Jump to content

Talk:Journal of Medical Internet Research

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 12.203.54.183 (talk) at 23:10, 28 January 2016 (→COI). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

COI

I don't have a COI other than knowing the journal/publisher, having published there, and knowing first hand that the accusations Beall makes are absurd. Read the comments to Beall's blog post. It is the opinion of a single librarian who is a known anti-open access critic (to put it mildly) against 2,500 ehealth experts who have published in JMIR journals. Beall is not a "Reliable Source" in this instance and it is questionable if his poorly researched piece should even be cited here. If you insist to cite him (@Ranykitty), then at least provide a NPOV and balance his outburst with the critique on his piece that is emerging in the comments section to his blog post. As an aside, there should probably be a page about the publisher JMIR Publications which is separate from this journal. --173.33.254.137 (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even if we believe that your only COI is "knowing the journal/publisher, having published there" (how naive do you think we are here?), that is enough. Having published there, the higher the prestige of the journal, the higher your prestige for having published there. Knowing something "first hand" is called original research here and not something that is admissible in an article. As for the comments on Beall's blog post: what Beall himself writes is reliable, but anybody can post anything they want in response, so those comments are not a reliable source. (And please note that they are clearly solicited: nobody will believe that all these sudden comments from people who have never commented on anything Beall has published before came there spontaneously). Regarding reliability: Beall is an accepted expert in his field, whether we like what he writes or not. His blog is professionally written and edited. For example, he will not retroactively change the content of his posts, but clearly indicate old and new text if something needs correction. The same cannot be said about Eysenbach. Just compare the original version of his rant about Beall's blog post with the current one. Gone are the wild accusations that Beall is editing this WP article and the rather amusing rant about Beall not having a PhD. Doesn't look very serious, publishing something and then surreptitiously changing the content once you notice that you have been embarrassing yourself... As an aside, there is absolutely no need for a separate article for the publisher. This is a minor publisher, publishing a single notable journal. Please get familiar with WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of users know the journal and the publisher - the Wikiproject Medicine has published in JMIR with respected wikipedians as coauthors, among them James Heilman, who was the president of Wikimedia Canada between 2010 and 2013, who was the president of Wiki Project Med Foundation, and who served for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, Does this make us too conflicted to comment on this matter on the talk page? You are confusing the COI disclosure above - when the user on the talk page disclosed that he has published in the journal - with "original research", which pertains to the article. I don't see any original research in the article, it is all quotes from the Beall "review" and the rebuttal of the publisher. What is the problem? And you may want to revisit Beall as "reliable source". Why would a single blogger or "expert" like Beall (expert in googling addresses of publishers and concluding that they are not a serious publisher if they are not located in a fancy office building) have more expertise than the commenters on his blog, who are actually subject experts? I read the comments on the Beall blog and saw the tweets and from the screenshots on http://www.jmir.org/content/beall and the tweets it should be clear that the community reaction is not "orchestrated" by the publisher. Instead, it is very obvious that Beall actually censored responses, stopped publishing more supportive comments or even responses by the publisher himself (see screenshots on http://www.jmir.org/content/beall). Is this the hallmark of a reliable source? No, because 1) Beall has extreme political views, see. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/16/parting-company-with-jeffrey-beall/, 2) he lacks editorial integrity by stopping to publish comments that do not support his views, 3) he lacks editorial integrity by refusing to publish the names of his "advisory board", 4) he has smeared several publishers that he later quietly had to remove from his list because he was plain and simply wrong or because his lawyers or "advisory board" (probably his superiors) told him so 5) he refuses to retract factually wrong statements (such as "16 journals that have a broad scope" while in reality they are niche journals). I do not see Beall as more reliable than the people commenting on his post. Eysen (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no substantial critique by Beall about this publisher other than that he dislikes the design (which is a subjective judgement), dislikes the fact that they are charging (because he doesn't believe in gold OA), and dislikes the "leading eHealth publisher" subtitle, but presumably he doesn't even know what eHealth exactly means. He is not an expert in digital health, so who is he to decide? And even if it were incorrect (although the publisher defends it well with data), it is a slogan used by many other publishers. His statement that this is a shameful practice is ridiculous. His statement about missing editorial boards of 4 journals is wrong, because the screenshots show that the publisher clearly discloses that they are identical with the JMIR editorial board, and there is nothing wrong with this. He cites that this is against OASPA or COPE rules, but this is nonsense and besides it is not up to him to decide. Beall is not a "reliable" source, he is a blogger with an agenda. --4.15.162.235 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or not, Beall was quoted by Nature and Science and the NYT as an expert in the subject. fgnievinski (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On what subject exactly? On design? On determining who the leading journal in eHealth is? Note that Beall is not accusing JMIR Publications of being a predatory publisher. He is whining about the design and the fact that the publisher is in a "dwelling" rather than an office building. The same can be said for PeerJ and many other emerging leading publishers in the knowledge age. He is out of touch with reality. 12.203.54.183 (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that touches on scholarly publishing; he got their blessing. fgnievinski (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Beall: Beall has said that "The only truly successful model that I have seen is the traditional publishing model." He portrays open access publishing as an anti-corporatist movement whose advocates pursue the goal of "kill[ing] off the for-profit publishers and mak[ing] scholarly publishing a cooperative and socialistic enterprise". A man who argues like this can't be wrong, right? Beall has embarrased himself before, see http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/08/10/defending-regional-excellence-in-research-or-why-beall-is-wrong-about-scielo/, and this is just another example of where he is wrong. 12.203.54.183 (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of journals

I have a question - when is a publisher notable enough to be listed in Wikipedia? When is a journal notable enough? 24.43.29.2 (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - useful link. And what makes a publisher notable? Publising 1, 2, 3, how many notable journals? 12.130.117.30 (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting, Randykitty refers to JMIR Publications as "minor publisher", publishing only 1 notable journal, whereas Beall is complaining about "Large open-access publishers like JMIR Publications may be evolving into the type of publisher the open-access movement was organized to take down." - so which one is it, is it large or is it minor? Randykitty is contradicting himself when he refers to Beall as reliable source and then overriding Beall's characterization as "large open access publisher". There are 14 journals listed on the JMIR site - many are respected and well cited, and they all will have respectable impact factors, see e.g. http://mhealth.jmir.org/announcement/view/121. The Journal of Medical Internet Research is certainly not the only notable journal of this publisher, and JMIR has also created other notable projects such as WebCite or TrendMD. Beall has been wrong before and he will continue to be wrong and lose credibility with the publishing industry, see e.g. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/08/10/defending-regional-excellence-in-research-or-why-beall-is-wrong-about-scielo/ and comments 12.203.54.183 (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Journal_of_Medical_Internet_Research&oldid=702178147"