Talk:Rankings of academic publishers
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Dear all
[edit]dear all - ok i am a newcomer to wikipedia but as i was about to correct my work today i found that you - the editors march 27, 2017 - simply removed all traces of it to the dustbin, including my correct reference to the sense consortium under its standardized new wikipedia name.
i think - saying with without chagrin - that you treated my work simply unfairly, since the new hong kong ranking, published by one of china's important universities is just as a milestone in the ranking of publishers development as the shanghai ranking is for university ranking.
if you had taken the care to read their ranking analysis you would have discovered that it is based on that of the australian political science association and on similar other trustworthy previous work. simply to remove my references to the hong kong ranking is unjust. can you send me a copy at least to my talk page, so that i can start to work again on the article?
you inserted references like "self publication" etc. while in fact the hong-kong based university published it on their earlier website. it is simply important also to consider what universities actually do, and how they consider publishers. no ranking is perfect.
if you invest just a little of time you will also discover that my proposals find a reflection in the literature to be found in google scholar on ranking of academic publishers. but please accept my kind regardsBibliometer 1492 (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- You put the same comment on my user space, but I'll answer it here. Firstly, I didn't "simply remove all traces" of your edits. I carefully tagged various problematic statements introduced by your edits and the edits of John de Norrona (which I will have to re-tag as they are all still there). The problems were rampant peacockery (somebody used the term "exceptional excellence" at one point if I remember correctly), the complete lack of a lead section in the version you prepared (the article just launched straight into discussion of some ranking or other), and many self-published sources. Secondly, user Sphilbrick seems to have removed the edits from the history of the page as a result of a copyright violation which is why the intervening edits aren't visible. Take it up with Sphilbrick. Famousdog (c) 10:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)