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.
 
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.
WikiProject New York City (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Companies (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Ranking[edit]

the article is better written, but this parapgraph is not correct

In a 2011 report of twenty-one international social-science book publishers that determined penetration on international markets and mention of books in international science index systems such as Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, Nova Science Publishers ranked 17th out of 21.[7]

Reviewing the original source I found the following, This paper lists the 20 top publishers and its penetration in the global Market. In this list, not only Nova is possitioned jointly to Routledge (16 position) but also above of other well reputed publishers as Palgrave. To be included in this list is a great achievement while the article of Wikipedia points to Nova as a lowest ranked publisher This is not true. Read the original paper!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.230.75.4 (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I think you need to re-check yourself. Table 5 lists 21 publishers (not 20) and only 4 of them have a lower score than Nova on the "final non-parametric index", which ranks them 17th out of 21. This is what the source says, so this is what we report. Nowhere is it mentioned that being included already is a "great achievement", nor all the other things that you say. Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Last paragraph of article is not based on a reliable source but rather opinion[edit]

"Nova has been criticized for not always evaluating authors through the academic peer review process[8] and for republishing, at high prices, old public domain book chapters and freely-accessible government reports as if they were new.[8][9] These criticisms prompted librarian Jeffrey Beall to write that in his opinion Nova Science Publishers was at the "bottom-tier" of publishers.[10]"

Source #8 is based on a PDF which is not a reliable source, anyone can type up a PDF. Jeffry Beall's comments (#10) are based on that PDF which makes his comments mere opinion and not fact. I kindly ask that someone review this and remove these opinions since Wikipedia is based on factual information. Thank youPrplns (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Reviewed, and that PDF is fine and acceptable. Sources are not dismissed because they are available in a particular format. And the opinions of Jeffrey Beall are more than fine per WP:SPS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not see how Jeffrey Bealle is an established expert. His degrees are in Spanish and Library Science, he is not involved in the field of publishing. He is outspoken with his opinion regarding publishers, but being outspoken does not make him an expert. He has never been associated with Nova Science Publishers and has no firsthand knowledge of their practices. To call them "Bottom Tier" by mere opinion is defamation. I kindly ask that you reconsider allowing the term "Bottom Tier" to be used for an established and respected publisher. Thank you.Prplns (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Someone with a degree in Library Science isn't an expert on publishing?? C'mon, be serious... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
And published both in specialist journals on library science and prestigious general journals like Nature. Yep, can't be a respected expert... Please don't waste our time here. --Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
...and since quite a lot of the bibliometric literature is published in Spanish, his degree in Spanish would appear to make him even more aptly qualified to expound on this subject! Famousdog (c) 15:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Some proposed changes, additional sections[edit]

Notable authors
Awards

“Food and Brain Health” The 2015 Gourmand World Cookbook Awards has honored Food and Brain Health as the 3rd best in the world under the category D09- Nutrition and Institutions.[5]Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

“Tropical Fruits – From Cultivation to Consumption and Health Benefits: Guava and Mango,”[6] “Red Wine Consumption and Health” nominated for The 2016 Gourmand World Cookbook Awards. Category: Best Drinks and Health Book. Winners to be announced May 28, 2017.[7] “Psychology of Trust” The IEA Richard M. Wolf Memorial Award, 2012, Kerry J. Kennedy, Magdalena Mo Ching Mok, and Michael Ying Wah Wong (Ed. by B.R. Curtis, 2011, New York: Nova Science Publishers[8]

BULGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, the 2013 Academician Emil Djakov Annual Award, Prof. Dr. Sc. Savcho Tinchev, "Ion modified high-Tc-Josephson junctions and SQUIDs", Published in Superconductivity: Theory, Materials and Applications 2012 (Nova Science Publishers Inc)[9]

President of the Publishing House “Nova Science Publishers” (USA), Ms. Nadya Gotsiridze-Columbus was conferred an Honorary Degree of Doctor Honoris Causa of the Georgian Technical University in recognition of her contribution to the international popularization of scientific-technological achievements of Georgian Technical University and long-term and productive Cooperation.[10]

Notable books

“Mathematics And Mathematical Logic: New Research,” featured in, “The Best Writing on Mathematics 2011.”[11]

“Logic of Analog and Digital Machines,” featured in, “The Best Writing on Mathematics 2011.”[12]

“Essentials of Chronic Kidney Disease.” It is a book for nephrologists taking care of patients with chronic kidney disease.[13]As reviewed by Tom F. Parker. Dr. Parker’s credentials may be found here:[14]

  1. ^ https://www.womenofthehall.org/book/barbara-bennett-peterson/
  2. ^ http://www.houstonkidneyassociates.com/stephen-z-fadem-m-d-facp-fasn/
  3. ^ http://med.wmich.edu/faculty/donald-e-greydanus-md-faap-fsam-fiap-dr-hc-athens
  4. ^ http://www.internetandpsychiatry.com/joomla/distinguished-guests/674-joav-merrick-md-mmedsci-dmsc.html
  5. ^ http://www.cookbookfair.com/index.php/gourmand-awards/winners-2015-gg/gourmand-world-cookbook-awards-2015-cookbooks/book/14?page=1
  6. ^ Your book “Tropical Fruits” Congratulations! The Gourmand Awards jury is delighted to announce that Tropical Fruits is the national winner in its category: FRUITS. The awards events will be May 28, 2017 in Yantai, China. Edouard Cointreau, President of the Jury - Gourmand World Cookbook Awards
  7. ^ “Congratulations! The Gourmand Awards jury is delighted to announce that Red Wine Consumption and Health is the national winner in its category: Best Drinks and Health Book. The book is concise, clear and easy to understand. It is extremely useful for all those interested in real information about wine and health - Edouard Cointreau, President of the Jury - Gourmand World Cookbook Awards. Your book will now compete in its category against winners from other countries for the Best in the World. The results will be announced on May 27 & 28, 2017 at the annual Gourmand Awards Ceremony. All winners around the world are contacted individually. This letter is your official announcement. The results for all countries will be available on our website in the coming weeks.”
  8. ^ http://www.iea.nl/iea-richard-m-wolf-memorial-award
  9. ^ http://www.ie-bas.dir.bg/Awards.htm
  10. ^ http://gtu.ge/Eng/News/?ELEMENT_ID=5055
  11. ^ http://www.maa.org/press/maa-reviews/the-best-writing-on-mathematics-2011
  12. ^ http://www.maa.org/press/maa-reviews/the-best-writing-on-mathematics-2011
  13. ^ https://www.novapublishers.com/web/web_files/Reviews/Book%20Review%20-%20Essentials%20of%20Chronic%20Kidney%20Disease%20(Parker).pdf
  14. ^ http://www.nephrologynews.com/tom-parker-md-to-retire-from-renal-ventures/

Prplns (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. This area is outside my field of experience, however, you should review WP:NOTDIR. Unless really notable, generic lists are not welcome. You may wish to integrate the most notable awards into the history section (which has yet to be created?). Oh, and some of the references are really off (especially the 2 letters that you have posted as notes). I also looked over an article for another publisher, and it doesn't seem to contain stuff like notable writers. Request declined. Regards, VB00 (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi, let me add some comments to the rather succinct message above. Most of what you have listed above looks like stuff that would look great on Nova's own website. However, WP is not the place for that. We don't add lists of notable authors, unless there are reliable sources independent of the publisher that document the importance of a particular author for the publisher. (After all, the article is about the publisher, not the author). The same goes for "notable books". If you have good sources that discuss the importance of one of those books for the publisher, then that can be included. Reviews and such posted on a publisher's website are never acceptable sources, because they are inherently biased (no publisher is ever going to publish a review on their website concluding that some book was "the worst I've ever seen"... :-). As for the awards, those Gourmand World Cookbook Awards strike me as decidedly mediocre. I had a look at that article and I am not even sure that this meets our inclusion criteria. There's more to be said (please also read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), but I'll leave it at this. So in the end, I come to the same conclusion as VB00: those additions do not seem to be encyclopedic and are more promotional than is desirable for an encyclopedia. Let me add two remarks. First, I appreciate your disclosure of a COI. Too many people here edit with undeclared COIs and it makes it very difficult to keep articles neutral and balanced. Second, I do not envy you your job. As you can see from the discussions on this page, there have been many attempts to make this article on your employer more positive. All have failed. The problem is that once something is sourced to a reliable source, it is very difficult to remove it. To make the article more positive, what you need is not mediocre awards for cookbooks (not even the main interest of Nova, as far as I can see), but serious coverage of the company in reliable sources that tells the reader good things about Nova. The older, critical, stuff would still remain, but would be "neutralized" by the more recent praise. Unfortunately, what I see from Nova, it will be a while before such praise will be forthcoming... Hope I didn't discourage you too much. --Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Hi, Not discouraged at all. When criticism is constructive it is always welcome. I am finding the whole editing process on Wikipedia to be fascinating and look forward to learning more and editing other articles. However, this is my challenge at hand so I do have one question if you would be so kind as to answer? VBOO stated that general lists are not welcome. On Harper Collins' page their Notable Books section is a list. On Leafwood Publishers, their Notable Authors is the same exact format as I listed above. On Austin Macauley Publishers page they do not even have a Notable Books section. It just states "Published Books" and has a list. Viking Press also, is just a list of Notable Authors. So with all due respect, it begs me to ask the question, do those pages need to be edited to remove all of their content or was my request unfairly reviewed? When I submitted my request I received a message that there was a backlog of 150 requests ahead of me yet within hours I had been denied every section and word submitted. Clearly you're very interested in this page. So if you truly want to offer constructive criticism and believe me when I say I am open to it, kindly explain why their lists are acceptable and mine are not. This will only help me to grow as a member of this community so I may carry this knowledge forward to other articles.Prplns (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
the problem with the list is that the authors are mostly not notable. As a first step -- no blue link, no notability... I'd also say that you are headed right where you were going when you first started. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, So then the links that are in fact blue on my list do count as notable and therefore some of them can be added?Prplns (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Possibly. But it's better if they are notable for the books they have had published by Nova. That seems like more of a stretch. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I have a better understanding now, thank you. It still feels as though I was unfairly denied everything submitted when Austin Macauley doesn't even have a Notable Books section, just a list of Published Books. If you are stating that there is a possibility that that some of my blue linked books could be used then I'm wondering if a closer look needs to be taken at what I am trying to have added. Not everything may be accepted but does that mean everything has to be denied flat across the board? I also feel that the Gourmand World Cookbook awards are not mediocre and that statement was a matter of personal opinion. Past winners include Chef Mario Batali and Chef Marcus Samuelsson. That being said, I do appreciate your time and guidance, thank you.Prplns (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Prplns: Just thought that I'd comment on a section of your concerns above ("When I submitted my request, I received a message that there was a backlog of 150 requests ahead of me, yet within hours I had been denied every section and word submitted. Clearly you're very interested in this page."). The backlog message actually seems to be broken, if you go to Template:Request_edit/Instructions, you'll see that there are only 60 requests. It is backlogged, but not in the sense that nobody has seen them - it's just that some of the requests are much harder to review and implement, and, with Wikipedia being voluntary-based, nobody is willing to spend hours verifying info and looking at the various WP policies that might come into play. So, all the requests have been looked at, nobody just felt confident enough to implement/deny some edits. Now, you might not believe me, but I've never heard of Nova Science Publishers (nor any other publishers that you've listed above) before. Regards, VB00 (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@VB00: Thank you, I appreciate the explanation. If you have heard of Nova and the other publishing houses or not though, there is still the point that they have lists on their Wikipedia pages. One of them is merely books published, not even notable. You can go to their pages and see this for yourself. So my original question to Randykitty still remains unanswered. Do those pages need to be edited to remove all of their content or was my request unfairly reviewed? Not everything may be accepted but does that mean everything has to be denied flat across the board? You may not find the fact the certain books were nominated for awards to be given out later this year as acceptable but the fact remains that one of them did win last year. And as I have also stated, with past winners including Chef Mario Batali and Chef Marcus Samuelsson, “mediocre” is a matter of personal opinion and I beg to differ on that point. I do have some authors with blue links. I am not trying to make more work for the good editors of Wikipedia. If you would like me to filter out what you have deemed unacceptable and resubmit I will gladly do that if you kindly advise to do so. Thank you.Prplns (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Those articles need to be edited. With the millions of articles that we have, it is unavoidable that not all are up to par. Have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (aka WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS...). And my judgment of "mediocre" for those awards is based upon the lack of good sources about them. --Randykitty (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Last line of article has no reference[edit]

As a COI editor, I would like to request that the last line of the article be removed,"These criticisms prompted librarian Jeffrey Beall to write that in his opinion Nova Science Publishers was at the "bottom-tier" of publishers."[10] as there is no reference for this statement when you click on the link, "Watch Out for Publishers with "Nova" in Their Name" because it has been removed. Thank youPrplns (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Archive url is now provided. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Requesting to have information added regarding donation to Books2Africa[edit]

"Nova Science Publishers donated 92 pallets of books to Books2Africa in December of 2016. This donation of over 92,000 books was distributed to institutions in Africa especially those in developing regions and communities."[1] Prplns (talk)

  1. ^ [1]
Prplns, I have declined this request. The proposed edit is simply promotional. Books2Africa is a very small charity. The reference is simply a press release, and there is no independent coverage of this event which makes it worthy of inclusion. This is material appropriate for the publisher's website, not here. Voceditenore (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I was told above my request should be well sourced and a positive statement. Clearly what one editor considers positive another considers promotional. While I have read the Wiki Essays on "what's good for one page isn't good for another," I am still astounded at what is acceptable on the other publishing house pages and this one is under such scrutiny. Thank you for your time and consideration. Prplns (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The statement was sourced to a press release which is not independent of Nova Science or the small charity that was the recipient of the books. Not one independent published source has taken notice of this donation. Not every "positive" statement merits inclusion. This is an encyclopedia, not a PR outlet. We publish what reliable independent sources have written about the subject, not what the subject has written about themselves. Voceditenore (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Nova's ranking on the different sub-indicators in the 57 publishers comparative study published in Bibliotheksdienst[edit]

The 2017 study published by Arno Tausch in Bibliotheksdienst (Die Buchpublikationen der Nobelpreis-Ökonomen und die führenden Buchverlage der Disziplin. Eine bibliometrische Analyse (The book publications of the Nobel-Prize economists and the leading book publishers of the discipline. A bibliometric analysis)), Bibliotheksdienst, March 2017: 339 – 374, which is also available as a pre-publication working paper "Tausch, Arno, Die Buchpublikationen der Nobelpreis-Ökonomen und die führenden Buchverlage der Disziplin. Eine bibliometrische Analyse (The Book Publications of the Nobel-Prize Economists and the Leading Book Publishers of the Discipline. A Bibliometric Analysis) (October 15, 2015). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2674502" implies the following assessment of Nova's comparative performance among the 57 global publishers with available data:


Quantity Indicator - number of books and book chapters in the Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index top 10,53%

Citations of books and book chapters in the Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index top 17,54%

Swedish LIBRIS 50th best book library outreach top 17,54%

Items in World Bank/IMF JOLIS library catalogue Washington (books only) top 24,56%

Sense Quality Indicator for multivariate analysis top 47,37%

Harvard HOLLIS ratio of books checked out per total holdings (books only) top 56,14%

Harvard Library number of titles (books only) top 61,40%

standard deviation citations books and book chapters top 61,40%

average citations - books and book chapters top 63,16%

Items in ECLAS catalogue Brussels top 63,16%

Japanese NACSIS 200th best book library outreach (books only) top 63,16%

Items in the IndCat (India) Union catalog top 71,93%

number of references about the company in newspapers - questia top 73,68%

Swedish LIBRIS top performing book library outreach top 73,68%

number of references about the company in books - questia top 77,19%

Japanese NACSIS top top performing book library outreach (books only) top 78,95%

number of references about the company in magazines - questia top 78,95%

number of references about the company in scholarly journals - questia top 78,95%

average citations - books in the Thomson Reuters book citation index top 84,21%

John de Norrona (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Tausch is hardly a neutral source on this matter. Despite that, Nova performs rather badly in this study again. It's in the top 10.53% for quantity, but for average citations it's in the "top 84%" (which actually translates as the bottom 16%). I'm not in favor of including this stuff in the article. --Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it is time to take published book publisher studies in leading peer reviewed journals more seriously. The Tausch article precisely shows that on the combined UNDP Human Development Index type of Index, combining the different performance criteria, Nova Science Publishers ranks somewhere in the middle. The earlier Tausch article in the JoSP in Toronto compared 21 leading publishers; Nova ranked 17th. As I tried to show in the article on rankings of book publishers, citation rates are important but are not everything. Writing from the other shore of the Bosporus, let me please state here that especially authors from developing countries and Eastern Europe will be interested in working with what the Sense and the Educational University in Hong Kong explicitly call "decent international publishers". No question, however that Nova and other type C publishers should work very hard to improve especially their journal publishing performance. The ratio of Scopus indexed journals per total journal production is a good indicator for this. So what we need is a detached, rational debate about the pros and cons of given publishers, but not a generalized publisher bashing. Bibliometer 1492 (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)