Talk:Nova Science Publishers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Academic Journals (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.
WikiProject New York City  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2015[edit]

Nova Science Publishers in bibliometrical rankings[edit]

In the published international literature on the subject, there are several comparisons where authors rank Nova’s standing in comparison to other publishing companies. The Dutch science consortium SENSE Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). used five categories to classify the standing of publishing companies, ranging from A: Refereed book publications published by the world top of publishers; B: Refereed book publications published by the world’s semi-top of publishers; C: Refereed book publications published by other publishers, D: non-refereed book publications published for an academic public (professional publications) and E: mainly published for a non-academic (general) public, and classifies Nova Science in their C-category, which they call in their report (page 2) as “C-publishers (decent international publishers and excellent national publishers)”. [1]

Their report for the period 2011 [2] reiterates Nova’s classification as a C-publisher.

The Bibliometric Indicators for Publishers team from the University of Granada in Spain [3] evaluates the standing of book publishers on the basis of the Thomson-Reuters book citation index data, which are evaluated systematically by the team for a number of years now. Their work [4] mentions Nova Science among the top 3 international publishers in several fields. One of the team’s most recent research papers, again based on a systematic evaluation of the Thomson-Reuters [5] compares in their Table 7.20 the most productive publishers according to both document types (books and book chapters) in the Book Citation Index for the time period 2009-2013. The result is that Nova Science is ranked below the leaders Springer, Palgrave Macmillan, Routledge, Cambridge University Press and Elsevier as number six, ahead of many other well-known global book publishing companies. Nova’s average citation rate in the index is 0.25, shortly below Palgrave Macmillan (0.30), but on an equal footing with Wiley-Blackwell and several other of the major twenty global book publishing companies. The Granada team also makes available regular updates on their findings, freely available on the Internet, at their website:

In an evaluation of twenty-one international social-science book publishers that attempted to determine the market penetration of publishers on international markets and the mentioning of their books in international science index systems such as Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, Nova Science Publishers ranked 17th out of 21 publishers.[6]


Library professionals have warned that Nova's books "do not go through a standard academic peer review process despite their academic focus."[7] Nova has also been criticized for republishing old public domain book chapters and freely-accessible government reports, while providing insufficient indication of the nature of the content, making them seem as though they are new standalone journal articles or monographs.[7][8]

Librarian Jeffrey Beall, maintainer of Beall's list of Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers[9] has written that Nova Science Publishers is "not a predatory publisher, but it is a bottom-tier one".[10]


  1. ^ The quality of the research school is monitored with regular peer reviews and (re-)accreditation by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), in accordance with the Standard Evaluation Protocol for Dutch universities. SENSE was accredited by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) for the period 1997–2001, and was re-accredited in 2002, 2008 and 2014
  2. ^ and
  3. ^
  4. ^ Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-García, N., Campanario, J.M. & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2013). Coverage, specialization and impact of scientific publishers in the Book Citation Index. Online Information Review, 38(1), available at
  5. ^ Robinson Garcia, Nicolas (2014) Bibliometric Indicators for Publishers: Data processing, indicators and interpretation
  6. ^ Tausch, Arno (2011). "On the Global Impact of Selected Social-Policy Publishers in More Than 100 Countries". Journal of Scholarly Publishing 42 (4): 476. doi:10.3138/jsp.42.4.476. 
  7. ^ a b Phillips, Lara (17 September 2013). "A list of Print-on-demand publishers and self-publishing "Vanity presses" for librarians and faculty". University of the South Pacific. Retrieved 2013-11-17. 
  8. ^ Bade, David W. (24 September 2007). "The Content of Journals Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.". Stanford University Libraries. Retrieved 2013-11-17. 
  9. ^ Beall, Jeefrey. "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers". Retrieved 27 May 2015. 
  10. ^ Beall, Jeffrey. "Watch Out for Publishers with “Nova” in Their Name". Retrieved 27 May 2015. 

Al Andaluz Toledano (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 05:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this now correct?[edit]

I enter here this answer sign, can I then edit the page?

|ans=Al Andaluz Toledano (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The proposed changes were already formatted, and now they are a chaos. The entire second half of the article must be changed I feel as I proposed, to make it compatible with latest results in bibliometry achieved by the University of Granada in Spain.
Also, the SENSE results from the SENSE consortium in the Netherlands are presented in a very biased way. Sense says that Nova are a decent publishers, not that they are in a lowest category. We in Wikipedia must keep our standards and put back emotions. If someone does not like the company, why not write an article in a major peer-reviewed journal of Library science, bibliometry or what have you? But such articles don't exist. What has happened though is that passionate Nova critics say things for which there is no evidence in either PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS or in the INTERNATIONAL QUALITY PRESS. Quoting from the social media is not enough.
I left though the last part of the article as it is; althoug I fundamentally disagree with the formulations in the light of the mentioned evidence, I think there would be an edit earthquake if I were to change it. Inshallah.Al Andaluz Toledano (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

requested opinion[edit]

Al Andaluz Toledano asked me for my opinion.

Analyzing the article by Garcia, she showed that Nova was the 4th largest in terms of books published, & 5th in terms of book chapters published; for some reason she combined the two into a figure for books+book chapters, which makes no sense to me, and the result is 5th.
In terms of raw numbers of citation to the items, she counted 14th out of 20th for the books, 2nd for the chapters, and 10th for the irrational (books+chapters). The much more important figure is citations/item, and Nova is lowest of the 20 for books, next to lowest for chapters, and 16th for the combination. The standard deviation is in all cases low, showing that few books deviate much from the average.
She then finds the only field where Nova is significant even in numbers of books is the social sciences. Citation figures do not necessarily show importance for books as a whole from a publisher any more than do they for journals, but they are a rough guide. The detailed figures for citations/book for individual fields are not in this paper; they are likely to e important because the social sciences on the average have a lower citation density than the sciences.
Taking this into account in the interpretation, the paper shows what I have always personally thought, that Nova is a very low quality book publisher in the sciences, and a fairly low quality publisher in the social sciences. Impressionistically, having looked at many social science titles in various fields over many years, though not as a specialist, I would say they mainly publish adequate (or at least moderately adequate) but unexciting work that a better publisher would not bother with. They are useful when they're the only book on a subject. My colleagues who look only at the sciences conclude it's poor quality overall, while I would say it is a little better than that in the social sciences, perhaps low-to-medium.
The number of books, which is the figure Al Andaluz Toledano is using, is not a sensible indicator, but merely the first step in deriving useful indicators. Largest does not mean best. In the academic world, large does not even mean good. Academic studies rely on quality, not quantity. The Garcia study can not validly be interpreted in the manner suggested--to do so would be mis-using a partial result. Just as qualitative studies can be misinterpreted by cherry-picking quotations, quantitative studies can be misinterpreted by focussing on a number used in the calculations but which is not significant.
My understanding of the C category in SENSE is that a "decent national publisher" means a publisher only valuable for those in need of information on a locally important topic. Good science is international, though some topics will inherently be of only more local interest. The results of the two studies are compatible.
Overall, the WP article is in my opinion correct in its evaluation, though it would be possible to be a little more precise. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

average citation rankings[edit]

I think DGG has come with a more balanced and sensible approach to this passionately debated matter than many other contributions on this talk page. Taking the latest Granada study - available on Researchgate in a pre-publication version, Nicolas Robinson Garcia lists hundreds of Thomson Reuters Book Citation data, and also the average citation rates a book publisher achieves. I quote his contribution in my proposal. If you put his data in an afternoon's work into an EXCEL table and rank the publishers - or at least the 150 most prolific ones - via the EXCEL programme, it comes out that

World Health Organization

Anderson Publishing

Geological Society UK

Catena Verlag

Kluwer Academic Publishers

Princeton University Press

American Fisheries Society

University of Alberta

Royal Society of Chemistry

American Geophysical Union


are the companies with the highest average citation rate. The publishers with an average citation rate of 0,20 to 0,30 are:


Channel View Publications

Policy Press (University of Bristol)

Fordham University Press

Ios Press

NSTA Press -National Science

American Institute of Aeronautics

Trans Tech Publications

University of Chicago Press

Northeastern University Press

Nova Science Publishers



Utah State University Press


Information Age Publishing

University of Washington Press

Central European University Press

University of New Hampshire Press

Palgrave Macmillan

William Andrew

Wilfrid Laurier University Press

Baywood Publishing

Edward Elgar

Nova's average citation rate (the indicator best resembling the Impact Factor of scholarly journals) is 0.25; it exactly shares this with Wiley-Blackwell; Chandos; Utah State University Press; InTech. A very famous publisher, like Palgrave Macmillan, achieves 0,29; while Nova's average citation rate is ahead of publishers like University of Chicago Press, Fordham University Press, et cetera. Your contribution, dear DGG, could lead to a more balanced debate here on the pages of Wikipedia talk. Thank you.Al Andaluz Toledano (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you for you continual discussion in this matter Al Andaluz Toledano. However, the edit semi-protected request is now moot since you should be autoconfirmed and you should be able to edit the article yourself. Therefore, I am changing the request to answered. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

C-Publisher once again[edit]

A kind and final remark on user's DGG comments on my earlier posting. No, sorry, SENSE does NOT talk about decent national publishers, they clearly state the C-category as "C-publishers (decent international publishers and excellent national publishers) – 1 credit per book chapter". A publication for an A-publisher receives 4 credits et cetera. You might still argue that the Dutch colleague place four times a higher value on a publication with say, Yale University Press than with Nova, but it is simply misinterpreting their classification as saying that this is something "lowest", or that people who publish with a C company do this because they couldn't place the article or book somewhere else. Looking at the C-Publisher category in their ranking, one finds such names as Amsterdam University Press; Arizona University Press; Berg Publishers; Charles Scribner's Sons; Civilizacao Brasileira; Dar es Salaam University Press; Dutch University Press; Edinburgh University Press; Flacso; Garland Publishers Inc.; Greenwood Press, London; Indiana University Press; L'Harmattan; Leiden University Press; Leske & Budrich; Lexington Books; Lit Verlag; Marcel Dekker; NIAS Press; Nijmegen University Press; Norton Publishing; Ohio State University Press; Peter Lang; Presse de l'Université de Quebec; Roskilde University Press; Rozenberg Publishers Amsterdam; Siglo XXI Editores; Stockholm University Press; Suhrkamp Verlag; Transaction Publishers; University of Cape town Press, SA; University of Copenhagen Press; University of Massachusets Press; University of Ottawa Press; University of Washington Press; Wageningen Academic Publishers; Zed Books. Would your arguments mean that Wikipedia would now have to state in each case that SENSE considers them as " it is the lowest rating possible among the "refereed book publications" ranking"? Many people on the "talk page" of the Nova Science publishers article might not like the verdict reached by SENSE - which is after all a consortium of outstanding environmental research groups from eleven Dutch universities and institutes. SENSE was formally accredited by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) for the period 1997–2001 and was subsequently re-accredited in 2002 and 2008 and ever since. Wikipedia always has followed a policy of credible sources; if there is a published criticism of the company in a leading scholarly journal or in the international media, of course we should and must mention it of course. Regards Al Andaluz Toledano (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems correct to apply a consistent wording in the page about these other publishers too. fgnievinski (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Al Andaluz Toledano and DGG: This is in response to a post on my talk page regarding this discussion. My changing the edit semi-protected request to answered was not an endorsement of your side. It was an acknowledgment of the fact that you are now autoconfirmed and can edit the page yourself. Editing on behalf of another person (as with the edit semi-protected requests) should only be done when the person cannot edit the page themselves. Once they gain permission to do so the request is closed as a matter of procedure. This matter is now a content dispute and should continue to be discussed between involved editors. As such, I have notified DGG of this continuing conversation. --Stabila711 (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
You are right--I had somewhat misremembered the purpose of SENSE. Looking at the documentation at, it's even less relevant than I thought. It is not a general rating scheme for publications, but a rating scheme for publications to the extent relevant to the Dutch Research School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment-- that is, in one particular (but fairly wide) subject area. The latest (but 5-year old) list online at says "For book publishers there is no internationally accepted system of ranking. Therefore, the SENSE Research School has developed and approved its own ranking of scientific book publishers" (the list, furthermore, is based upon the list from the Wageningen School of Social Sciences--and will therefore have very heavy social sciences orientation; it will certainly ignore the humanities, and have a considerable deemphasis on most central parts of the physical and medical sciences.) This explains some remarkable omissions: the most important book publisher for molecular biology (Coid Spring Harbor Press) and for psychology (American Psychological Association) are not included.
This explains the seemingly very confused listing of publishers in the different categories--it bears only a partial connection to their overall quality. Indeed, a list of publishers lumped together as "C" clearly indicates the uselessness of the rating scheme in general. Using those I'm familiar with to show the diversity: Scribner is a famous literary and general publisher of the highest quality, not primarily an academic publisher ; L'Harmittan is a high quality general publisher whose academic works a a minor part of the business; Edinburgh is very good but quite specialized is some niches traditional to Scottish universities; Transaction is quite left-wing for a US publisher, & what one thinks of their books depends on one;s politics; Peter Lang specializes in academic European work on old-fashined topics; Dekker is third rate by any standard, though with one or two good journals; Greenwood is 4th rate throughout. There is no point trying to have a combined category for excellent non-academic publishers with an academic sideline; very good local publishers, & mediocre international ones. The rating category does make a little more sense in the field covered: not much of Scribners of L'Harmittan or Edinburgh will be relevant; Transaction is very specialized; Lang is mostly non-relevant.
Now, as it happens there is a good published explanation of the Dutch system in a column from Chronicle of Higher Education, most accessible as a separate blog: The Dutch Academic Job Market for Americans and Other English Speakers " Outside the big names (Harvard, Yale, Stanford), American university presses are not as well-known, and not necessarily as desirable as, for instance, placing a volume with one of the Dutch academic presses (Amsterdam University Press, Brill) or with Routledge, Palgrave, or Praeger."
The clearest summary remains: Nova ranks is mediocre at best; the very low citation figure for its works shows the mediocrity. There are many cases at WP where the situation is ambiguous and I could construct an argument in either direction. This is not one of them.
In any case, I consider such rating schemes as close to nonsense, except for special purposes. Their basic intent is to serve a bureaucracy that needs to award positions and grants without the capability of desire for actual evaluation. The intention may be good: to try to make for objectivity, by avoiding the subjectivity of personal and academic networking and assumed reputation. But research quality must be evaluated by the use of intelligence. (In this respect, the situation is like our own practice at WP for Reliable Sources, while there are some deceptively simple summaries, each source needs to be evaluated on its own individual merits in the particular situation)
I'll be glad to continue to discuss publishers, but this publish has already had more all the attention than the matter justifies. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Not accepting revisions by user headbomb[edit]

The revisions quoted extensively from evidence in established peer reviewed journals.

If you find better evidence, produce it. To talk about a conflict of interests here is ridiculous. Read the Granada studies and visit their website. Wilipedia authorities should decide on the matter. Al andaluz toledano from i phoneAl Andaluz Toledano (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This article has a history of misbehavior by editors with conflicts of interest. You appeared only 2 weeks after the last sock puppetry episode; I mention this to give you an idea of why there may be some skepticism about motives. Vrac (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I should answer that - reading carefully enough my proposal - I say in all clarity "The result ranked Nova among the top global book publishing companies according to their output (rank 6 out of 100), and a lower medium average citation rate (0.25; rank 58 out of 100)." I think this sentence summarizes both sides of the heated arguments here on this page in a civilized, polite and acceptable manner, supported by solid peer-reviewed and published evidence. Emotions alone are certainly not sufficient to write a good Wikipedia article, and remember as well that my proposal also integrated the earlier criticism section on a 1:1 basis, without any changes. I am sorry to contradict Wikipedia editor DGG in a friendly way in an important minor detail: SENSE talks about "decent INTERNATIONAL" publishers. Whether we like it or not, the SENSE Consortium has a right to be represented here with what they say on a 1:1 basis as well. Sense, after all, IS a major consortium of very respected Dutch scholarship, and what they say has ALSO a weight. One cannot overrule their judgement by simply misrepresenting it. Decent is not lowest. Al Andaluz Toledano (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Reputation,D-Publisher WASS-SENSE ranking[edit]

The Wiki article doesn't give a good representation of Nova Science Publishers. The much about how bad there representation is and not about the good things about Nova Science Publishers. While Nova Science Publishers misbehaved writing the wiki article, they shouldn't be punished with an overly negative page. Nova Science Publishers may not always publish quality scientific books but Nova Science Publishers also has some positives. Below I discuss some addition to the page to make it less negative about "Nova Science Publishers" and give the page a better perspective of Nova Science Publishers.

Special Types of Books While there isn't much information about what other types of book they publish. Nova Science Publishers publishes some unique books compared to high-ranked scientific publishers. As an example: the book Algebra for Athletes 2nd Edition might not be a scientific book, it might be interesting for athletes.

I think there should be more emphasis on the type of books they publish. Nova Science Publishers gives an opportunity for publishing special types of books that cannot be published at renowned scientific publishers. The description "academic publisher of books, encyclopedias, handbooks, e-books and journals" of Nova Science Publishers by Nova Science Publishers is therefore not complete. It might be valuable to add a extra description. The best description I can think off is: "Science based books", "non-academic learning books", "professional publications"[1]. Hopefully people can give a better description. There is one problem however there isn't a source that they publish these "types" of books. except for "professional publication". Hopefully Nova Science Publishers can confirm they publish these types of books.

Conclusion The emphasis of the article is too much about the reputation of Nova Science Publishers and not about the interesting and sometimes unusual type of books that can't be published at renowed sciencetific publishers. I think the article should also be more about the types of books they publish.

D-publisher not C-publisher There has been a lot of discussion about the C-publisher status on the talk page. According to the 2011 WASS-SENSE book publisher ranking list, the book publisher Nova Science Publishers is considered a a D-publisher [2] . D-publsher. "D-publishers (professional publications published by major international organisations and good national publishers) – no SENSE publication credits" That isn't particularly good but also not extremely bad. The addition of D-publisher to the wiki article might therefore give a more realistic and more comprehensive view about the scientific quality of the books. This is also important to make the page more balanced between negative and positive.

Authors The article is very negative about the reputation of the Nova Science Publishers. Not all the books they publish are written by pseudo-scientists and non-scientist. Some are indeed written by real scientists. The book "24 Hour Heart Rate Variability Analysis (HRV) in Childhood: Prognostic Significance, Risk Factors and Clinical Applications" is written by Reiner Buchhorn. Reiner Buchhorn has many cited publication about this subject. Unless Nova Science Publishing used some dirty trick so they can add his name to the book.

It should be noted on the page that while Nova Science Publishers doesn't have a great reputation that some books are published by reputable scientist. This addition makes the page less negative and give a better perspecive on Nova Science Publishers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonnom (talkcontribs) 20:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)