is completely up to speculation. It is fine if you have a different opinion, but let's keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia, not a place where we verbalize our suspicions. I strongly believe the sentence should be correct. Kenji1987 (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, like everything else on Wikipedia, it is up to consensus. And there was a very clear consensus of editors in this discussion that the position you are putting forward is a worse summary of the situation describe in the sources than what is written in the article presently. --JBL (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a terribly objective or information-based argument, David. Based on the correction, the journalists at The Scientist misquoted their source (Retraction watch), and were asked to correct it by Oncotarget lawyers. Unfortunately, the now corrected The Scientist article was the one used to write the statement that appears in this wiki page. I'd prefer to hear an argument on why it should remain on the page that relies on sources rather than anyone's personal feelings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannan369 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content is supported by the source, as it stands. No one else is reading this in the same was as you Mannan369. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Might help:

The Scientist "Mikhail Blagosklonny, considered retracting the research papers of Beall’s colleagues after the journal had been added to Beall’s list and Beall alerted the journal to potential problems with the publications".

Retraction Watch "In a series of emails, Blagosklonny told the researchers that Beall had tipped him off that their work might be fabricated, and Oncotarget was going to have to retract their papers."

Wikipedia "Allegedly, journal editor Mikhail Blagosklonny responded [to being named on Beall's list] by threatening to retract the papers of Beall's colleagues at the University of Colorado."

Do you see the context present in the two references not present in the Wikipedia page? Or implication of retribution against Beall in the Wikipedia page that is not in the references? Mannan369 (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I would like to see stronger evidence than Blagosklonny's word for it, or lawyer-prompted rewordings, that any information Beall provided was intended as an "alert to potential problems" with specific papers. It seems far more likely to me that Beall was asked for evidence for his predatory listing, provided a listing of incidents as evidence, and that Oncotarget reinterpreted that response in the most favorable way to them. Nothing said so far has contradicted that view of the story. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. I don't give a dime for Blagoskonny's assertions or lawyer-enforced re-wordings. Beall's a librarian and I've never seen him stray from his field (journal publishing, OA in particular). That he would contact a journal, least of all one that he regarded as a predatory one, with "concerns" about papers in a field where he has no competence whatsoever strikes me as unlikely in the extreme. --Randykitty (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beall used to mention particular articles on his blog routinely. That is, he did in fact make a practice of criticizing journals by criticizing individual articles that they had published in their field. However, that is neither here nor there for this discussion, and the non-Mannan369 version is clearly a better summary of the sources. --JBL (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Reception" subsection?

Hi all,

I noticed (and at one point, participated) in some back-and-forth undoing of the inclusion of the following text under "Reception":

"As of 2016, according to SCImago Journal Rank, Oncotarget has ranked among the top quartile of oncology journals for every year since it was first ranked in 2011.[10]"

This statement has been in this Wikipedia article for months, and as far as I can tell, it is not controversial nor is it poorly sourced. It is published and available online for the public, it is a third party not connected to this Journal, and it's not even opinion-based. It simply states a fact that the Journal was ranked among the top quartile of oncology journals for every year since it was first ranked.

Here's what I gather based on who was making edits & un-doing them: User Randykitty was the first to remove the statement, saying that they were "cleaning up" the article. User Dmzn8844 undid Randykitty's removal of the statement, stating that it was "relevant factual information." User Jytdog claims that it is "not noteworthy" and that is it "promotional". User David Eppstein un-did Pengortm's edit that removed the statement. User Pengortm removed the statement, presumably because they did not realize where the source was providing the basis for this information?

I don't understand how removing a neutral, fact-based statement could possibly benefit Wikipedia. I personally could see why this kind of data is important and I think it is an important component of a Journal's "reception". I'm creating this section to discuss the merits of keeping this statement, because it appears that many of the users who edit this page have personal agendas. If you are one of the users who fought to either KEEP or REMOVE the statement, please help us come to a constructive conclusion by participating in this Talk section. I think it would be helpful to give reasons why you thought it should REMAIN or be REMOVED.

I'm still new to Wikipedia, so please pardon me if I misspeak. I would also appreciate any advice or coaching you all may have to help make Wikipedia a better place. I know that many of you have made tremendous contributions to Wikipedia for many years now, and I'd like to learn from you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidMinerck (talk • contribs)

I don't want to make any assumptions about the actual motives of any of the editors here, but these edits could be misinterpreted as motivated by a desire to avoid saying anything good about this journal because we have judged it as misbehaving. On the other hand, they could also be interpreted as removing promotion. I don't think the ranking is promotion, and I don't think either of these motives is a good reason to remove the ScimagoJR rankings. As DM says, they are an evaluation of the impact of the journal from a neutral party; isn't that the sort of information we want to include? I have included these rankings before in other journals (that were not marred by predatory behavior) and it was (I thought) uncontroversial there; why should this article be any different? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David that this info is not necessarily promotional (but it could be, see below). That is not the reason why I removed the reference to ScImago (from this and quite a few other journal articles). My reasoning is the following. There are nowadays quite a large number of journal metrics available, all of them updated at least once a year. Besides the (2-year) impact factor (that everybody loathes but almost everybody still uses to decide where to submit their next paper or how to evaluate a colleague), we have the 5-year IF, a similar measure based on 3 years that Scopus calls "Citescore" and ScImago "citations per doc", h-index (different sources use different numbers of years to calculate this index), raw numbers of citations, the SJR, 5-year impact factor, impact factor corrected for self-cites, immediacy index, cited half life, citing half life, Eigenfactor score, Article Influence Index, etc etc. And most of these metrics are available from different sources (Journal Citation Reports, Scopus -where ScImago gets its data, GScholar, ResearchGate), all reporting different numbers even for the same metrics because they don't use the same databases for their calculations. Of course an argument can be made that ALL those metrics should be included in an article, because it's sourceable. If we do that for all the thousands of journal articles that we have, this would have two effects. First, almost all articles would become an unreadable mess of statistics that are meaningless for most readers (and for the moment we only list the current-year IF, but we could of course start including all metrics for every year that they've ever been published, compounding the problem). Second, updating the impact factor once a year is already a task that we don't do very well (see Category:Articles with outdated impact factors). Imagine the time needed to update the statistics in just one of these articles if we would include all metrics from every different provider....

Of course, an argument could be made to include only some of these metrics. However, unless we reach a clear agreement on which ones to include and which ones not, this would open the door to cherry picking those metrics that would make some editor happy (low metrics for somebody who wants to disparage a journal, high metrics for somebody wanting to promote it). In addition, almost none of these metrics, with the clear exception of the IF, is actually paid much attention to by anybody. Ever seen a publisher advertise their journals' Eigenfactor score or Article Influence Index? Ever heard an author say that they submitted to a particular journal because of its high h-index or SJR (or even ScImago's quartiles)? Like it of not, at this point the only index that people pay any attention to is the impact factor. Until that changes (and it is not up to us to effectuate that change), I think that we have to continue listing the IF in our journal articles (and only the current one). And for all the above reasons, I think we have to leave out all the other metrics. Note that all this has nothing to do with this particular journal and I would appreciate if other editors could refrain from ascribing some sinister motives to my edits. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I like about the ScimagoJR rankings specifically (and really dislike about impact factor) is that they provide a qualitative comparison of journals within a single field. "Top-quartile oncology journal" is something that is meaningful to me. "Impact factor 2.7818" is not. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an aspect that I didn't mention above: for ALL these different metrics (including the IF) rankings of journals in different categories are available. We have this for the IF in several journal articles (I often remove this), stating something like "ranked xxx out of yyy journals in category "zzz". (For Oncotarget, the 2016 ranking of its IF of 5.168 is 44th out of 217 journals according to the JCR. For the Eigenfactor it's 9th out of 217. For total cites it's 14th. For the 5-year IF it's 40th. According to Scopus its CiteScore of 4.73 ranks it 34th out of 318 journals, the 89th percentile. Etc, etc, etc...). Should that all be added to these articles, too? --Randykitty (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would much prefer that to a context-free number. If one of these rankings is included I don't see a need to add multiple ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, somebody who doesn't like Oncotarget will choose the IF ranking (which is least favorable), whereas somebody who likes it would choose the Eigenfactor. And whereas it's the work of a minute to look up a metric (whether it's the IF or the Eigenvalue or whatever), it usually takes more time to extract rankings. And, in the end, our readers don't care whether a journal is 44th or 23rd in its category. They want that bloody IF... --Randykitty (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Eppstein. You'll also see in the revision history that I am one of the users who undid the original edit... I don't think we need to add multiple rankings on top of what was already included (more than what was already included would be too much), but I think there is merit to include certain rankings, especially ones that are good benchmarks. The ranking that we're discussing, as Eppstein pointed out, provides a good comparison of journals within the same field... It is objective, it is not promotional, it is simply relevant information that helps people understand where the Journal ranks in comparison to other journals. In my opinion, the ScImago ranking that was originally in this article was a good benchmark for a ranking and it was relevant, that's why I fought to include it and that's why I was so confused why it was removed to "clean up/streamline" the entry. --Dmzn8844 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and the choice of which metric to include is completely subjective, because what you find a "good benchmark" may not be the same metric as what somebody else finds a good benchmark. Fact is that the IF is used by the vast majority of scientists and all the other "benchmarks" are not. --Randykitty (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]