Jump to content

Talk:Pubget

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Speedy AfD??

[edit]

This is a vanity article for a "search" company, that isn't even a search company (all of it's data comes from PubMed, for free). It attempts to resell scientific papers at a markup to what can be found on the Publisher's site. An example of the vanity nature of this article is that it was originally written by one of its founders, all the founder's names are wikilinked (I guess in the hope they become notable someday), and the prominent display of its website's URL. I would nominate this article for a speedy deletion if I knew how. I am also re-adding the COI tag. 63.99.16.91 (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

anon user contains misleading or incorrect facts in criticism - Librarians can disable the buy PDF links and replace them with links to ILL and other document delivery services. Also contains non PubMed content. It is illegal to sell papers for less than publisher's price. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.55.82 (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. Using my full first and second name I can identify eight of my papers on PubMed, four of which I can access full-text as they are freely available on the internet, all of which I could access if I were affiliated to a big academic library. According to PubGet only one is available in ftp format. The rest? PubGet suggests ways of buying (ie: pay money for!) the remaining seven! What's the point of PubGet?Sleuth21 (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sleuth21. If you visit the Pubget support site, and let us know the library and papers we can look into it for you (and even work with your library to fix any problems). Pubget also does not provide papers via ftp but only via http so this confuses me (thanks from support@pubget.com). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.137.18 (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 207.180.137.18. As I mentioned above, there are eight of my paper on PubMed, all I which I could get full-text for free or via my library. Why should I use PubGet? What can PubGet do in addition? With respect, but PubGet seems to exploit the fact that some PubMed users don't know that they can register with NCBI and their local (academic)library to get full-text in all its forms. When I mention 'ftp' in my earlier note (07.05.11) I meant 'pdf', I am sorry. Sleuth21 (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sleuth21. Is the problem that we missed a PDF because it is free or available through your library? These are not the same thing. Your library pays a lot of money to make journals available to you and spends time and effort determining which journals to include in their holdings (and each library has its own list of journals). It sounds like we may be missing some of these holdings rules for your library and can certainly work with your library to correct these errors. If you paid as an author to ensure the papers were published as open access (kudos if you did), we check the list maintained at PubMed Central regularly and would be keen if you have found some we missed, as this would be a bug we would want to know about and fix. In addition, the buy links are optional for a given library and can be turned off if a library wishes - we do not want to sell PDFs that are covered under subscriptions and would prefer to work with the library to correct these problems. If you want a PDF right away, this is is our goal (http://pubget.com/paper/1001 compared to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1001). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.137.18 (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
207.180.137.18: I still don't see the point in using PubGet. You are re-marketing resources available as standard and for free to researchers using PubMed and other databases you monitor. Cross-database searching is offered as standard by most academic institutions and their libraries. The example paper you mention (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1001) is available to me full-text for free (it's a PMC article), also in its pdf version. / Your Wikipedia article now offers other services, such as text-mining, presumable at a premium / mark-up, when they have been available for free elsewhere for some time (see e.g. overview in Lu (2011) PMID: 21245076 relating to PubMed free 3rd party add-ons). / Your search syntax is complex and non-intuitive (http://pubget.com/help/use), your advice searching e.g. for authors misleading and bound to generate false-negative results. Sleuth21 (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pubget has several advantages, including a broader subject base with more papers (we cover ArXiv, IEEE, and JStor in addition to Medline) that you can search all in one place, not to mention letting you view PDFs fast. The ability to search for free comes via explicit agreements with the content's providers; these include the sources mentioned above as well as others. Many people, including librarians as well as scientists and researchers, find this free service helpful and a welcome alternative to searching multiple sources and having to click through multiple links, through PubMed or other engines (see for example "The Quest for Full Text: An In-Depth Examination of Pubget for Medical Searcher" in the peer reviewed journal "Medical Reference Services Quarterly" http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02763869.2010.518911). If there are papers you think Pubget should have but doesn't, or have other questions or comments, there's a feedback form here (http://support.pubget.com) that we try to be responsive to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.137.18 (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pubget has its limitations - some of its claims are misleading

[edit]
I agree with Ossip Groth who added a couple of lines on Friday 27th on the WP article page and suggested that PubGet indicates occasionally a pay-option when the article in fact is available for free. This is a serious draw-back of PubGet. There are others. I can't see why PubGet is considered a serious access option in any academic institution. Or am I missing something? Sleuth21 (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the edit from Ossip Groth, incorrectly placed into the article itself. It's valid criticism, not OR or POV!
'− As I have proven on Friday, Januar 27th, at least one Item which is obviously a free one is linked to a purchase option. So, feel free to pay 47 USD to obtain a perfectly free paper by using this resource. Screenshots will follow soon.
− The PubMed ID is 18725372 and its citation is Q J Med 2008;101(11):845. It is free via PubMed.
− Screenshots on private file; cannot be shown because of copyright restrictions on wikipedia commons.
Pubget should respond to / comment on these limitations. They are not trivial. Are there really academic libraries who fell for this Pubget PR exercise? Am I missing something? Reinhard Wentz Sleuth21 (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As I have proven on Friday": that's about the definition of original research. And if there is no reliable source, then it is just a particular point of view. I have not looked into this in detail, but one thing I can imagine is that PubGet links to the PDF as prepared by the publisher, whereas PubMed often links to manuscript files on PubMedCentral. I, for one, vastly prefer the finished product, but that is, of course a personal preference (i.e., POV). In any case, as long as there are no reliable sources for this assertion, it doesn't even belong on the talk page, which is not for discussing the merits or lack thereof of the subject of this article, but for discussions on how to improve the article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these comments, Guillaume. The suggestion that Pubget may have limitations which are not yet mentioned in the article, can, in my view, be noted here on the talk page. Pointing out a serious, potentially false claim can't possibly be dis-allowed as 'POV'. It should be noted here in the talk section, as it is now, but of course not in the article proper. Giving an example (quoting a PMID number)can't be OR, as I have succesfully argued (with another editor) when updating the stats on PubMed and when mentioning how it can be done by giving the search formulation. Reinhard Wentz Sleuth21 (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but that's the very definition of OR. That you apparently got away with it at another article, does not change anything about that. The line with instructions on how to see the size of the database for yourself in that article is, without any doubt, OR and unencyclopedic. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have the screenshots on file and I had it put into the wikimedia deposit if they were not shots of copyrighted work. My criticism of that finding was correct. I found this one little bug while checking a linkout to pubget on own valid data, and checked availability of item free via pubmed. TODAY, they get a free retrieval, as I could prove personally (77. ... ip). Think they have corrected data. In consequence, I have rejected the concept of linking out via this resource, I have regressed to use pubmed and where links are lacking, own file on the long. I really had the hope PubGet were a ressource which had more knowledge i.e. on primary Open Access status. He He: I did a little benchmark quite now: Immunity is hybrid open, and PubMed doesnt know, so i checked a random item, i used 18199413 and you could not imagine what happened ? BUY PDF. DO THEY REALLY NEED ADVICE ? Shot is done, of course. Data on file. Ossip Groth (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New data: I have checked what QJM wants to have been payed for a fresh review: 32 USD one day access (http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/105/2/115.full.pdf+html). So, i searched by doi and found it on pubget. I wanted to know if it is at 47 USD. I had to laugth extremely, I had the free (and "patched") item of fr 27.01. in my basket and the 2012 one and pubget wants 94 USD for both !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DATA ON SHOT. Call it an implementation error....??? Ossip Groth (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guillaume, your suggestion […] in that article is, without any doubt [my bolding, RW], OR and unencyclopedic […] is just that: a statement of a reasoned opinion but the qualification 'without any doubt' is hyperbole. I am a co-editor, and I do doubt it. My use of a search formulation to update a WP article (here: PubMed) (which was identical to / supported by that of another more experienced editor) stood the test of time. I have updated the relevant stats in the PubMed article more than five times, on a near-monthly basis, w/o any objection. Please note: You should never, on WP or anywhere else in a scientific argument, give a statement you make an authority which is doesn't deserve: the responsibility is yours: there should be no need to remind you. The phrase used is usually something along the lines As far as I can see (I may of course be wrong) this is the correct approach to the problem - n.b., please. It also applies to the interpretation of WP:OR, MEDRS and other WP guidelines. Reinhard Wentz Sleuth21 (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on my description of published work (a web resource is published work, of course, not under the restrictions of a peer review examination and it is citable work) there evolved a discussion which centered on the assumption that the description of the properties of an object including the description the approach of the analyst has more similarity to pre-published scientific work or personal opinion, not speaking of fraud, than to reporting secured known scientific evidence. If I write a paper on the properties of a special car, I will describe the general outline in the appearance to the consumer of that product, give reference to any innovative items and cite data which describe the ideas of that innovation's developing engineers, (which would have been inaugurally published time-locked in the patent literature - common knowledge without citeable scientific roots). I do not think that there are any sceintific sources on the topic of PubGet which describe any of its hidden properties; in this way, the whole article had to be regarded as Original Work. I think that I have recognized not more than that trees have leaves and some have needles in describing the obvious properties of that one resource in discussion. The Article should include the objective statement that "PubGet sells papers which are freely available from other sources and that PubGet sells papers for prices 40 % higher than those billed by the original publishers to private customers". This is the basic property of their economic model, and omitting this obvious evidence from that article is Malinformation of the readers of an obejcetive MAXIMUM TRUSTED RESOURCE: wikipedia. Ossip Groth (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but that is not true. The current article is not all OR, it has several reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If those sources (or another reliable source, if you have one) say that PubGet tries to sell you free papers or overcharges, fine, then you can include it. If this statement is based on your own observations, then you cannot include it. WP is not a rating site for consumers but an encyclopedia and statements have to be sourced better than "I saw this myself". I realize that there are many links in the "welcome template" that I placed on your talk page, but I would strongly recommend that you try to read at least some of them to get a better grasp of what WP is about. You should start with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, I suggest. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, which sort of evidence should we generate; should I write a letter to the NEJM to get mankind known of the habit of someone to sell free stuff for 47 US Dollars; I do not think it is worth publication for scientific reasons, only. Should we got to court to obtain a legal document. If wikipedia's policy is to replicate selective truth then it should mark its articles on any commercial topic as advertisements. In the users licence agreement - http://pubget.com/help/ppv-terms - appears the formulation "Pubget prices are wholly based upon the cost passed to Pubget from the publishers, plus a small service fee. " So, we have a source for the general statement that the prices are higher than the original prices of the publishers. That the small service fee is 47-32=15 or 47-0=47 USD is not told explicitly, well 15 USD is not really big money. We can , indeed, give reference to this document and state, that the document delivery fees are explicitly higher than the fees of the original copyright holders. It is basic primary published evidence. Indeed, PubGet does more than simply resell papers, so publishers could sell their work at higher prices to PubGet than to the end user and the fee of PubGet is really a small one added on putative higher revenues to the publishers. But this indeed is speculative and in no way one could substantiate such an assumption (they could get bulk discount as well).From the end users point it is clear that prices are publishers prices plus an unknown but significant amount of money.
Ossip Groth (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ossip, I took the liberty of indenting your signature to be in line with your text. Looks nicer that way, don't you think? I also offer you my heartfelt congratulation on your delicious addition to the article proper and your justification here on the comment pages. They are, as I said, delicious (your additions!). Please imagine a lip-smacking sound and my kissing my fingertips! Can I send you a barnstar? Reinhard Wentz Sleuth21 (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (unindent) I'm very sorry, but I disagree. We are not here to write The Truth. Subscription rates are never given in any article on any product (whether it is a database, book, magazine, journal, newspaper, car, etc.), neither directly (as an amount) or indirectly (as done here). Neither is WP a soapbox to tell the world about a company's practices or malpractices. If there is relevant criticism that can be soruced to reliable sources, then by all means, add them to a "criticism" section in the article. But do not add your own opinion. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pubget. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pubget&oldid=1204562853"