Talk:MDPI/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This seems to be a copy of MDPI's home page

Either someone was lazy and just copied & pasted it here -- or the guys who did it did not even bother to rewrite the first person view. 92.224.200.2 (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that - I reverted the edit that introduced the copied text. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. What about MDPI's role as an Open Access publisher? It would be nice if someone who knows them better (I heard of them the first time today) could extend the article. 92.224.200.2 (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that's what Wikipedia is all about! You could always be bold and start editing the article yourself. There's some tips here if you're interested. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The sentence "A member of the editorial board of Life resigned in response, claiming he had never read it before it was published.[10]" is not relevant in the presented context. A paper is never offered to all the editorial board members to be read before being published. The sentence therefore is non-sense. "A member of the editorial board of Life resigned over the publication of this paper. [10]" would make more sense here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.137.93 (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Controversies section

The category "Controversies" was recently added to bring the publisher in disrepute. There is no element to balance the biased assumptions that the two referenced papers are "pseudo-science". The article links to non-peer-refereed sources that dismiss the two papers as pseudo-science. However, we must note here that these publications are scientific ones that passed the standard and common peer-review and external editorial control. None of these two papers was retracted and there is no formal comment from the scientific community published about this paper. There is a position statement at http://www.mdpi.com/about/controversial-articles/. The user that added this content only registered a Wikipedia account to add these questionable (if not libelous) statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.140.24.118 (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Firstly, a IP address accusing a Wikipedia ID of "recently registered" is quite comical, isn't it? Secondly, to address your concern, all your source was from MDPI itself while mine are from third party, reputable magazines and newspapers, I guess the Wikipedia community would not have a hard time figuring which is more "neutral". Oh, and please sign your comment. --Antifrauda (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I added the default signature for him. DMacks (talk) 07:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The section has now been revised further. It should be noted that the controversies created by these two papers are not controversies within the scientific community, rather mostly outside (by interest groups, popular science magazines, etc.). These are not scientific issues. The journals in question (Entropy, Life) did not receive any letters to the editors or other correspondence from scientists. We can not let science to be corrupted by personal or corporate agendas. MDPI is leaving room for publishing such hypothetical, "controversial" papers. If the general public can only misuse those papers, that is not the problem of the scientific community. You may also read a recent opinion papers on inconclusive or hypothetical findings (another publisher simply retracted a paper for no obvious reasons): http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1408106/. It is funny to see a general, non-expert public fight a war on the MDPI entry in Wikipedia. Think a little bit before you edit. Especially, if you are not a scientist and not involved in scientific research and if you have no clue about the peer-review and editorial process and how things work in the scientific communication process. A "paper" is not a proof of truth in itself and can not be simply taken as granted. Methodologies are fallible. Scientists are fallible. And of course, sometimes there is corruption or fraud. The difference is that scientists know this, and the general public does not know this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.140.24.118 (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

They are controversies within the scientific community as well. It shows problem with the "pay-to-publish" model of some open-access journals. The issue was not about science, but the horrible quality control of these supposedly "peer-reviewed" journals. I suggest you read the following articles by scientists: Retraction Watch Spam: 'We invite you to submit an article to our Open Access journal'--Antifrauda (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

MDPI journals' impact factor have been steadily climbing over the past five years. The claim that an OA publisher simply accepts more papers, incl. many junk papers, has been refuted numerous times, and does not go along with the picture of a climbing citation and scientific impact. It seems that your are not well informed and therefore disqualify as an editor for this page. There is nothing to hide about Retractions. MDPI publishes itself a list of all papers that it retracts: http://www.mdpi.com/search?article_type=retraction It is even more complete that the link provided above, and amongst academic publishers this is quite unique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.140.24.118 (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, "steadily climbing" does not mean it is high or even acceptable. One can climb from 0 to 0.000001 in ten years, that is also "steadily climbing". You claim that it "has been refuted numerous times", but where are your sources? --Antifrauda (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The claims are properly sourced with credible, independent citations. However, I seriously question why we have a single page for both organizations and not a disambiguation page. CorporateM (Talk) 18:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

undue?

pls see Talk:Predatory open access publishing#fringe theory? Fgnievinski (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobelists?

If this is true, it's notable: Nobel Prize Laureates on the Editorial Boards of MDPI Journals. How could it be fact-checked? Fgnievinski (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Contact

MDPI has always provided contact information for all offices on their website at http://www.mdpi.com/about/contact including contact information of staff in Basel and at their management team website at http://www.mdpi.com/about/team. Previously, an editor has removed the “peer-reviewed” statement. However, I see that they have published acknowledgements to their reviewers since 2013: http://www.mdpi.com/search?q=ACKNOWLEDGEMENT&article_type=editorial&year_from=2013&year_to=2015&page_count=100&sort=relevance&subjects=&journals=&article_types=&countries= MDPI has made clear that all their journals are peer-reviewed, and they are a member of OASPA, STM and adhere to the COPE guidelines as per their website: http://www.mdpi.com/about. The publisher has also published acknowledgements to reviewers since 2013, see: http://www.mdpi.com/search?q=REVIEWERS&year_from=1996&year_to=2015&page_count=100&sort=relevance&view=default — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertie birman (talk • contribs) 04:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Beall

In Jeffrey Beall’s post about MDPI, he describes the company as “questionable” and nowhere in the post to be found are the words “predatory” or “dubious”, which is why it is more accurate to apply the wording as per the original source. Adding the comments from OASPA and MDPI’s response provides important information on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertie birman (talk • contribs) 05:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The whole subject of the list is "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers"--by definition the nature of inclusion is that it is at least suspected of being predatory. Therefore the "questionable" nature is merely the extent or certainty to which it meets the inclusion criteria for that quality. DMacks (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobelists, again

Everymorning added a section [1] in Beall's article, about the accusation of Nobelists not being aware that they were members of the board in MDPI's journals, and the fact that the original news piece has since been corrected. Joel B. Lewis reverted the addition, saying that "the MDPI stuff seems very tangential in an article about Beall"; rightly so. Which brings us here. I've taken Everymorning's original edit and added more direct quotations to minimize interpretations and added a few more sources; please see the draft below. Let me know if you have any contentions, otherwise it'll go as a subsection of MDPI#Inclusion in Beall's list. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobelists

Among the reasons Beall gave for adding MDPI to his list of questionable publishers was that the company "...claims that several Nobel Laureates serve on its editorial boards, but one investigation found that they didn’t realize they were listed." As evidence for this particular accusation, Beall pointed to a news story run by eCampus News. The original reporter later issued a correction and the newspiece was modified and appended with the following notice:

An earlier version of this article stated that Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Mario Capecchi was not aware he was listed as a member of the editorial board for the MDPI journal Biomolecules. At the time, Capecchi’s assistant, Lorene Stitzer, told eCampus News that “he was not aware of the fact that he had been included on the listing.” After being contacted by MDPI, Stitzer now says Capecchi is in fact aware of being an honorary board member. eCampus News regrets the error.

With regard to Beall's accusation about Nobel laureate Mario Capecchi not being aware that he was on the editorial board of the journal Biomolecules, MDPI posted a response stating that "the Editor-in-Chief of Biomolecules obtained a written confirmation from Professor Cappechi that he was indeed aware of his membership"; copies of such correspondence have been posted as well. MDPI's co-founder Dietrich Rordorf has compiled and posted emails claiming to document the acceptance by the following Nobelists as members of the board: Robert F. Curl, Richard R. Ernst, Jerome Karle, Harold Kroto, Yuan-Tseh Lee, Rudolph A. Marcus, Eric S. Maskin, Steven Weinberg, and Kurt Wüthrich.

The uncorrected story has been picked up other media outlets, such as Veja, the leading weekly news magazine in Brazil.

MDPI "meets the sheep criteria" – says the wolves' Sheep Association

"The Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association(OASPA) concluded an investigation in April 2014 stating that MDPI meets the OASPA Membership Criteria"

Why is this relevant in the introduction? Are anyone even contesting that they meet the membership criteria of that particular association? (And does anyone really care?) Otherwise it is a classic strawman argument.

The Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association consists, at least in part, of questionable publishers themselves, who are not at all involved in open access publishing in the proper sense of the term, but rather in MDPI-style abuse for commercial purposes of the term and publishing practices reminiscent of classic vanity presses (a publisher that demands that its authors pay to publish is a vanity press by definition and it's the very opposite of the core idea of open access). The fact that a predatory/questionable publisher "meets the membership criteria" of the predatory/questionable publishers' own organisation is as relevant as when the wolves in sheep's clothing's Sheep Association determines that a wolf "meets the sheep criteria."

I am quite sure that the "membership criteria" are fairly technical and not that difficult to meet for a cunning predatory publisher like MDPI, and the prominence given to the insistence that MDPI meets those criteria, in itself a trivial point that few if any dispute, is rather strange. Bjerrebæk (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Things are a bit more complicated than that, I think. If you look at the membership list of OASPA that WP is hosting for them in our article, you'll see that all large and respected OA publishers (BMC, PLOS, Hindawi, etc), as well as large well-established subscription publishers starting to move into OA (Springer, Elsevier, BMJ, etc) are part of this organization. Of course, there's also MDPI, which is on Beall's list of predatory publishers (and Copernicus, which is on Beall's list of fake ranking services), but OASPA did take action against publishers of journals that fell for the Science sting. So they may not be ideal, but they do have some criteria and do try to maintain them. The reason this is mentioned in the lead is because we also have in the lead the statement that MDPI is on Beall's list.

Now you have added a large quote from a German linguist to the article. I don't think that is justified, for several reasons. 1/ This is an opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed article. 2/ While Haspelmath is a respected linguist, he is not, to the best of my knowledge, an expert on academic publishing (like Beall is, for example). (Ironically, he published his plea for non-profit publishing in a Frontiers journal. This is the outfit that used the freely donated time and effort -and author fees- of literally thousands of scientists to set up a stable of journals, railing against the "traditional publishers". Then, no sooner did they have success and were becoming profitable, they sold out to NPG...). 3/ I think Haspelmath's quote is WP:UNDUE, because he is not specifically talking about MDPI, but just mentions them in-passing as an example. In short, I think that MDPI is a borderline case of a predatory publisher. I think they clearly fall on the wrong side of the borderline, but they certainly aren't as bad as SCIRP or OMICS. Our article reflects that, with extensive coverage of the inclusion of MDPI on Beall's list and coverage of controversial articles published by them (as an aside, I think that the quote from Beall in that section should also go). --Randykitty (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

MDPI interviewed

It has attracted some attention on twitter and blogsphere: [2]. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Edits regarding recent Beall post

Hello, regarding MDPI page, I am trying to include an important updated information on the issue of their questionable actions that was recently released in a reliable source (Beall's blog), but Joel B. Lewis keep removing it. Isn't this info relevant to the topic? Should it be included in different words? Please advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.22.217.71 (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not writing a note earlier. The lead of an article should summarize its contents. Consequently, not every single post Beall has written about MDPI belongs in the lead section, and certainly not if it is about something that does not appear in the body. I suggest that you add your paragraph at an appropriate place somewhere in the body of the article. (Though to be honest, "someone wrote me an e-mail and here it is" is not a very compelling critical analysis -- Beall's work on this topic runs the gamut from excellent to ridiculous, and this particular post seems to me not at the best end.) --JBL (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will include the info, which seems very relevant (as it exposes how these kind of publishers work) in the Section: Inclusion in Beall's list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.22.217.71 (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• As I told you on my talk page, your text is very tendentious and not neutrally worded and encyclopedic. Before it becomes acceptable anywhere in the article, you will have to re-write it. --Randykitty (talk) 08:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Beall's list

While there is no question that the controversy around the inclusion of MDPI on Beall's list needs to be covered here, I am less sure that we need to add that controversy to all articles on every journal that they publish (as was recently done with Entropy (journal). Any opinions? --Randykitty (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Entropy (journal) is notable? None of the references constitute third-party coverage of the journal. To actually answer your question, though: no, it seems not to the point unless the journal is specifically mentioned in that context in some source. (We certainly don't put links to the Elsevier journal-buying scandal in the article Journal of Combinatorial Theory.) --JBL (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the controversy is to be mentioned on every journal (assuming, echoing Joe B. Lewis) that the journal is notable. However should the negative report which tends to affect many open-source journals be mentioned, we ought to reflect denial if any, for balance. Further, it seems to me that over time, with the stellar success of Plos-One open source is becoming very accepted in my discipline, applied mathematics. Finally, many good journals have had very humble origins, and we should perhaps use impact factor as an measure/ guide for both notability and respectability. Limit-theorem (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I edit in the GMO field and Entropy published an absolutely ridiculous article about health effects of glyphosate that was rejected at WT:MEDRS - discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/Archive_7#Review_of_Monsanto.27s_Roundup_herbicide and if you to see how bad it is, the article is here. She also published a paper in Entropy claiming that acetaminophen is causing autism - see discussion at Science Based Medicine here, which also discusses a followup paper she published elsewhere on the Horrors of Glyphosate. Yes, the predatory thing belongs at Entropy. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Two remarks: @Joel B. Lewis:: yes, Entropy is notable. It is indexed in selective databases as required by WP:NJournals. @Jytdog:, thing is, the reference is about MDPI but does not even mention Entropy. Are there any good references about those two (indeed rather silly) articles you mention? If so, it might be better to discuss the cases of those articles in the Entropy article, rather than the listing of MDPI by Beall. (What did those articles in that journal anyway? Although it has an extremely broad scope, this seems to be beyond "entropy" or "information science"...) --Randykitty (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how problematic other MDPI journals are, so cannot comment on the breadth of the issue. I had added content to the Entropy article its scope that included discussion of "special issues" that provided context for the special issue where Seneff had seven articles... but it was later deleted in this dif and this one, the latter by you. I don't edit content about journals much so didn't fuss over it and that dif was not my best editing anyway. Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem with those edits was the sourcing. It's not sufficient to find a reference that someone is a linguist and then say something about his opinion about vaccinations, insinuating that he's talking about things he has no clue about. While I actually completely agree with that, we cannot write it, unless we have a more reliable source than our opinions... --Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus?

About "While there is no question that the controversy around the inclusion of MDPI on Beall's list needs to be covered here, I am less sure that we need to add that controversy to all articles on every journal that they publish"? This issue is creeping up in a few journals (Algorithms and Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health.); I think we should be consistent across Category:MDPI academic journals. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that we absolutely should briefly mention the controversy on every article published by a publisher on Beall's list. To do otherwise risks giving Wikipedia's imprimatur to questionable journals and leading astray younger researchers who don't know better and look to Wikipedia for answers. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm OK with that, provided it's not one-sided; in Entropy it converged to the following statement: Fgnievinski (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

MDPI is considered a predatory open access publishing company publishing journals of dubious quality by Jeffrey Beall and is not considered a predatory publisher by the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association.

Some such balanced statement seems like the right solution to me, although I'm a little dubious about the specific wording. The OASPA source you link does not actually say that MDPI is not predatory; what they say is that it satisfies the OASPA Membership Criteria. It definitely supports the integrity of MDPI but with a slightly different actual meaning. (Also, I would use "but" instead of "and" to more clearly set off the disagreement between Beall and OASPA. How about this version? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

"Integrity" was too strong a word, so I tried to use OASPA's own words as much as possible; also trimmed repeating "OA" in the pro and con statements, and included a link to MDPI#Inclusion in Beall's list. Assuming that's OK, it should be copied over to the other journals. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Other than the bare-url reference (fixed now) it looks ok to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll wait for further comments for a week or so before starting deploying it in all journal articles. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

this is not OK me: "which has been accused of being a predatory publisher by Jeffrey Beall[1] but whose status as a genuine publisher has been investigated and vouched for by the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association." Neutral, like "MDPI is considered a predatory open access publishing company by Jeffrey Beall[1]; the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association subsequently found that it met their membership criteria.[2]" Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to fuss over the word "but", although I'll insist on a wikilink to MDPI#Inclusion in Beall's list instead of, or in addition to, predatory publisher. How about this version: "MDPI is considered a predatory publisher by Jeffrey Beall; subsequent investigation by the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association found that MDPI continued to meet its membership criteria. The main problem with this version, though, is that it doesn't do justice to explaining what OASPA membership entails -- see [3]. Ideas? Fgnievinski (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Since you did it again after my previous comment about it: please see {{link rot}}. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Sorry about that, here it is fixed now: "MDPI is considered a predatory publisher by Jeffrey Beall; subsequent investigation by the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association endorsed MDPI according to its membership criteria. As there's no section OASPA#Membership criteria or OASPA#Code of Conduct, I've linked to OASPA#Members -- I guess that's better than leaving the "criteria" up in the air. I also re-read OASPA's conclusion more closely ("we feel satisfied that MDPI continue to meet the OASPA Membership Criteria"), and reconsidered what you said before ("It definitely supports the integrity of MDPI ... [the need to] more clearly set off the disagreement between Beall and OASPA"), based on which I've carefully inserted the word "endorsed"; I hope that's not undue weight. Fgnievinski (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Deployed

I've deployed the text above in all MDPI journals. fgnievinski (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

References

References

46.140.24.118's edits

The IP address 46.140.24.118, which belongs to MDPI, now wants to add an ad hominem attack on Beall, sourced to e.g. a Youtube video, in an apparent attempt to deflect from his criticism. Whether Beall is "an opponent of the open access movement" is irrelevant in the introduction of the article on MDPI (i.e. completely off topic), because Beall's criticism of MDPI, cited in the article, is a criticism of specific predatory publishing practices, and not at all a general critique of "the open access movement" (which I myself am a supporter of, for the record). It is also a dishonest and WP:POV attempt to claim that there is an "open access movement" that a disreputable and predatory publisher like MDPI is part of, and that all criticism of predatory publishing is automatically an attack on "the open access movement" regardless of its actual merits. Beall's general views on publishing practices and other topics, that are not specifically related to MDPI, belong in his biography, not here. Bjerrebæk (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Response to User Bjerrebæk from MDPI

To User Bjerrebæk: You have reversed edits made by MDPI on the company’s wikipedia page and have a history of adding only negative information about MDPI. What is your conflict of interest and how come you only edit about us and not other open access publishers?

As for Mr. Beall's opposition to open access, this is absolutely relevant to his criticism of MDPI and an important fact for readers to understand as long as the lead states that MDPI is "considered a predatory publisher", please *read* the following two articles: http://www.aaup.org/article/what-open-access-movement-doesn’t-want-you-know http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525

Also, you are referring to comments on a Wordpress blog by an anonymous "Guest Editor" and imply this is a reliable source. Please read here what our Guest Editors say - all of which are named (i.e.. can be contacted to verify their experience): http://www.mdpi.com/editors/testimonials If you want to claim that we send spam e-mails, then please provide evidence, not just anonymous comments on the blog of a person who is strongly opposed to open access. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.140.24.118 (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Adjustments following removal of MDPI from Beall's list

Updates made to the lead of the page, as MDPI was removed from Jeffrey Beall's list of "predatory publishers" following a successful appeal. Also updated information about journal coverage in ESCI (http://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/766) 46.140.24.118 (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Bravo!

As someone who has just had an article published by an MDPI journal ( http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0752/4/3/75 ) and who had to go through a rigorous review process, and also as someone who has been in direct email contact with Jeffrey Beall to learn of MDPI's removal from his list, I applaud the effort to remove the Beall reference from the intro to the MDPI article, from whence it cast an unfair shadow over the entire contents. (See the user: dsimic talk page for more background.) Synchronist (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• For more about the "rigorous peer-review" at MDPI journals, see here. --Randykitty (talk) 09:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

MDPI is not a classical predator as most of its staff maintain intimate ties with paid-up members of the academic community --- if not always the most morally upstanding ones, like chemistry-hod's at leading UK universities. I could name names, but I won't! So its "best" journals are best compared to those minor Springer or Elsevier entities that will never live down the low-q stuff they published in their start-up phase. MDPI's worst journals, and we might think of ENTROPY here, are just a straight-up garbage cans for crackpot nonsense.137.205.183.31 (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

Dear Wikipedians,

The recent edits by Bjerrebæk to MDPI's introduction section misrepresent the facts. After leaving a comment on Bjerrebæk Talk page last week, I did not receive a response.

1. As an employee of the company, I regularly talk to our authors, editors, reviewers, and librarians - I can assure you that the controversy surrounding Mr. Beall's temporary inclusion of MDPI on his list is not what MDPI is known for. The following sentence is misleading and without reference: "MDPI is especially known for the controversy surrounding its inclusion on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies".

2. MDPI was removed from Mr. Beall's list in October 2015, well before Mr. Beall took down his list in 2017. Why would MDPI pressure Mr. Beall to take down his list after MDPI was removed from the list? I can confirm that the company did write a letter to the university late 2015 to point out the incorrect information about MDPI on the blog of Mr. Beall. However, we did not contact the UC Denver repeatedly or "pressure" the university to get Mr. Beall's list taken down. The comments made by Mr. Beall in /Biochemia Medica/ can be moved to the section "Inclusion in Beall's list", as this is where this subject is discussed.

3. The information on MDPI's office locations is incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.7.117 (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the lead was biased. Thank you for your edits. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You work for, or on behalf of, a journal. You should be extremely aware of conflict of interest. Read WP:PAID and WP:COI and please do not directly edit this article again. Jytdog (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I should have first posted onto the talk page and wait for the editors to make the changes - will not happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.7.117 (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, the COI was mentioned in the edit summary, and I think the edit was legit. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I said the behavior was half-correct. It also violated the letter and spirit of PAID and COI which made it corrupt. Unintentionally so, but so. And appropriately apologized for. Would you like to spend more time defending corruption that even the one who did it has now acknowledged and apologized for, or would you like to discuss content? Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Corruption in this context seems like an overstatement. Anyway, about the content, I think the user is right, even though he/she has an interest in the subject. Saying in the lead that MDPI is mainly known for being added to Beall's list is obviously not true, and the cited references do not support this statement.--Ita140188 (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

If you think it is OK for an employee of company X to come to Wikipedia and directly remove negative content from the article about company X then you are way, way out of touch with the mainstream editing community consensus. should not directly edit is as about as close to "must not" as the community gets, and it only does "must not" for things like OUTING.

And the refs do support it; i am unaware of any independent sources that discuss MDPI and do not mention this. . Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that what has been done is not correct, but I think the real problem in Wikipedia are anonymous editors that have an interest in a subject without disclosing it. At least in this case the user disclosed its conflict of interest and did not remove any of the criticism in the body of the article. Treating all these cases in the same way would be another reason for people to hide their COI and make our job even more difficult. Regarding the article, I think it would be better to mention the controversy in the lead in a more neutral way, instead of saying that it is the main thing the company is known for. --Ita140188 (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page: Ita140188 made the same complaints about bias there as they have here, and asked me "Do you think MDPI is known mainly because of the fact it was once included in Beall's list?" Then, when I answered, they pointed me here instead of actually responding to my answer. So, to keep the discussion centralized, here is my response:

I think it is mainly known as a publisher of dubious repute. Whether you want to interpret that as because of Beall's list or via other sources such as [4] or [5] or [6] is up to you, but removing it and making them out to be spotless and pure exemplars of academic publishing would be dishonest. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear all, I declared the COI in the edits but should have just added comments to the Talk page and let the editors assess and decide. I am now familiar with the PAID and COI rules. I would like to add to the conversation and bring forward some points, for your consideration:

1. MDPI has over 220 universities and societies participating in its open access program (http://www.mdpi.com/about/ioap). I personally have been in contact with many of the librarians as part of the program. How could the program find such broad support if MDPI was deemed "predatory” or known for “controversy”?

2. MDPI is participating in Knowledge Unlatched (KU) crowd-funding initiative and we from the nine journals we put forward, all nine were accepted for funding by KU, see: http://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/1023

Why would KU accept MDPI's journals if we were not concern about quality?

3. Many of MDPI's journals are ranked in Q2/Q1 in JCR, with the majority of journal IFs increasing compared to the previous year, see: http://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/1021

If we were not adhering to quality standards, how could these (relatively young) journals be in this position?

The article in Poynder's blog was written before MDPI was removed from Mr. Beall's list in October 2015. The removal was a consequence of MDPI demonstrating that it did not violate any of the criteria set forth by Mr. Beall for so-called "predatory publishers". Why would we pressure Mr. Beall to take down his list after MDPI was removed? As mentioned already further above: I can confirm that we did write a letter to the university soon after Mr. Beall added MDPI to his list to point out incorrect information in the blog of Mr. Beall. However, MDPI staff did not contact the UC Denver repeatedly or "pressure" the university to get Mr. Beall's list taken down.

I would ask you to assess these points and to consider moving the information on Mr. Beall into the section "Inclusion in Beall's list", as this is where this subject is discussed. Also, the office information in the introduction section is incomplete (see: http://www.mdpi.com/about/contact).ErskineCer (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not MDPI's website. It is not relevant that Wikipedia doesn't provide complete contact information - that is what your website is for. Please read WP:PROMO. Please also stop asking rhetorical questions. Their answers have nothing to do with how we determine content. Please be aware that we prefer to base WP content on independent sources. Presenting links to the MDPI's website is not going to be productive (again, this is not an extension of MDPI's website, again as we remind people in the PROMO policy, which is part of the NOT policy. That policy exists because many people mistake Wikipedia for many different things.) Jytdog (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jytdog, the objective of sharing the links is to provide additional information, not for addition to Wikipedia. I just hope the additional information will aid editors in assessing if MDPI is indeed "especially known for the controversy surrounding its inclusion on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies". This claim is very harsh and I strongly believe it to be factually incorrect. Of course, I understand that you need to treat my comments with suspicion, due to the COI. However, I will trust the process and ask that there is a fair and objective assessment.

Some links then to external sources (again, these are just for your information as the links I added earlier were not to external sources):

Many institutions that signed-up to our open access program added information on their website, just a few examples: https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/library/services/researchsupport/openaccess/oamemberships/, http://www.ub.unibas.ch/ub-hauptbibliothek/dienstleistungen/publizieren/publikationsrabatte/, http://www.library.ethz.ch/en/ms/Open-Access-at-ETH-Zurich/Publishing-in-open-access-journals/Publishing-in-open-access-journals-Funding

The KU 2017 select list can be downloaded here: http://knowledgeunlatched.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/KU_Select_2017_Titles_In_Pledging.xlsx. The MDPI journals are in the Excel file under the "Journals" tab . More information at: http://knowledgeunlatched.org/ku-select-2017/

JCR information requires access to Web of Science. However, CiteScore data is available here: https://www.scopus.com/sources?sortField=metric&metricName=&sortDirection=ASC&offset=&displayAll=true&sortPerformedState=f&origin=sourceSearch&sortDirectionMOne=&sortDirectionMTwo=&sortDirectionMThree=&metricDisplayIndex=1&scint=1&menu=search&tablin=&searchWithinResultsDefault=t&searchString=&searchOA=&typeFilter=d_j_p_k&subscriptionFilter=s_u&filterActTriggered=f&tabName=searchSources&searchTerms=MDPI&searchTermsSubmit=&searchType=publisherErskineCer (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Please review the guidance for conflicted editors at WP:PAYTALK and do not abuse your editing privileges by providing links "for our information" that are not useable in the article. This page is only for discussing improvements to the article. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand from your (ErskineCer's) response that MDPI wants to be seen as a legitimate publisher and that it is very aggressive in pushing that point of view. However, given that some complaints about its behavior are as recent as 2015 e.g., I think Sallust's description of Cato is apropos. I would be more impressed by a publisher that accepted that its past behavior was problematic, did not try to hide it, and stated clear steps that it would perform to change its ways, than by a publisher that tries to pretend that it all never happened. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course we improved our processes -- also as a result of feedback & criticism from the scholarly community. There is a reason why Mr. Beall removed MDPI from his list in late 2015. As it stands, the information in the introduction section is factually incorrect.ErskineCer (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

In 2017, Beall wrote [7]: "Still others tried different strategies. Some tried annoying university officials with numerous emails and letters, often sent as PDF attachments, with fancy letterhead, informing the university how I was hurting its reputation. They kept sending the emails to the university chancellor and others, hoping to implement the heckler’s veto. They tried to be as annoying as possible to the university so that the officials would get so tired of the emails that they would silence me just to make them stop. The publisher MDPI used this strategy." This does not sound like exemplary behavior for a publisher. So, have you stopped haranguing people about your poor reputation, or is that still an accurate description of your misbehavior? If you have stopped, why are you still doing it here? Or if you have not stopped, why should we believe that you have reformed all your other problematic behaviors, leaving only this one unreformed? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear David, my comments on the Talk page are made to point out misinformation and suggest improvements to the article -- I made the COI clear and other editors may review & decide. My objective is definitely not to "harangue" people.ErskineCer (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I do agree with David Eppstein that MDPI is mainly known as a "publisher of dubious repute" (with the Beall's list controversy being a major part of that), and I think the sentence is supported by the sources. However, I (as the original author of that sentence) don't insist on the wording "MDPI is especially known for the controversy..." It could be changed to e.g. "MDPI was the focus of a controversy..." or something like that, which wouldn't change the meaning that much. I do believe the controversy should be mentioned in the lead section, because it has been extensively discussed/covered in third party sources, and for many people, it's the reason they have heard about MDPI in the first place. Also, the Beall's list controversy currently has a relatively lengthy section in the body of the article, and per WP:LEAD, the lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Bjerrebæk, as it stands, the lead is inconsistent with the information given in the article on Jeffrey Beall, where "pressure from the University of Colorado" is mentioned as the reason for his decision to remove the content on www.scholarlyoa.com, and not the "harassment" from MDPI. As mentioned further above, we did write a letter in 2014 to the UC Denver to point out the misleading information in Mr. Beall's blog. The removal from the list in 2015 was due to the fact that MDPI did not breach any of the criteria set forth by Jeffrey Beall for so-called "predatory publishers" (https://web.archive.org/web/20170105195017/https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/criteria-2015.pdf). If this controversy is to be discussed objectively in the lead, then the reason for removal, together with the fact that Jeffrey Beall's blog itself is considered controversial, should be mentioned there as well (https://www.nature.com/news/controversial-website-that-lists-predatory-publishers-shuts-down-1.21328). By the same token (as you quoted WP:LEAD), it would make sense for the lead of the article on Jeffrey Beall to mention the controversy surrounding his blog, with reference to "Nature News". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErskineCer (talk • contribs) 15:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

ErskineCer please do see WP:PAYTALK. We all get it that you are paid to come here and lobby for MDPI. We are volunteers. Coming here and hammering us with the same arguments is a) going to get you precisely no where; and b) get you indefinitely blocked from WP per WP:NOTHERE. What drives WP content are independent reliable sources. Period. NOT your lobbying. So:

• please bring independent reliable sources that show that MDPI is not known for being controversial with respect to Bealls list and the bad quality articles that it published, or
• please bring independent reliable sources that show that MDPI is known for something else, or
• please WP:DROPTHESTICK.

- Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about MDPI, not about what should be included in Beall's article (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). --Bjerrebæk (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jytdog,

for other sources, Publons recently made a specific comment about MDPI: "Our filters show this open access publisher is a vetted and valued partner of ours, that allows both signed and published reviews." See: https://publons.com/blog/bealls-list-gone-but-not-lost/

Our journals ranking and review counts on Publons can be viewed here: https://publons.com/journal/?order_by=reviews

You may, as alternative, also refer to journal rankings at: https://www.qoam.eu/journals

As JCR is not available openly, you may refer to CiteScore and select "MDPI Open Access Publishing" in the field "Publishers" to view the CiteScore of MDPI's journals: https://journalmetrics.scopus.com/

Here a small sample of sources where universities that announced their participation in our open access program:

https://blogs.lib.utexas.edu/oaw/2016/08/29/ut-austin-joins-mdpi/

http://blogs.sun.ac.za/sunscholar/2017/01/31/stellenbosch-university-joins-mdpi-multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute-institutional-membership-programme/

http://www.ub.tu-berlin.de/en/news/news/detail/1039/

http://blog.bibliothek.kit.edu/kit_bib_news/index.php/2014/02/24/kit-bibliothek-ab-marz-2014-mitglied-bei-open-access-verlag-mdpi/

To improving the article, I would propose the issue about Beall's list be discussed in the section "Inclusion in Beall's list" rather than in the lead. If you believe strongly that the topic should be covered in the lead, the sentence "Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies" should read "Jeffrey Beall's controversial list of predatory open access publishing companies", referring to the following sources that make clear his list is seen as controversial:

https://www.nature.com/news/controversial-website-that-lists-predatory-publishers-shuts-down-1.21328

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/mystery-controversial-list-predatory-publishers-disappears

http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/617/574ErskineCer (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Beall's list is extremely controversial... At least according to predatory publishers and their ilk. The great majority of respectable sources treat Beall's list as... respectable. Read the sources and you'll see that OMICS and such fight Beall's list hand and tooth, that's the only reason that Nature and others call it "controversial".. As for Publons, of course they say nice things about their clients, that doesn't mean squat. And, of course, a librarian that just signed a contract with a publisher will never say: "I just spent a pile of library money to sign a contract with this shady low-quality publisher"... --Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I think this view is wrong: Beall's list is genuinely controversial, and plenty of legitimate academics interested in open access think that it's problematic in various ways. These legitimate concerns are muddied by commercial interests, but it doesn't mean the concerns aren't real. That Beall has taken some really off-the-wall positions in his writing about open access doesn't help, either. --JBL (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Beall's list isn't considered particularly controversial by most respectable sources. While some people have stated their belief that such a list should ideally be maintained by an organization or committee or something, it doesn't really make Beall's list "controversial" and the reality is that few people or organizations are actually interested in assuming that responsibility. Additionally, on a few occasions Beall has made some minor comments, clearly in a personal capacity, that seemed critical about open access in general, but these comments weren't part of Beall's list or his definition of predatory publishing, and there is no evidence they are related. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Randykitty, there are indeed "publishers" out there with very poor practices -- unfortunately, their actions have a (disproportionately) negative influence on the reputation of open access in general. I count OMICS to that group. In the past, they made repeated attempts to contact the Editors-in-Chief of our journals to inquire if they could "collaborate". Their messages contained sentences like "[we] assure you that this proposal would milk enormous mutual benefits in future"(!). They muddy the waters and the mud rubs off on others. However, you will find that OMICS - and other "publishers" like them - are not members of the leading publishing associations and their content is not accepted by established indexing databases (no OMICS journal is covered in Web of Science/JCR, Scopus, DOAJ etc.). ErskineCer (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Journal edits

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.

---

Hello all. This edit was the end result of five edits [8]. Looking back, this inadvertently gave one of MDPI's "160 journals" UNDUE prominence in the article. I didn't realize this until I was reverted here: [9]. The rationale for reversion makes sense to me. My motivation for placing this in the article was the creation of a redirect by Headbomb to the MDPI page with this journal's title [10].

My intention was to be helpful by adding a section title to the redirect [11] and by creating a section in the article - as shown by my first diff in the paragraph [12]. I figured if the redirect was going to this page then there should be some information. The publisher's reputation didn't occur to me at the time. I haven't worked in the Academic Journals area for awhile. Anyway, all's well that ends well. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I stumbled upon MDPI via WP:JCW/TAR, which (because of a bot bug) listed Cells as a variant of Cell. I then noticed this was the case for several journals Genes as a variant of Gene, which basically shows that MDPI systematically pluralizes established journals to sneak in unnoticed if people don't pay extra close attention. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured out what was happening with "Cell (journal)" and MDPI's "Cells" by looking at your edits surrounding these. Definitely a good call on your part. I just wasn't thinking about the controversy surrounding MDPI. And, I didn't realize this was happening with other journals. Also, I didn't realize the nefarious nature behind MDPI's actions how nefarious MDPI was acting by naming its journals to closely mimic the names of reputable journals. Headbomb should get the Sherlock Holmes award (if there was one) for excellent sleuthing. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The first MDPI journal /Molecules/, which was launched in collaboration with Springer, set somewhat of a reference point for future titles such as /Nutrients/, /Sensors/, /Viruses/, /Materials/, etc. which are all single words (in the plural form). I think the intelligence of scholars is underestimated here: /Cells/ is easily distinguishable from /Cell/. Not only in terms the the editorial boards, the publishing model, the format of the journal, the Impact Factor, the volume of content published etc. But also from looking into JCR, you will find a number of journals that share similar titles, but which are clearly distinguishable for scholars:

GENETICA (Springer), https://link.springer.com/journal/10709

GENETICS (Genetics Society of America), http://www.genetics.org

CITY (T&F), http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ccit20/current

CITIES (Elsevier), https://www.journals.elsevier.com/cities

Journal of Cultural Economics (Springer), http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/10824

Journal of Cultural Economy (T&F), http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rjce20/current

VIROLOGY (Elsevier), https://www.journals.elsevier.com/virology

VIROLOGIE (John Libbey), http://www.jle.com/en/revues/vir/revue.phtmlErskineCer (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2017 (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.

Two different topics on this page

Hello Wikipedians,

This page includes two separate topics that share the acronym MDPI: Molecular Diversity Preservation International and Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.

I see later in the article that they are linked, but at the outset this is very confusing. Perhaps the introduction should explain the connection.

-Chipotle (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I just saw this too. No, these should be split in two different articles. I'll do it now. --Lquilter (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• On second thought, seeing that the organizations are closely related, I think it's better to keep them together, but just clarify the lede. I've done that. Should the original organization continue, and the two develop more of a separate identity, then it would be appropriate to separate them. But right now, it seems that there is sufficient continuity and connections between the two that they constitute one topic. --Lquilter (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Regarding recent edits to second lead paragraph referencing Beall's list, the re-editing of this paragraph is being misrepresentative of the degree to which MDPI is held to his accord. My recent edits are misrepresentation of facts, as Beall is well known to be an outspoken critic of OA and he himself stated in the Biomedica paper that he has been pressured by the UC Denver to remove his list: “In January 2017, facing intense pressure from my employer, the University of Colorado Denver, and fearing for my job, I shut down the blog and removed all its content from the blog platform” as found at http://www.biochemia-medica.com/2017/27/273. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tconnn (talk • contribs) 14:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Tconnn. When you make contentious claims about living people anywhere in Wikipedia, you must provide a source (a reliable source as we define that, not "some blog"). Please provide a reliable source that Beall is an "outspoken critic of OA" generally, as you say there, or strike it. Take this very seriously as I will see that you are indefinitely blocked if you do not comply with the requirements of BLP and the discretionary sanctions. It is clear you are passionate about OA but exactly because of passions like that, and because WP is open and people come here with passion, we are very strict about this. Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Very simple: http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514 ... there is a reason why the UC Denver asked him to stop. 62.202.7.117 (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC) striking undisclosed paid edit Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC))

That is about the open access movement, not open access per se. And he is definitely a critic of the OA movement. That is not what the content says. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

User Tconn made valid edits by adding that Beall is a critic of the open access publishing movement. As to the take-down of the Beall's list: the article portrays that MDPI played a major role, but Beall himself stated in the Biochemia article he was pressured by his employer, the UC Denver, to remove the list. What is your argument to persistently reverse these edits?62.202.7.117 (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC) striking undisclosed paid edit Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC))

No you are misrepresenting the edit. The edit did accurately state that Beall is a critic of the OA movement, but that statement was not supported by the source that is in the article so it was invalid. On top of that, Beall's being critical of the OA movement is not the same as him being critical of predatory publishers. The two are parallel but not the same. Bringing in his relationship to the OA movement in this context is OFFTOPIC in any case.

Responding to other bits of what you wrote there - Beall's employer was pressured by your employer and others. Again, you are not helping here but you are continually writing things that are citable in diffs (like this, recording your comment above) that will lead to you being blocked for abusing your editing privileges (they are a privilege, not a right, and you are about an inch from losing yours). Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I encourage the user Tconn (or other editors) to include in the lead of the MDPI article - as it prominently features the "Beall controversy" - the fact that Beall is highly critical of the OA movement, as well as the fact that the pressure from the UC Denver, not MDPI "harassment", caused Beall to take-down his list. The way the lead is now is a clear misrepresentation of the facts. You may also read the recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education ("Why Beall's List Died"). MDPI is nowhere mentioned in that article and it is clarified there what the real reasons are for the take-down.178.196.204.56 (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC) (striking undisclosed paid edit Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC))

Regarding Beall featuring heavily on the the lead of MDPI it is simply misrepresentative of the company given that Beall is seen as an outspoken critic of the open access movement based on the Triple C article, and that the lead of MDPI is heavily biased. With Beall’s list gone, it is important to put his criticism of MDPI into perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tconnn (talk • contribs) 11:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

See above. Beall's criticism of the OA movement is distinct from his criticism of predatory publishers (the former is probably a reaction to the reaction he got from working on the latter). Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It is obviously not true that Beall's criticism of OA is distinct from his criticism of predatory publishing; the two threads are inextricably tied together in his work and this is obvious from any honest attempt to assess his writings. The basic fact that he restricted his attention to open access predatory publishers is practically conclusive on its own, but read anything he writes and the ties between the two are clear. (Of course this does not mean that MDPI is not a bad actor!) --JBL (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

So ... you are saying I am not reading honestly. There is a conversation ender. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not think you are engaged in "an honest attempt to assess his writings", that's right. --JBL (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, there is no way to go forward then is there. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, last-word-ism -- fun, can I play, too? Obviously there are ways forward: you could, for example, acknowledge that you were not engaged in the activity of honestly assessing Beall's work, you were instead engaged in the activity of having an argument with a paid shill and trying to dismiss him as efficiently as possible. And then I can say, "Yes dismissing the paid shill is a good idea, and the lead as it now stands is ok with me, but maybe we can try (in a big-picture kind of way) to not put our entire assessment of publishers in the hands of a guy who writes things like this." And then you could say "ok I'm glad we can agree about the current lead." Or something. --JBL (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Many letters adding up to bullshit. For which I have no tolerance. If you have content to propose please do so. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Beall's List Content Removal

Jeffrey Beall clarified the reasons behind his decision to remove the content from scholarlyoa.com in a recent interview with The Chronicle of Higher Education, see also: http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20170920150122306. The lead of the WP article on MDPI suggests the take-down of Beall's list was due to "harassment" from the publisher. However, as stated previously on the Talk page, this is factually incorrect.ErskineCer (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

"Still others tried different strategies. Some tried annoying university officials with numerous emails and letters, often sent as PDF attachments, with fancy letterhead, informing the university how I was hurting its reputation. They kept sending the emails to the university chancellor and others, hoping to implement the heckler’s veto. They tried to be as annoying as possible to the university so that the officials would get so tired of the emails that they would silence me just to make them stop. The publisher MDPI used this strategy." - http://www.biochemia-medica.com/2017/27/273

The lead is accurate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I used the word "clarify" because the source I refer to is newer than the one you quoted: http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20170920150122306. The reasons why Beall removed his list are given in the article. The lead of this WP article suggests MDPI took action to get Beall's list taken down -- which is incorrect.62.202.7.117 (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The source you list doesn't mention MDPI and doesn't contradict the claims in the other source that MDPI tried to get the list taken down. Their attempts may not have been the eventual cause of the list's takedown, or not the only cause, but that is a different question. And, although it is not information usable in the article, your edits here suggest that MDPI is still working to get any mention of the list removed, almost exactly the same issue as the one we are discussing. Also see the note on User talk:62.202.7.117 re undisclosed paid edits, despite which this editor has continued to make the same sorts of edits with no disclosure of their COI. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

IP/ErskineCer, please see the note here. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I made the comment above about the recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education and forgot to login. Jeffrey Beall provided the reasons behind the decision to remove his list in that interview. If MDPI was a driver in the decision to take down the list, why was nothing mentioned in that interview? The issue about JB's list features prominently on the WP article about MDPI -- as it should. However, suggesting that we continuously "harassed" the UC Denver until the list was taken down, is just not true (as I keep repeating). The recent interview of JB in the Chronicle makes this clear.ErskineCer (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No, that interview does not "make it clear". It is completely silent on the subject of MDPI. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Splitting the article

The article is about two institutes, so it makes sense to split the article in two articles and use the full name of each institute as the title in each of the two articles rather than an acronym. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Including work by Spencer et al. in the controversial articles section

There was a controversial article arguing against the precision of climate models that, after acceptance, caused an editor to resign: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603. talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@ComradeVVA: Do you have a WP:IS/WP:RS for this? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Not particularly recent, and easy to dig up sources: Physics World, BBC, etc. The resignation letter (which seems to have been published in the journal) is here (PDF). --JBL (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The link to the published editorial is highlighted in yellow on the webpage of the journal article I mentioned. ComradeVVA

porting over the list of journals with an impact factor

I was thinking of taking the list found here http://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/1021 and making a table under the Current section. This is really the most important information about the journal. Before I spend the time to do this - 1) does anyone know an easy way to do this? and 2) perhaps more importantly I don't want to do it and then have it immediately taken down as a copy right infringement. -- so it is ok to do it? -- thanks Upoon7 (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Please do not do that; please read WP:PROMO. Please respond on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Fine -- although I think it is the most notable thing about this publisher, but I will let others decide. --Upoon7 (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Not promotional - factual.

Dear Editors -- someone deleted the new section I put in as being promotional. I disagree. I would ask that some neutral party please reinstate my edits (of if I did screw up- simply fix my mistake rather than delete the whole thing without thinking). As the article stands without my edits it is factually wrong (e.g. number of journals). To the best of my knowledge my edits are factually correct and backed up with easily checkable sources. There is no promotional content - it is simply what MDPI is and how they operate (again to the best of my knowledge as I am not employed by them). Please find the edit that was deleted below. Thanks

Current ==

MDPI currently publishes 193 peer-reviewed academic journals. of which 27 have received an impact factor. As of November 2017, 32 journals have been selected for coverage in the Science Citation Index Expanded, while 69 journals are indexed in other Thomson Reuters products, such as the Emerging Sources Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews, and The Zoological Record. A total of 49 MDPI journals publishing in biomedicine, life sciences, and related areas are archived in PubMed Central. MDPI journals can also be found in other relevant indexing services, such as Scopus, which currently includes over 79 MDPI journals, and Ei Compendex, which covers 13 MDPI journals.

MDPI uses a gold open access model, which means that they charge processing fees to publish the peer-reviewed articles. It is the author's employer or research funder who typically pays the fee, not the individual author, and many journals will waive the fee in cases of financial hardship, or for authors in less-developed countries. As of 2018 the article processing fee (APC) ranged from free (for new journals) to 1800CHF for established journals like Sensors. The fee structure appears to be based on impact factor, with for example Applied Sciences (with an impact factor of 1.679) having an APC of 1400CHF while the journal Technologies (which does not have an impact factor and is only on the list of Emerging Sources Citation Index) only costs 350CHF. The impact factors of MDPI journals have been increasing over time, as it is reasonably well established that open access journal articles are cited more often than those not available for wide reading due to pay walls.

Peer Review ===

MDPI academic journals are peer reviewed. Reviewers are sometimes compensated with APC discounts and are also acknowledged with Publons, the peer review recognition platform.

Open Access Licenses ===

In line with OASPA's recommendation, all articles published by MDPI since 2008 are released under the CC-BY Creative Commons license and preserved with the Swiss National Library and CLOCKSS.

References

--Upoon7 (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing is no longer top importance to this article

Hi All -- I am not sure what the protocol is - apologies. I moved the part on the top "MDPI was included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing .." down to the controversies section as I think it is no longer particularly relevant and then someone moved it back up - and did not respond when I asked why. MDPI is clearly a 'real' publisher with many journals with reasonable impact factors (indicating the rest of the academic community is citing them) and I although it may be important for historical reasons to include the Beall controversy and outcome - it doesn't seem particularly relevant up top. Or am I missing something? Upoon7 (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Please respond on your talk page, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The lead needs to summarize the whole subject. So yes, the Beall's stuff need to be in the lead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead

The WP:MOSLEAD is a concise summary of a WP article. User 87.102.200.155 has added information on a "data breach" within the lead without the issue being discussed in the article. The issue could first be discussed under a new section "Issues" or "Controversies and Issues". Just to clarify on the leakage of e-mail address information: All papers published by MDPI contain e-mail addresses of authors. The information on reviewers is also published regularly in the journal. The contact information of all academic editors on MDPI journals are made available on the website. This is done in the spirit of open access and transparency.

With regards to the mention of the controversy surrounding Beall: this WP article still suggests that the UC Denver was "pressured" in some form, and as a result, Beall took down his list. However, the following source from the university provides a very different view, from Shea Swauger, head of researcher support services at the University of Colorado-Denver’s Auraria Library: https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/16837/18435

"The University of Colorado-Denver, the institution for which we both work, released the following statement regarding Beall’s website and is worth noting:

CU Denver disagrees with Jeffrey Beall’s assertion that he was pressured by the university to take down his website, scholaryoa.com, earlier this year. We are not aware of anyone at or affiliated with the university who asked Professor Beall to take down his website and blog. Additionally, CU Denver has defended and supported Professor Beall’s academic freedom to pursue predatory publishing as part of his scholarship, but also respects the personal decision he made in January to take down the site. His tenured faculty position here at CU Denver was never in jeopardy because of his work researching open access journals or predatory publishers."

This source also clarifies that MDPI did not pressure Beall or his institution to close his blog: https://forbetterscience.com/2017/09/18/frontiers-vanquishers-of-beall-publishers-of-bunk/

As mentioned further above on this Talk page: Beall removed MDPI in 2015, well before the list was taken down. So there was no reason for MDPI to pressure the university or Beall himself to take down the list. ErskineCer (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

There has been no response yet to the last comment, so I post here again. I propose to move the "breach" material from the lead to a section of its own. The current information in the article is too short and does not mention that a) there was no personal sensitive information stolen and b) that e-mail addresses of authors, editors etc. are made publicly available to users on MDPI.com as per standard process. The section could read as follows:

Data Breach (as title of new section)

In August 2016, MDPI was breached, leaving exposed 17.5 GB of data (including 845,000 e-mail addresses and e-mail exchanges between authors, editors and reviewers). MDPI confirmed that no data of a sensitive nature was impacted. E-mail addresses of authors are published with by MDPI as per standard process, the contact information of editors (including e-mail addresses) are permanently available online at the MDPI website and reviewer information is regularly published.

Sources:

https://www.itsecuritynews.info/mdpi-845012-breached-accounts/

http://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/1368 ErskineCer (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Please bring high quality independent sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This is the original source of the "breach" information: https://haveibeenpwned.com/PwnedWebsites - as you will see this source states that "no data of a sensitive nature was impacted" and that the contact information of authors, board members etc. is already publicly available on MDPI's website.ErskineCer (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Revisions to Lead

Dear editors, I suggest the following change to the lead, to clarify the Beall issue: After the text "Beall later wrote that he had been pressured to shut down the list due to pressure on his institution from various publishers, specifically mentioning MDPI", add the sentence: "Beall’s supervisor and institution both refuted Beall's claims that there had been any pressure to take down the list", referring to the following source where Beall's former supervisor, Shea Swauger, clarifies that "CU Denver disagrees with Jeffrey Beall’s assertion that he was pressured by the university to take down his website, scholaryoa.com, earlier this year": https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/16837/18435.

The information in the lead on the data breach is misleading, as the e-mail addresses and contact information of authors, editors and board members are already public on the MDPI.com website (the e-mail addresses of authors are accessible on the article page, as well as those of editors and editorial board members). This text gives the impression that sensitive data was stolen and that this is a key issue for MDPI. Therefore, I suggest to move this text to a separate section, and add the sentence: "No data of a sensitive nature was impacted and the contact information of authors, editors and board members are made publicly available on the MDPI website per default", referring to the following source: https://haveibeenpwned.com/PwnedWebsites ErskineCer (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to Lead

Information to be added in the lead section: At the end of the sentence “Beall's list was shut down in 2017; Beall later wrote that he had been pressured to shut down the list due to pressure on his institution from various publishers, specifically mentioning MDPI”, add the text: “although this was later denied by Beall’s former supervisor, Shea Swauger.”

Explanation of the issue: MDPI did not pressure Beall to take down the list in 2017 – we had no reason to do so, as MDPI was already removed from the list in 2015. Beall’s former supervisor very clearly stated that there was no pressure to take down the list.

References supporting the change: https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/16837/18435ErskineCer (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a primary source and you are using it to make an argument, which is unacceptable in WP per WP:SYN. This is the same request you have made several times already with a slightly different flavor. Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog. The statement concerns Beall's reasons for closing the list. His recollections of MDPI pressuring him to shut down the list are recollections of Beall himself regarding the situation as he saw it. Beall is the ultimate judge of his own recollections, and it is not MDPI's place to pass judgement on whether those recollections are accurate.

If a company chose to close its own business for its own stated reason, then it would not be out of the ordinary to mention that reason in a Wikipedia article which mentions the closing. What would be out of the ordinary would be to allow a third party to claim that the company was somehow lying about their own reasons, which is essentially what this edit request is asking to do.  Spintendo  14:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The lead of this article suggests to readers that MDPI was a major driver in JB's decision to take down his list. This fact is not only contradicted by Beall's former supervisor, but other sources: https://forbetterscience.com/2017/09/18/frontiers-vanquishers-of-beall-publishers-of-bunk/. The lead should be amended so that after the text "specifically mentioning MDPI" the following is added: "Jeffrey Beall's former supervisor contradicted these claims, while others have suggested that actions by a different publisher lead to Jeffrey Beall's decision to take down his list", referring to the above mentioned sources.ErskineCer (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, that article says nothing whatsoever about MDPI and Beall. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, such information on the end of Beall's list does not belong to the lead, especially not without a reliable secondary source. A primary source like Beall itself is completely inadequate for the specific sentence in this specific point, even though he is clearly a prominent source in the field.

The information on the data breach is interesting and relevant but not really reflected in the article body, either. It may be worth adding a paragraph on "technical" failures or criticism of specific publishing (rather than editorial) practices. (I seem to recall there are some about "recruitment" and some other things.) Then the lead could briefly summarise them, rather than just throw 3 bits of information at the reader and hope they understand why they're there. Nemo 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The role of MDPI in shutting down Beall is one of the most significant things they have ever done. Their journals, not so much. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this opinion supported by reliable sources? Nemo 21:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be, since your question was based on your own POV, my comment is based on mine. Obviously you want to whitewash this article because obviously MDPI is part of the segment of academic publishing you prefer, and took down one of the most prominent supporters of the segment you hate. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Data Breach Information for Lead

Information to be added or removed: Remove the sentence “In August 2016, MDPI was breached, leaving exposed 17.5 GB of data (including 845,000 e-mail addresses and e-mail exchanges between authors, editors and reviewers)” from the lead section and move to a separate section in the main body of the article, adding a further sentence: "No data of a sensitive nature was impacted and the contact information of authors, editors and board members are made publicly available on the MDPI website per default", referring to the following source: https://haveibeenpwned.com/PwnedWebsites

Explanation of issue: The information on the data breach is misleading, as e-mail addresses and contact information of authors, editors and board members are already public on the MDPI.com website (the e-mail addresses of authors are accessible on the article page, as well as those of editors and editorial board members). This text gives the impression that sensitive data was stolen and that this is a key issue for MDPI. However, the issue is not even covered in the WP article.

References supporting change: https://haveibeenpwned.com/PwnedWebsites

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ErskineCer (talk • contribs)

The source for this material in our article says that the exposed material included "email exchanges", not just addresses. That certainly sounds likely to be sensitive to me. Also, even the names or addresses of people who submitted to MDPI but were rejected seem likely to be sensitive as well, since those people would not likely want others to know about there rejection. Is there a published reliable source that clearly states that no message text was exposed and that all exposed email addresses are of people whose addresses would otherwise have been made public on MDPI's site, such as editors and published authors? Also, what does it mean for data to be "impacted"? That wording is very awkward: it sounds like something a lawyer would write to avoid informing people of what actually happened, by finding a verb that doesn't describe the breach and then saying that verb didn't happen, rather than something an encyclopedia editor would write to explain what was and what wasn't exposed in the breach. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. The original source on this is weak and the information was added by an annonymous user (IP 87.102.200.155 on 12 August 2018) directly added to the lead without coverage of the issue in the WP article. I did not find another source on this issue, or anything that confirmed actual e-mail content was accessible to a third party. The contact information of authors, board members, guest editors, etc. (including e-mail addressse) are publicly available on MDPI.com. Surely this issue should be covered in the main body of the article first, and only if it is found to be a critical problem for the publisher (with trusted sources reporting any issues) should such information be added to the lead?ErskineCer (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply 29-NOV-2018

  Request partially approved  

1. Y As the edit request did not specify exactly where this information was to be moved to, the decision falls to reviewer's fiat. To prevent the information from becoming nomadic within the article as well as following the guidance at WP:CSECTION, the claims were given refuge under a new subheading of the History section.
2. N The claim that "no data of a sensitive nature" was not added, as the only source for this claim of sensitivity appears to be the company itself. In addition to the company's attempts at minimizing the breach by categorizing the information taken as "only email addresses", the Pwned source contained the following statement: MDPI have confirmed that the system has since been protected. If the stolen information was of such little value beforehand, it is doubtful that the company would have moved to secure it against another breach. The fact that they did expend some effort to protect it shows the information met at least the minimal definition of "sensitive".

Regards,  Spintendo  11:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Self-sourced content

Articles should be based on secondary sources. Too much of this article is based on MDPI's own material, with no indication it is WP:DUE thus giving rise to a NPOV problem. If any of this stuff is worth our attention, let's see some secondary coverage to lend it weight. Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources are not forbidden, especially when it comes to basic descriptions and basic facts. The wholesale removal of entire sections and descriptions is completely inappropriate and make the article worse and less informative to the reader. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is saying they are forbidden; they may be useful to augment a strong base of secondary coverage. But if the only basis for a claim is primary, that's a strong indication its inclusion is not proportionate, since there is no body of work discussing that point. I'd want to see better sourcing for the claims that were sourced to MDPI. Alexbrn (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

MDPI is a publisher, ipso facto it's publishing activities are topical, because that's what they do. That individual aspects (e.g. A total of 49 MDPI journals publishing in biomedicine, life sciences, and related areas are archived in PubMed Central. MDPI journals can also be found in other relevant indexing services, such as Scopus, which currently includes over 79 MDPI journals, and Ei Compendex, which covers 13 MDPI journals.) aren't individually sourced to secondary sources is irrelevant. Unless you really want to insist we need to make 49 individual references to Pubmed Central, 79 individual references to Scopus, and 13 individual references to Ei Compendex. Same for most of the material that was removed in bulk. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Topicality is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion. And where is "49" from? Is this some kind of search engine result? Alexbrn (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Topicality is most certainly a sufficient criterion. And look at the references. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

No, NPOV is cast in different terms than "topicality"; that would open the flood gates to endless dross. I did look at the references and I'm having trouble seeing this "49" thing - where is it? Alexbrn (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019 numbers is 57 in pubmed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, so it is a search result. Do you think it is a good idea to link to MDPI's dynamic content? This isn't even a stable primary source. Alexbrn (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

That's why there's an accessdate provided, and it's a perfectly valid thing to link at, especially given that the alternative is 57 individual references. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

No, they are not forbidden, merely discouraged. In this case it's marketing claims supported only by the company's own website. Given that the company has a less than stellar reputation, including being part of shutting down the major critic of predatory publishing, we should not be taking their marketing claims at face value and certainly not repeating them as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Those were not marketing claims, those are factual claims which can easily be verified against Pubmed/Ei Compendex/Scopus/and so on (albeit in a rather cumbersome manner) as has already been explained, both here and at Randykitty's talk page [13]. I have no issue with this removal, however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

No, they are 100% promotional. Claims as to the number of journals in indexes, "rebuttals" to critique and so on are marketing claims. They were placed here mainly by a WP:SPA in order to offset the fact that MDPI's academic reputation is in the toilet. Why are you so insistent on including primary-sourced promotional material? I am sure you haven't published with these people. Guy (Help!) 00:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

They are not. I can tell you a Cadillac Escalade is an SUV with 420 horsepower. That fact can be used in a promotional manner, but it nonetheless an important fact about the Escalade. Likewise for the journals being indexed or not. MDPI is a highly controversial publisher, yes, but that is does not make basic facts about it (and its journals) promotional. They are not unanimously viewed as shit, and depicting them as shit via the selective omission of facts is a violation of POV. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll let Randykitty (talk · contribs) or others revert this violation of NPOV. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The claim that the Escalade is an SUV with 420HP is not controversial. Claims of legitimacy for predatory journals are inherently controversial. That's the point. This is more like claiming that the Escalade is one of the most environmentally friendly cars in America, which would require a third party source.

Remember the context here. This is a company that publishes pseudoscience by Stephanie Seneff and was instrumental in silencing the most prominent critic of predatory publishing through legal thuggery. It is listed by NSD as "non-academic". There is an abundance of evidence that the company's journals are, to put it at its most charitable, not of a high standard.

It is possible that MDPI is on a path to rectify some of this, though the recent downgrade by NSD does indicate that if this is the case it is too soon to see any results yet. But Wikipedia is not the place for MDPI to resuscitate its rather toxic reputation. We are not here to support the company's business by giving prominence to its claims to have letters from Nobelists, for example. I mean, honestly, do you think any legitimate publisher has a page like that on its website?

Given the volume of controversy around MDPI, we should avoid citing any content tending to inflate its legitimacy from its own website. That is basic Wikipedia practice for a controversial subject. Any of the statements that are both legitimate and significant should be trivially easy to source from reliable independent sources, there has been a lot of commentary about MDPI in the press. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

"The claim that the Escalade is an SUV with 420HP is not controversial." That's my point. Because neither the claim that 111 MDPI journals are indexed by Scopus, or that the Norwegian Scientific Index considers them devoid of scientific merit are controversial. Those are indisputable facts. Whether or not Scopus should index them, or whether or not they have scientific merits is another debate.
These are mostly good redactions however, although I feel they might go a bit too far in removing MDPI's response to criticism. I'll need to read the whole sections a few times to make up my mind.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Headbomb here. This kind of info is not controversial and easily verifiable. I also agree that the last few edits were helpful and share his unease with removing all of MDPI's responses. Now having said all this, we do not usually include this kind of information in articles on publishers (see Elsevier or Wiley (publisher), but not Hindawi Publishing Corporation). I realize that this is a WP:WAX argument, but we should strive to some homogeneity among our articles. --Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Normally it's not, for a legitimate publisher. Here, it undoubtedly is, because MDPI is a publisher of dubious legitimacy with a mass of widely published criticism. It's a marketing claim, in the end, and we should not take their word for it. It should be absolutely trivial to source independently ... if it's true. Otherwise we're basically using Bernie Madoff as a source for the claim that lots of people get rich investing in Ponzi schemes.

There's also the question of WP:UNDUE. A claim which self-evidently boosts the company's image but is not covered by any independent source at all would normally ber excluded from Wikipedia as a matter of course. We're getting better at nuking press releases and churnalism, this isn't even arms-length PR, it's direct from the marketing department. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

See parallel with the Escalade being an SUV with 420HP. It would remain a 420HP SUV even if it deployed spikes instead of airbags during accidents. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The irony here is that manufacturers have a very long history of inflating performance, economy and power figures for their cars (Volkswagen, anyone?), and all figures advertised in the EU now have to be independently validated, and I believe most markets require at least a specified and regulated set of tests t address this problem. So you are using an example where claims have been completely misleading and are generally not trusted unless independently verified, as a rationale for allowing self-serving self-sourced claims by a questionable publisher. I just don't really understand why. Is it that you can't find any independent sources for these claims? If so, WP:UNDUE applies. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you can look up Scopus, Pubmed Central, etc... themselves. However, if you really want to inflate the citation count to 300+ just so you can individually source each journal's indexing in those databases, knock yourself out. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Enjoy that bit of original research then. But why are you so keen to flatter a questionable publisher? I find it mystifying. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not consider facts to be flattery, nor is this original research of any kind. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

DOAJ

MDPI is the largest contributor to DOAJ in 2018 with 63'116 articles ([14]). Despite the growth in publications in 2018, the majority of our SCIE journals increased their IFs, and more journals were accepted in Web of Science last year with 122 journals now included. Over 500 institutions participate today in our open access program. If we were not adhering to industry standards and best practices, then why would more and more scholars submit their work to our journals? Of course there is opposition to the open access model from various sides and there are many other interests, but if you were to remove all primary sources from every company on WP you will have a lot of work to do. The fact that MDPI is a member of STM ([15]), OASPA ([16]) and COPE ([17]) are merely facts that are worth mentioning in connection with a scholarly publisher. Regards, ErskineCer (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Please read up on our definition of reliable, independent secondary sources. Part of the issue here is that all sources for content flattering to MDPI are primary and most are affiliated, whereas most independent sources paint a much less rosy picture. I note also that much of the content disputed here was added by you. You now know that your COI means you should not edit the article directly, which is a good thing. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, so looking through the article now, the picture is indeed “un-rosy” as it appears most important for readers to understand about MDPI is that we published 4 controversial articles (out of 195'010 to date) and JB criticised us in 2014. Unfortunately, the actions of a few bad agents (OMICS, etc.) are not just harming scholars, but OA in general and this is rubbing off on publishers like MDPI. However, things change over time. Rest assured the scholars I talk to who either publish with us, act as reviewers or edit a journal, enjoy working with our dedicated staff and our reputation is very, very far from "toxic" (as mentioned above). Regards, ErskineCer (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed academic

A couple of people are very keen to state in Wiki voice that MDPI's publications are peer-reviewed academic journals. A couple of problems with this. First, the very next paragraph discusses the fact that at least some of their journals have ben downgraded to Level 0 non-academic, and second, there are serious questions about the adequacy of peer review.

I'm absolutely fine with discussing it in prose in the article, but I do not think we can say that they publish "213 peer-reviewed academic journals" when we have credible evidence that at least some of them are either not academic, or not credibly peer-reviewed, or both. I would be fine saying it published 213 journals including peer-reviewed academic journals, for example, but the way this was worded implies that all their 213 journals meet the standard, even at the lower end, and actually that does not appear to be the case. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, the "very next paragraoh" is wrong. If you look at the reference you'll see that it says "peer-reviewed" and nowhere does it say "non-academic". Whether that peer review is any good is a completely different question. And if you have sources for the claim that some of those journals are not peer reviewed (as opposed to badly peer reviewed), I'd love to see those. As for "academic", that covers the content of these journals. Bad academic, perhaps, but academic none the less. --Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Huh? The closing sentence of the next paragraph is: The publisher has been downgraded to non-academic status (level 0) in the Norwegian Scientific Index from 2019.[6]. What am I missing here?

Like I say, it's a matter of saying in wiki voice that all their journals are of the class peer-reviewed-academic, when there is good reason to doubt that this is true. I'm happy to explore ways of covering this that do not imply that none of them are - I would certainly not claim there is any evidence of that - but equally we cannot say that all of them are, especially given the past history of promotional editing here - we should be very wary of using the preferred narrative of people whose reputation for honesty and transparency is poor. Guy (Help!) 14:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

What you are missing is that the source does not say this... --Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

And we have good reason to suspect that the peer review here is crappy, but not that it is absent. --Randykitty (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Randykitty here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The specific "this" being level 0 = non-academic, yes? So, that is stated in several places and actually on the face of it it looks like a mis-translation, but a pervasive one. Bear with me, I am down several rabbit holes trying to get to the bottom of that. Guy (Help!) 15:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Randykitty, love your work. Yes, that definitely works for me. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Great! Now if only I could find a satisfactory solution for the quite similar discussion at Talk:Mankind Quarterly... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The NSD rates the vast majority of MDPI journals as "1", see: https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=26778&bibsys=false&request_locale=en. If you expand the "Associated journals" list, you will see that almost all MDPI journals are ranked with a "1" and there are 11 newer journals that do not yet have a rating ("-" and not a "0"). If the NSD rating is mentioned, then it should also be made clear that the vast majority of MDPI journals are rated "1". Regards, ErskineCer (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, so they rank between "crap" and "too crap to evaluate". Thanks. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

So then what is the difference then between "0" and "1" in their rating? ErskineCer (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

For example, SpringerNature is ranked "1", see https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=26805&bibsys=false. If the vast majority of MDPI journals are also ranked "1", then how do you follow that this equals "crap"? ErskineCer (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I start by reading the sources, that say MDPI is crap, and work from there. I'm not really interested in turning this article into a PR piece. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Elsevier, for example, is also ranked "1" by NSD. You claim that "1" is "crap", as the vast majority of MDPI journals are ranked "1". It is clear that you do not understand the NSD rankings. ErskineCer (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, the publisher-level rating of 0 that was implemented four weeks ago was the first step of the process of downgrading MDPI following a years-long process of evaluating the company, and it's a pretty strong signal given that "0" really means crap since the criteria for level "1" are very basic and that a level "1" rating is given to anyone who isn't obviously predatory and who document that they adhere to academic minimum standards. Level 1 in itself doesn't necessarily mean crap; it's intended to cover the lower 80% of serious academic journals/publishers, and could mean anything from undistinguished and pretty obscure but respectable, to ok, to pretty good but not at the very top. Individual journal ratings would have to be discussed first by the expert committees for those disciplines; I expect this will happen this year. Also, once again, the ratings aren't those of "NSD". NSD, or the Norwegian Centre for Research Data, only operates the database in a technical manner on behalf of the academic community and implements the decisions of the responsible expert committees. I've not seen any respectable publisher with a "0" rating (publishers like OUP[18] and CUP[19] unsurprisingly have (always had) publisher-level "2" ratings, the top rating). --Bjerrebæk (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Statistics on spam invitations?

Do we have any sources on the number of spam invitations sent from the mdpi.com email address? I recently received an invitation from MDPI to pay 350 CHF to publish an article on something I know nothing about, but my receipt of an email doesn't count as an external source from the WP:RS point of view. (In case someone reads that too fast: MDPI wants me to pay, it's not offering to pay me.) Statistics on whether the spam rate is increasing, roughly constant, or decreasing, would be interesting - but difficult to collect, since most recipients will just ignore this sort of spam. Maybe bibliometry specialists could do a survey of scientists likely to be "victims" of MDPI spam? But the risk would be amplifying the spam-related rate... Boud (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Spam is very hard to quantify, but the first thing that popped out when googling MPDI + Spam was [20]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I made some enquiries - this particular spam seems to have been semi-agreed with real scientists, though obviously not carefully enough. And at least a few of the scientists listed on the journal web pages confirmed that they are aware of their association with the journal, and judge it to be non-predatory. The presence of a range of editors/advisory board/editorial board extending from some senior very prestigious scientists through to young active scientists could potentially convince authors to publish there. Boud (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

But scientists funded by the NCN in Poland will probably think twice about publishing in a journal that might be considered to not follow "standards of peer review": Predatory_open-access_publishing#Poland. Boud (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

NSD Rating of MDPI Journals

Information to be added or removed: There are now 130 MDPI journals rated by the NSD for 2019, 119 of which received a "1", with 11 newer/smaller journals rated "0". Several of the "0" rated journals have not even released their first issue yet. So I would still stand by the fact that the vast majority of MDPI journals are rated "1" by the NSD in 2019. It would probably make sense to remove this issue from the lead, and first cover it in a separate section (including the information that most MDPI journals are still rated "1" by the NSD). In a recent phone call, the secretariat at the NSD informed me that they will discuss MDPI's rating again in their June 2019 meeting.

Explanation of issue: The NSD data with the 2019 journal ratings can be downloaded at the link below, and to filter, it is best to apply "contains=MDPI" in the column "AI" (URL information), as the data in the column "Publishing Company" is not yet complete.

References supporting change: https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/AlltidFerskListe.action?request_locale=en

Best regards, ErskineCer (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no sentence in the article which begins with "There are now 130 MDPI journals rated by the NSD for 2019, 119 of which received a "1", with 11 newer/smaller journals rated "0" so it is unclear what is requested to be either added or deleted. Please make your request verbatim and in the form of "change x to y using z". Thnks  Spintendo  17:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Notes

I assume the proposal is to remove the rating from the lead and only mention this material e.g. at the end of the "Inclusion in Beall's list" section where it is currently mentioned. Being the one who originally added this material in December last year, I wouldn't object to that for the time being because of the lack of clarity regarding MDPI's status in the index. It has a publisher-level rating of 0, but most (although not all) of its journals have a 1 rating. This is unusual and rather inconsistent, so it seems to me that they haven't completely figured out what to do with MDPI just yet. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Controversial issues appear to dominate the article. Indeed, outside of the lead section and the Controversy section, the entire article consists of only one source — one source found in the History section of the article while 30 other sources are used to verify information covering controversial topics: ratings/data breach and/or the other resignation controversy. So if what were trying to do here is minimize the mentioning of controversy, it would seem that ship has already sailed.  Spintendo  18:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The point of discussion is the NSD rating, not other issues. Indeed, there are several sources that report positively (or neutral) about MDPI, but as soon as anyone from MDPI tries to add to WP, content is typically removed "due to CoI". For the NSD issue, if Bjerrebæk (who added the information initially) agrees, then the NSD issue should first be covered in the controversies section including a mention that most journals are rated "1".

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/09/28/interview-mdpi-lessons-learned-20-years-open-access-publishing/

https://blog.doaj.org/2018/05/15/silver-sponsor-mdpi-answers-our-questions-on-doaj-and-open-access/

https://scholarlycommunications.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2019/03/04/mdpi-supplies-full-text-articles-to-publications-router/

Also the fact that MDPI is now the largest contributor to DOAJ in terms of open access papers published monthly is not mentioned to readers -- see discussion above. As you mention the resignation of the editors from Nutrients, our response is public at https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/1389, but I guess the company's response will not be added to WP.ErskineCer (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

"Also the fact that MDPI is now the largest contributor to DOAJ in terms of open access papers published monthly is not mentioned to readers" Please stop asking for the same things over and over and over and over and over and over again, especially without an external 3rd party source that makes that claim, not just a search result in a database, which is WP:SYNTH at best. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, the reason I make the point again and again is that the WP editors here, based that on a number of sources (many which are opposed to open access, or not exactly in favour of the transition to open access), have somehow made up their minds that the "reputation" of MDPI and its journals are "crap" (as one editor referred to already on this Talk page). However, many of our journals are not just the largest in their respective fields, but also steadily increasing their Impact Factors. This data is available on DOAJ and our website, but apparently these sources are not "valid". Recently one user added that MDPI's peer-review has been questioned, referring to sources that in fact do not specifically talk about MDPI's peer-review process. If this information is added, then why is it not mentioned that MDPI's journals have some of the highest counts of verified reviews on Publons, see: https://publons.com/journal/?order_by=reviews ? Regards ErskineCer (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to note that the current WP page on MDPI - in my view - includes personal attacks on a number of individuals: Stephanie Seneff, Erik Andrulis, and Gary Wilson (specially the text about Gary Wilson appears to be carefully crafted by a person who is clearly conflicted when it comes to the subject, and aims at attacking the authors of this paper: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/6/3/17). A note to both the papers of Seneff and Andrulis was added (an "Expression of Concern"), see https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416 and https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/1. So while MDPI informs readers about the potential controversy surrounding these articles, the personal attacks on authors should be avoided on WP, in my view. Could at least the names of the authors be removed, and WP just refers to the paper and its subject? Regards ErskineCer (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

"(many which are opposed to open access, or not exactly in favour of the transition to open access)" that's a nice propaganda lie you can tell yourself, but no one here is opposed to open access publishing. We're opposed to predatory / crap / lax / garbage publishing, of which MPDI is guilty. MPDI, of course, doesn't ONLY publish garbage, since by having no standards you will accept both good and bad submissions, but you do not have a reputation for high scientific and academic standards which filters out bad/crap submissions, and this is well documented. Wikipedia is not the PR/Propaganda arm of MDPI. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I still think in the lead, the text should read: "The quality of MDPI's peer review has been disputed, despite many MDPI journals ranking highly on Publons with verified review reports" with a link to: https://publons.com/journal/?order_by=reviews. Regards, ErskineCer (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Publons only covers some journals, but by far not even a majority. Until their coverage is wider, any rankings don't mean much. --Randykitty (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

"ranking highly on Publons with verified review reports" a completely meaningless measure. All they require is a "Thank you for your report" email. It says nothing about the quality of the review. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

:-) Yes, that too, of course. --Randykitty (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Elsevier, Springer, T&F, Wiley, etc. all submit to Publons -- the platform is run by Clarivate Analytics, so it is well established now. What is not correct, is that the WP article claims MDPI's peer-review is disputed based on sources that do not actually discuss MDPI's peer review process:

1) Nothing in this source refers to MDPI and its peer review process: https://www.ashclinicalnews.org/features/predatory-publishing-dark-side-open-access-movement/

2) This article is about the rejection rate in /Nutrients/, and peer review is not discussed -- there is a clear response from MDPI's CEO in that article about setting arbitrary rejection rates for a journal: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/open-access-editors-resign-after-alleged-pressure-publish-mediocre-papers. So either the information that "MDPI's peer review is disputed" should be backed up by source that actually discuss the issue based on data, or it should be mentioned that there is a clear disconnect between claims that MDPI's peer review is disputed and the fact that the publisher has some of the highest ranking journals on Publons.ErskineCer (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Rating Changed by NSD of MDPI

Information to be added or removed: We were notified that the rating of MDPI was erroneous and has been corrected back to "1" by the NSD.

Explanation of issue: There were previous discussions on this Talk page about the 2019 rating of "0", which lead to the information being added to the lead. As the rating was corrected, it makes sense to remove the information about the rating from the lead.

References supporting change: https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=26778&bibsys=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErskineCer (talk • contribs) 11:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Request is invalid, the text already states that MDPI rated a level 1. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Reply 1-APR-2019

  Specification requested  

• It is not known what changes are requested to be made because a verbatim description of the text has not been included. Please state your desired changes in the form of "Change x to y using z".

Change x to y using z

x A verbatim description of the old text to be removed from the article (if any) y A verbatim description of the new text to be added to the article (if any) z A reference which verifies the requested change Example edit request: Please change: The Sun's diameter is 25 miles.  ↑This is x↑  to read as: The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles.  ↑This is y↑  using as a reference: Harinath, Paramjit (2018). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1.  ↑This is z↑

Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed. Please remember to sign all posts.
Regards,  Spintendo  13:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Downgrading to "non-academic status (level 0)"

Information to be added or removed: Reverse recent edits by user Bjerrebæk with regards to the alleged downgrading to "non-academic status" in the Norwegian Science Index.

Explanation of the issue: The only indication for this is a "0" on the following webpage next to the year 2019: https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=26778&bibsys=false. However, I did not find any other publisher yet with a 2019 rating on the NSD website, so this is most likely an error in the database / webform (see for example the ratings of Karger and SpringerNature by the NSD via the links below). There is also no announcement or further information by the NSD with regards to this change on their website. To conclude that MDPI has a “non-academic status” is very far-fetched and would require more information / sources. There are services such as Publons that now provide additional transparency and information in terms of the peer review process of individual journals/publishers, see: https://publons.com/journal/?order_by=reviews

References supporting change: There is no "2019" field available for other publishers, for example see SpringerNature (https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=26805&bibsys=false) or Karger (https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=18410&bibsys=false). The “0” next to the 2019 on NSD page about MDPI is likely an error and further sources would be required to confirm that MDPI is rated "non-academic" (https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=26778&bibsys=false). Regards, ErskineCer (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done The material could be better presented (ideally wih some secondary commentary) but I can see that the site does indded categorize MDPI as "Level 0" for 2019. The claim that this is "likely an error" seems pretty desperate. Alexbrn (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no error on the website. As the website plainly shows, MDPI is rated as "Level 0" from 2019 onwards. The claim that there is no "other publisher yet with a 2019 rating on the NSD website" is wrong; this is the entry of Cambridge University Press with a "2" (highest) rating. And here is Oxford University Press. It seems to be the case that next year's ratings have not been published all at once, but I found ratings for all publishers I looked for specifically, and the ratings have mostly been published at least a few weeks in advance in previous years. As with all such decisions, the decision to rate MDPI as "0" from 2019 has been made by the National Publication Committee, a government-appointed body (more here) following a thorough review of MDPI, after the committee had received numerous reports of concern regarding MDPI from academics, based on the publisher's inclusion in Beall's list and its dubious reputation in general. The review of MDPI actually took place two years ago and the minutes from the committee's meetings, which mentioned Beall's list, were made public, but they appear to no longer be available on the Internet. All changes in ratings take effect with a two-year delay.

The Norwegian Scientific Index is published by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD) on behalf of the Royal Ministry of Education and Research (which also owns NSD), and is the world's most comprehensive index of academic journals and publishers. It is now emulated by other countries and is a sister project of the European project ERIH PLUS, which is also maintained by NSD. It rates journals and publishers as 0, 1 and 2. Level 0 means that the journal or publisher does not meet basic scientific/scholarly quality standards, including peer review of sufficient quality, and more particularly that publications don't count in the academic career system or public funding of research institutions. Predatory publishers are also routinely excluded. Level 1 status is given to any journal or publisher considered to meet basic academic standards (and following the recent interest in predatory publishing, to be "non-predatory"), which is thus pretty non-selective, as it only implies that the journal or publisher is regarded as a real/serious academic publication channel. Level 2 is a selective status given to the top journals and publishers following recommendations by specialist committees in the relevant disciplines. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 08:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

We called the NSD and they confirmed that there is no error on their website and the rating was recently changed for 2019. So the edit to the WP article from user Bjerrebaek with regards to the rating is correct (apologies for assuming it was incorrect). We have asked that the committee re-assesses MDPI in January based on a broader set of data and the quality of the published content. Bjerrebaek mentions the change may have been a result of Beall's comments. However, if a government funded institution makes decisions based on the opinions of a single person who is not a citizen of that country and who is critical of open access in general, then this would be very troubling. What is already troubling is that edits made to the WP page about MDPI appear to be almost exclusively negative. It is quite peculiar that open access publishers do not find more support on WP, as the reusability and openness of scientific content bring advantages that - I thought - would be supported by WP editors. Regards ErskineCer (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Greatest misconception about Wikipedia: We aren’t democratic. Our readers edit the entries, but we’re actually quite snobby. The core community appreciates when someone is knowledgeable, and thinks some people are idiots and shouldn’t be writing.

Quoted from [21]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

NSD themselves don't make decisions about ratings, the decisions are made by the National Publication Committee, an independent body of academics. If MDPI's most recent complaint leads to a change in rating again, the article should of course reflect that if and when it happens, but considering that it took some five years from people started complaining to the committee about MDPI (in 2014 when Beall drew attention to the company) until the publisher had it its rating changed to "0" (and for the change to take effect), I suspect the rating isn't likely to be changed again anytime soon. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Just for your info: The NSD 0-ing of MDPI was a mistake, they only really assign meaningful "grades" to book publishers. MDPI now is back to 1. The publication committee will evaluate MDPI in their June meeting, I believe. (Info from a telephone conversation with the secretary of the publication commitee.) Janeriks (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia works with WP:VERifiable WP:SOURCES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)