Line 163: | Line 163: | ||
:::::::#Article overall currently violates WP:NPOV |
:::::::#Article overall currently violates WP:NPOV |
||
:::::::Fixing #1 would involve keeping all incidents, but making sure they all get roughly the same number of words. The 2016 article under "controversial articles" right now is the biggest offender. Another example problem is, e.g., giving Norwegian scholars Olav Bjarte Fosso and Jonas Kristiansen Nøland's criticism of MDPI's inclusion in the Norwegian Scientific Index, given that they are two people and the Norwegian Scientific Index is created by much more than two people. Fixing #2 involves adding the material above about the massive growth MDPI has shown, as well as increase in citability, etc. [[User:Banedon|Banedon]] ([[User talk:Banedon|talk]]) 23:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC) |
:::::::Fixing #1 would involve keeping all incidents, but making sure they all get roughly the same number of words. The 2016 article under "controversial articles" right now is the biggest offender. Another example problem is, e.g., giving Norwegian scholars Olav Bjarte Fosso and Jonas Kristiansen Nøland's criticism of MDPI's inclusion in the Norwegian Scientific Index, given that they are two people and the Norwegian Scientific Index is created by much more than two people. Fixing #2 involves adding the material above about the massive growth MDPI has shown, as well as increase in citability, etc. [[User:Banedon|Banedon]] ([[User talk:Banedon|talk]]) 23:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::::::PS: At no point did I say cut all controversies entirely. That's your proposal, not mine. [[User:Banedon|Banedon]] ([[User talk:Banedon|talk]]) 23:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:56, 4 March 2021
![]() | Academic Journals C‑class | |||||||||
|
![]() | Chemistry C‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
MDPI downgraded to level 0 in the Norwegian Index for 2020
I see that this is now mentioned on the main page of MDPI. But isn't it a bit too early to mention this? As far as I know they hold evaluation meetings at fixed dates in which they discuss these scores. In 2019 they mention MDPI to be a level 1 publisher, could it be that after their evaluation meeting, MDPI will also be scored as a level 1 publisher? Hence, should we wait to mention this until all the scores are released for 2020? Kenji1987 (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- What happened last year is that the website of the NSD showed "0" for "2019" and the rating then moved to "1" after the evaluation meeting. So it is probably too early to assume "0" for "2020". Or is there a secondary source that confirms the rating is "final" for 2020? ErskineCer (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Normally a publisher's rating is automatically renewed for each year. A publisher (or journal) isn't discussed in these evaluation meetings unless it is a new publisher/journal nominated for inclusion, or unless there is some other particular reason to discuss it (usually following a proposal to downgrade it). I've not seen any other examples of publishers that first got a 0 rating before having their previous rating reinstated, like it happened last year with MDPI. All the other publishers I looked into, including Routledge[1], OUP[2], CUP[3], Berghahn[4], Brill[5] and Princeton UP[6], all have 2 ratings for both 2019 and 2020. There is something weird and unusual going on with the MDPI ratings. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that there is something weird going on there, but now it is 1 again for 2020.Kenji1987 (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Funny, now it is clear that NSD did not give a 0 rating to MDPI, it is taken out of the lead. Not surprised though. Kenji1987 (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I removed it because you complained about inconsistencies between this article and the one on Frontiers in Psychology. As I explained elsewhere, this is a very marginal rating service and putting it in the lead (whether with a zero or other rating) is WP:UNDUE. --Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, due to lack of power, I can't challenge you on this, and we leave it like this (unless an admin can help me out here). Just be aware that when NSD changes MDPI back to 0 again (for whatever reason), I will make sure it won't be put in the lead, referring to what you state here now Kenji1987 (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I do have to say that the anti open acces bias by some wikipedia editors is shocking. People can claim that MDPI only produces shit journals (headbomb) or that the NSD is suddenly not that important (Norway is only a small country?), but we are expected to believe that all their edits are objective and neutral. If you already made up your mind that MDPI is shit, how on earth are you able to edit the page then? NSD only came to our attention when it rated MDPI 0 by mistake. Now that we now that there is literally no institution, metrics, committee, or university doubting whether MDPI is legit or not, Wikipedia seems to be the last bastion holding on to a deceased blog, who falsely recognized 1 out of 5 publishers as predatory (which is a fact). I have to share this, as it incredibly frustrating to deal with editors who first accuse you of COI, then threaten you wit bans, and then simply use their power to uphold what they see as legitimate. What is their COI? Can't we have a discussion on that? NSD is far as I know the only credible source on predatory and white lists. Once MDPI is rated 0 Ill be the first one to change this. I do think it needs to be mentioned in the lead, not to trick the reader to think that MDPI is predatory. Even Beall said that they appealed succesfully. Kenji1987 (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- For me it's the behavior of MDPI, not some obscure nordic ranking, that convinces me they are not fully legitimate. This behavior includes both the heavily promotional spin seen repeatedly and over the long term on this very talk page, as well as stunts like supporting student travel to conferences only on the condition that the student devote a whole slide of their short talk to an advertisement for MDPI. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- SAGE and Springer spam my inbox almost every week with promotional stuff and special issues and what not. It is almost the same calibre as "greetings from journal of management, social scienes and biology (JMSSB), we got an impact of 7 from Journal Impact Factor". But this does not reflect their reviewing and publishing practices. What happens here on the talk page is that people seem to realize that not everything is completely kosher with MDPI's wiki page, mind you their wikipage not MDPI perse. Was that also the reason you were the first one accusing me of having a COI? Because you are convinced that they are illegit and hence anyone who thinks different, must have a COI? This is by the way an excellent and critical analysis on MDPI: https://danbrockington.com/2019/12/04/an-open-letter-to-mdpi-publishing/. Id like to see how this can be integrated into this Wiki page. Ps. I also heard the Nobel Prize is some kind of obscure Nordic award. And if NSD was that obscure why werent you the first one to remove it from the lead when it was added to show MDPI had a score of 0? Kenji1987 (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Kenji1987: I see that after several months of editing, you are still directing baseless and unwarranted accusations of hypocrisy at other users. Such comments are a violation of our policy WP:NPA. If you continue, I will seek to have you sanctioned. --JBL (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm inquiring. People also do not really seem to understand how referencing works. Because it is for example decided that everything that what Beall writes must be trustworthy, he is uncritically referenced anywhere. For example, till date there is no single proof that MDPI falsely put nobel prize winners as editorial board members on their journals. Still it is mentioned on MDPI's wiki page. Why? Because of Beall. But when you check his claim, there is literally no source to support it. Still it is mentioned on this page. Hence, I'm inquiring. Kenji1987 (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Kenji1987: I see that after several months of editing, you are still directing baseless and unwarranted accusations of hypocrisy at other users. Such comments are a violation of our policy WP:NPA. If you continue, I will seek to have you sanctioned. --JBL (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- SAGE and Springer spam my inbox almost every week with promotional stuff and special issues and what not. It is almost the same calibre as "greetings from journal of management, social scienes and biology (JMSSB), we got an impact of 7 from Journal Impact Factor". But this does not reflect their reviewing and publishing practices. What happens here on the talk page is that people seem to realize that not everything is completely kosher with MDPI's wiki page, mind you their wikipage not MDPI perse. Was that also the reason you were the first one accusing me of having a COI? Because you are convinced that they are illegit and hence anyone who thinks different, must have a COI? This is by the way an excellent and critical analysis on MDPI: https://danbrockington.com/2019/12/04/an-open-letter-to-mdpi-publishing/. Id like to see how this can be integrated into this Wiki page. Ps. I also heard the Nobel Prize is some kind of obscure Nordic award. And if NSD was that obscure why werent you the first one to remove it from the lead when it was added to show MDPI had a score of 0? Kenji1987 (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Kenji1987 If you are basing the 1 in 5 figure on being able to spot papers with fake author names and "designed with such grave and obvious scientific flaws that they should have been rejected immediately by editors and peer reviewers" that is a very low bar to reach and does not imply that a journal is not predatory let alone of quality. --Haansn08 (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- For me it's the behavior of MDPI, not some obscure nordic ranking, that convinces me they are not fully legitimate. This behavior includes both the heavily promotional spin seen repeatedly and over the long term on this very talk page, as well as stunts like supporting student travel to conferences only on the condition that the student devote a whole slide of their short talk to an advertisement for MDPI. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Funny, now it is clear that NSD did not give a 0 rating to MDPI, it is taken out of the lead. Not surprised though. Kenji1987 (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that there is something weird going on there, but now it is 1 again for 2020.Kenji1987 (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok so Guy thinks MDPI has crappy standards. Fair enough, you have your reasons to decide when a publisher is crappy or not, and I respect that. NSD, Web of Science, Scopus, and other indexes and standards on the other hand think differently. I dont know whether you work in academia, but aforementioned criteria mean a lot Kenji1987 (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles are based on sources, not what editors "think", and trying to frame the discussion that way is unhelpful and disruptive. We have sources saying MDPI is a disreputable publisher (e.g.[7]) and we are bound to reflect them. Alexbrn (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well said, Im not disputing these sources either, but some editors are so convinced that MDPI is crappy that they refuse any source which claims otherwise. Scientific reports for example also had a massive resignation of editors. Does it make Science crappy? Of course not. Hence, why is Beall significant and NSD not? NSD is widely respected in the EU, and not a marginal index. Academics they know this, hence, my edits. When NSD ranked MDPI 0 it was placed in the lead. When it is factually proven that it is a legit publisher, then suddenly this information is deemed less important. Think about it. Kenji1987 (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Any sources supporting your claim that NSD is "widely respected in the EU"? --Randykitty (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Claiming to know what editors are "convinced of" is likewise problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- When an editor claims that MDPI is crappy, Im pretty sure they mean crappy Kenji1987 (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Claiming that assessment comes from conviction (rather than, as in the normal case, a neutral assessment of the sources) unhelpfully personalizes the dispute. Of course there can be other reasons why an editor's view is inappropriately slanted - conflict of interest for example. Alexbrn (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes I am also very interested in knowing why people think MDPI is crap or predatory Kenji1987 (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- If you want to know why people think MDPI is predatory or crap, you only have to look at the practices of MDPI. It is not as bad as OMICS, but their standards, reviewing process, and general practices are clearly not up to par for what people consider reputable standards and behavior. This view is not universal of course, and the article reflects that too. We do mention indexing in scopus and web of science for instance, as well as the NSD rating, and membership in various open access associations. However inclusion in Beall is significant, and has been the focus of widespread coverage. Therefore we would be in violation of NPOV if we fail to mention it, and when would be in violation of DUE if we did not mention it in the lead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- MDPI has its fair share of embarrasing controversies, and some journal's rejection rate is too low. But compared to other open access publishers, including the more credible ones, I don't see much difference. Would love to see more sources which support your claim. Beall is a good source, but even he removed MDPI from his list, after independent evaluation. Kenji1987 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- And we also mention that MDPI was removed after appeal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, and I put it in the lead. But there is literally no evidence that MDPI systematically has any real problems making them 'crappy' besides some embarrassing controversies, some which were solved, others unaddressed. Kenji1987 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- And since our article does not say "MDPI is crappy" nor anything like it, but instead reports (clearly, and with proper sourcing) on the situation broadly, there seems to be no problem. --JBL (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well some developments here are concerning. Hence, I edit to make sure the information is more balanced. For example, if the NSD decides that MDPI is 0 (there is a chance this might happen) we now decided this should not be in the lead Kenji1987 (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- A "1" rating just says that a publisher meets the minimum requirements to be considered an academic publisher. Most publishers get a "1" rating, it's an unexceptional rating. Just don't be SCIRP or OmniScriptum, and you'll get your "1" rating; before people had heard of predatory publishing basically any publisher that included some basic information about an editorial board and procedures for peer review on their website would get the "1" rating. A "0" rating expressly states that a publisher/journal does not meet the minimum requirements to be considered academic at all. In this context, a "0" rating would be much more exceptional and noteworthy than a standard "1" rating. In other words: "1" = nothing out of the ordinary; "0" = it's like SCIRP. So no, we haven't decided what we would do in that case, only that a "1" rating isn't very noteworthy. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- To elaborate a bit on my concerns. I first noticed that Mario Capecchi's case was still mentioned on the Wiki page, 4 years after the news was debunked. I tried to change it, but my revisions kept on being undone. Part of it was my fault, but every time the revisions were undone, Capecchi kept on being mentioned, until Randykitten finally deleted it. Then, I realized that the way Hindawi's page was organized was completely different from MDPI. Beall kept on being mentioned, even though Beall himself said that MDPI fulfilled all the requirements of being a reputable publisher. He never claimed later that MDPI was not, just that they were annoying. Which I understand, the Beall list does affect your income and reputation (unfortunately! I never understood why academics blindly followed Beall - literally a one man army - people are obsessed with lists and rankings, especially academics and even worse managers who run universities). NSD was mentioned in the lead only when it gave MDPI a 0 score (correct me if I am wrong!). But once they also established that they see MDPI as a standard publisher, it is suddenly this obscure Nordic ranking. What I also noticed that many editors accussed me of having a COI, up until this date (see the talk page of frontiers in psychology for example). I am not deleting any information to make MDPI look good - I just don't see any evidence that they are any different from other publishers in terms of reviewing procedures and so on. Scientific Reports and PLOSEONE each have rejection rates of 40-50% - very similar to MDPI's journals (I find it way too high, but that is my personal opinion). Hence, I would honestly like to know why editors personally find MDPI crappy, based on eligble sources and evidence. Once, knowing editors' point of view, I think we can have a more constructive dialogue to represent MDPI in a more balanced way. I have done my fair share, and I am planning to restructure the controversies page, at some point in time, as it is way too messy now. Of course, Ill mention it in the talk page first. Hence, these are my concerns. Kenji1987 (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well some developments here are concerning. Hence, I edit to make sure the information is more balanced. For example, if the NSD decides that MDPI is 0 (there is a chance this might happen) we now decided this should not be in the lead Kenji1987 (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Kenji1987, MDPI is a bottom tier publisher. Slightly better than OMICS or Frontiers, but a lot worse than reputable publishers. Guy (help!) 16:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- 60+ journals have an IF and around 80% are covered by Scopus. In my field, the journal Forests, is well respected. Comparison with Omics does not make sense. Kenji1987 (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Guy, if you think MPDI and Frontiers are comparable to OMICS, you are either extremely biased or completely uninformed on the issues.Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- And since our article does not say "MDPI is crappy" nor anything like it, but instead reports (clearly, and with proper sourcing) on the situation broadly, there seems to be no problem. --JBL (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, and I put it in the lead. But there is literally no evidence that MDPI systematically has any real problems making them 'crappy' besides some embarrassing controversies, some which were solved, others unaddressed. Kenji1987 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- And we also mention that MDPI was removed after appeal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- MDPI has its fair share of embarrasing controversies, and some journal's rejection rate is too low. But compared to other open access publishers, including the more credible ones, I don't see much difference. Would love to see more sources which support your claim. Beall is a good source, but even he removed MDPI from his list, after independent evaluation. Kenji1987 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- If you want to know why people think MDPI is predatory or crap, you only have to look at the practices of MDPI. It is not as bad as OMICS, but their standards, reviewing process, and general practices are clearly not up to par for what people consider reputable standards and behavior. This view is not universal of course, and the article reflects that too. We do mention indexing in scopus and web of science for instance, as well as the NSD rating, and membership in various open access associations. However inclusion in Beall is significant, and has been the focus of widespread coverage. Therefore we would be in violation of NPOV if we fail to mention it, and when would be in violation of DUE if we did not mention it in the lead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes I am also very interested in knowing why people think MDPI is crap or predatory Kenji1987 (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Claiming that assessment comes from conviction (rather than, as in the normal case, a neutral assessment of the sources) unhelpfully personalizes the dispute. Of course there can be other reasons why an editor's view is inappropriately slanted - conflict of interest for example. Alexbrn (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- When an editor claims that MDPI is crappy, Im pretty sure they mean crappy Kenji1987 (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well said, Im not disputing these sources either, but some editors are so convinced that MDPI is crappy that they refuse any source which claims otherwise. Scientific reports for example also had a massive resignation of editors. Does it make Science crappy? Of course not. Hence, why is Beall significant and NSD not? NSD is widely respected in the EU, and not a marginal index. Academics they know this, hence, my edits. When NSD ranked MDPI 0 it was placed in the lead. When it is factually proven that it is a legit publisher, then suddenly this information is deemed less important. Think about it. Kenji1987 (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- You know what is seriously nonsense? Having a discussion on whether MDPI as a publisher is counted 0 or 1. The Nature Publishing Group is rated "0" (https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=14775&bibsys=false), but I don't see anyone adding this to the Nature Publishing Group wiki. Why is that? Kenji1987 (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's because 'Nature Publishing Group' is now 'Springer Nature' since 2015 or so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Request edit to "Preferential treatment of authors from developed countries"
Given the sources posted by Lingac45, the statement "a group of Water, Sanitation and Health researchers from the University of Leeds was informed by an MDPI representative that scholars from developed countries would be given priority for publication" is factually wrong. Instead, the subject of the email exchange was waiving the article-processing charges for some selected authors from developed countries. By suggesting to invite authors from a sub-group to publish for free, the journal editors were *not* influencing the editorial decision on whether or not to to accept any paper for publication. On behalf of MDPI, we request to update the entry accordingly. (this comment written by an employee of MDPI) Mdpi comms (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Please see WP:ROLE -- it is not acceptable to edit Wikipedia through a role account. --JBL (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Joel B. Lewis: I added a COI-username notice. Darth Flappy «Talk» 23:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Additionally, I think that it's disingenuous to say that it did not affect the editorial process when it manifestly did, both in preventing the editors from using these waived charges to encourage certain non-priviledged authors from submitting and in the eventual resignation of the editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Accepted: Not clear that it affected the editorial decision, typically fees are paid after acceptance and often some negotiation is possible after acceptance, This is relatively typical. PainProf (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Undone. The source explicitly says, in a quote directly from MDPI, "scholars from developed countries will be given priority". PainProf, perhaps you are unaware, but this article has had an enormously long history of editors trying to whitewash MDPI's misdeeds by using euphemistic wording to make them seem more minor. Please don't assist them with that goal. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- ? The source says that they didn't offer waivers to developing countries, however, it does not provide evidence that any editors from developing countries were actively discriminated against. Whilst not waiving fees would discriminate against authors from low-middle income countries, there is no evidence that it influenced the decision to publish. The decision to publish appears to remain with the editor, these are bad facts but they do not show that MDPI changed the editorial process, I think that's the companies complaint here. So you can say they are discriminatory financially, but not editorially. Editorial influence would be far worse which I'm guessing is why they're complaining about it. Maybe there's a way to word it where the horribly bad facts are clear but not allege editorial influence. At the moment it reads to me like MDPI's journal staff interfered during the publication process rather than applied discriminatory publication fees PainProf (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- They did interfere during the publication process, by preventing the editors from reaching out to the authors they wished to reach out to with an offer of waived publication fees and therefore affecting the likely balance of submissions to the issue. Their interference also had a very concrete effect on the publication process, in causing the editors to withdraw from the issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- I propose: In June 2020, MDPI sparked controversy when - while attempting to publish a special issue on failures - a group of Water, Sanitation and Health researchers from the University of Leeds was informed by an MDPI representative that only scholars from developed countries would be given publication fee waivers, effectively discriminating against contributors from developing countries. PainProf (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's probably an improvement. It is still a little inaccurate, though, in that it implies that any such scholar would be given such a waiver, when my reading of the story was that there were a limited number of waivers to be handed out by the editors. The gist of the story was that the editors were constrained by MDPI in which scholars they could hand them out to. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- I propose: In June 2020, MDPI sparked controversy when - while attempting to publish a special issue on failures - a group of Water, Sanitation and Health researchers from the University of Leeds was informed by an MDPI representative that only scholars from developed countries would be given publication fee waivers, effectively discriminating against contributors from developing countries. PainProf (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- They did interfere during the publication process, by preventing the editors from reaching out to the authors they wished to reach out to with an offer of waived publication fees and therefore affecting the likely balance of submissions to the issue. Their interference also had a very concrete effect on the publication process, in causing the editors to withdraw from the issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Additionally, I think that it's disingenuous to say that it did not affect the editorial process when it manifestly did, both in preventing the editors from using these waived charges to encourage certain non-priviledged authors from submitting and in the eventual resignation of the editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Shu-Kun Lin and CHMINF-L
On 3 December 2020, MDPI President Shu-Kun Lin posted to the CHMINF-L mailing list an off-topic message in support of Donald Trump writing "perhaps Trump is the man to save the western civilization because Trump has been protecting the social system of rule of law." He believes it "is strange that the media, including scholarly journals (like Nature and NEJM abandons political neutrality and start to create hatred between genders, races, nationalities and perhaps classes, ...." and followed up by expressing the belief that Trump won the US election.
There responses in CHINF-L were universally negative, with some librarians expressing how these messages have caused them to re-consider their support for MDPI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.255.22.84 (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's hilarious but of course not usable on Wikipedia without coverage in reliable secondary sources. --JBL (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
"Author-pays"
The lead currently states: "MDPI is a publisher of author-pays open access scientific journals", where "author-pays" is wikilinked to article processing charge (APC). I've removed "author-pays" because "it may give the impression it's a vanity press; I don't see such language and emphasis on APCs in the lead of any other member of Category:Open access publishers". David Eppstein has reverted the change, stating that "If it gives that impression to you, you might consider whether maybe it is one? But the language is accurate and neutral." Later, Gtoffoletto agreed with removal, stating "This is not clear and not in line with other Category:Open access publishers". David Eppstein has reverted the change again, stating "do those other articles have sourced content criticizing them as "money machines" for which this lead text can serve as a summary". Headbomb agreed with the removal, saying it was "not lead-worthy". Finally, JayBeeEll reverted the change, saying "Agree with DE (and why hasn't anyone started a talk section yet?)", plus unrelated discussion about Nordic countries.
I've created the redirect "author-pays model" five years ago and it remains a valid description for a certain open-access funding model. In the context of an individual publisher, though, it's nothing but innuendo. I don't think we need to spin it for making an indirect criticism at MDPI -- there's already plenty of sourced accusations in the second paragraph of the lead. The first sentence should be rewritten to be more clear and assertive, as in: "MDPI is a controversial publisher of open access scientific journals". If you insist, then mention it's "funded by article processing charges", but I still think APC is a trivial fact for commercial OA publishers, plus not all author-pays publishers are predatory or vanity presses. fgnievinski (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Author-pays is not lead worthy. Almost every open access publisher uses an author-pays model, and we don't plaster their leads with 'author-pays' on any of them. There's no reason to do it here either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- In any case, it is a falsehood that open access publishing is almost always author-pays. I can point to many diamond-model open-access publications. It may be the case that commercial open access publishers are author-pays, but that's kind of oxymoronic; how else would they survive as commercial entities. Also, I don't see the argument that "author-pays" is unnecessarily pejorative; it is an accurate and neutral description of their publishing model, distinguishing them both from diamond-model and from a common model in computer science conference publication where the costs are handled indirectly through registration fees rather than directly on a per-paper author-pays basis. As I said in an earlier edit summary, if you think that it reeks of vanity press publishing, you might consider whether maybe that's because author-pays in general motivates publishers and authors to take on some of the characteristics of that model, and whether maybe the pejorative nature of the connection between this distasteful concept and the neutral words in the lead is in your head rather than in the actual words. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's very useful for us to distinguish clearly between "platinum/diamond" or "true" (as we call it in Norwegian) open access and the author-pays model, which are very different models indeed. The MDPI/Frontiers lobby has a vested interest in conflating the two models, but for our readers it is more informative to distinguish clearly between them. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- In any case, it is a falsehood that open access publishing is almost always author-pays. I can point to many diamond-model open-access publications. It may be the case that commercial open access publishers are author-pays, but that's kind of oxymoronic; how else would they survive as commercial entities. Also, I don't see the argument that "author-pays" is unnecessarily pejorative; it is an accurate and neutral description of their publishing model, distinguishing them both from diamond-model and from a common model in computer science conference publication where the costs are handled indirectly through registration fees rather than directly on a per-paper author-pays basis. As I said in an earlier edit summary, if you think that it reeks of vanity press publishing, you might consider whether maybe that's because author-pays in general motivates publishers and authors to take on some of the characteristics of that model, and whether maybe the pejorative nature of the connection between this distasteful concept and the neutral words in the lead is in your head rather than in the actual words. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with Fgnievinski and Headbomb. "Author-pay" isn't a clear description and is not used in the other open access publisher's leads. What is it with this article and the constant useless discussions? The publisher's controversies are amply covered. Let's remove this and move on. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 00:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Author-pay" is about as clear as a description could possibly be. Consistency between articles is an extremely weak basic for making any editing choice, especially when it concerns an aspect that is not uniform -- and MDPI is not, in fact, just another run-of-the-mill publisher. The rest of your comment is gobbledygook. --JBL (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Consistency in how we treat journals is desirable since it supports NPOV and I think there is some sort of a neutrality issue at stake here. The PLOS One article does mention the funding model in the lead, in the first sentence of the second paragraph, but it uses the language of APCs: 'Submissions are subject to an article processing charge, and according to the journal, papers are not to be excluded on the basis of lack of perceived importance or adherence to a scientific field.'
- I've generally supposed that APC was the dominant terminology, but 'author pays' is certainly a common phrase and I am not sure my impression was correct. I'll advertise this discussion at WT:JOURNALS; possibly an RfC is in order. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Article processing charge" is typical of modern euphemistic language in removing the agent from the action, leaving only the action to stand by itself, devoid of anyone to take responsibility or blame for it. "Author pays" is both shorter and clearer. It's also less ambiguous; for instance, a publishing institution whose support for the publication efforts comes entirely from state funding (such as for example several universities I could name that have their own programs of open access publishing) might still plausibly have article publishing charges within its accounting that are not visible to or made payable by authors. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Either we rewrite every other commercial open-access publisher article to mention "author-pays" instead of "article processing charge" or we bring the present exception in line with the treatment in the rest of Wikipedia. Again, any and all sourced criticism at MDPI should be made explicitly, with words such "controversial", which could even be done in the first sentence as I've proposed above. The current writing doesn't even follow MOS:LINKCLARITY. fgnievinski (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- The quality of this argument is extremely poor. There is no requirement or obligation to use precisely parallel wording in different articles like this, no matter how many times people repeat it. The current link is adequately consistent with WP:LINKCLARITY; on the other hand, here is what the MOS says about the word "controversial": MOS:LABEL. --JBL (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Either we rewrite every other commercial open-access publisher article to mention "author-pays" instead of "article processing charge" or we bring the present exception in line with the treatment in the rest of Wikipedia. Again, any and all sourced criticism at MDPI should be made explicitly, with words such "controversial", which could even be done in the first sentence as I've proposed above. The current writing doesn't even follow MOS:LINKCLARITY. fgnievinski (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Article processing charge" is typical of modern euphemistic language in removing the agent from the action, leaving only the action to stand by itself, devoid of anyone to take responsibility or blame for it. "Author pays" is both shorter and clearer. It's also less ambiguous; for instance, a publishing institution whose support for the publication efforts comes entirely from state funding (such as for example several universities I could name that have their own programs of open access publishing) might still plausibly have article publishing charges within its accounting that are not visible to or made payable by authors. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Author-pay" is about as clear as a description could possibly be. Consistency between articles is an extremely weak basic for making any editing choice, especially when it concerns an aspect that is not uniform -- and MDPI is not, in fact, just another run-of-the-mill publisher. The rest of your comment is gobbledygook. --JBL (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Article might be unbalanced
There's a page on MDPI's website criticizing this article. [8]. They don't deny the controversies in the article, but they criticize the article for being unbalanced. To quote,
Almost three quarters of the Wikipedia article covers controversial topics, mentioning 4 out of over 200,000 published papers, one instance where 10 editorial board members resigned (in 2018 we had over 43,000 Editorial Board Members and Guest Editors), and inclusion on Jeffrey Beall’s list, known as a source biased against open access and from which MDPI was removed (see our response here [9]). While we do not object to these topics being mentioned, the way in which they are presented is misleading.
I wonder what other editors think about this, because I can definitely see where the sentiment is coming from. I have no reason to disbelieve their numbers, and if the numbers are correct, then it certainly looks like much of the page is WP:UNDUE. Banedon (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- WP:MANDY sums it up pretty well. We write base on independent sources, and independent sources are in great majority critical of MDPI. It's not universally shit, and we do recognize that. But the majority of what's written is critical of MDPI.
- If MDPI has earned independent praise, this could be mentioned too. But so far, I've yet to see independent praise of MDPI, and they've got a history of meat-puppeting, paid editing (and probably astroturfing as well), etc, and are extremely litigious. So, unless you have sources, we shouldn't lose sleep over what MDPI thinks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think the criticism is about not having independent praise included in the article, but rather that the controversies section is covered in too much detail. In other words, this isn't about WP:NPOV, but about WP:UNDUE. Banedon (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Personally, I find the criticism found in the article commensurate to its coverage in mainstream sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Are you sure? As an example, right now, in the paragraphs after this sentence, "In 2016, MDPI journal Behavioral Sciences published a review paper that claimed that watching pornography is a cause of erectile dysfunction", we have several paragraphs of text dedicated to one paper. Meanwhile, the other papers described in the section all get one paragraph only. Banedon (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- The focus of that section is the details of the COPE investigation, the reactions to the investigation, and its consequences. This isn't a small potatoes run-of-the-mill retraction, MDPI's hand was forced by COPE here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I swear, it feels like you are missing the point. You write "The focus of that section is the details of the COPE investigation", yet the section is clearly titled "Controversial articles", a title that obviously implies a broader scope. Please actually take a look at the article before commenting. Banedon (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- What is your point then? That specific article elicited a major reaction from an independent source, and thus the coverage of that reaction is proportional to its importance per WP:DUE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Is the point not clear enough? I am saying that dedicating these many paragraphs to one controversial article violates WP:DUE. Just read the section, it is spelling out the objections raised by COPE (all four of them!) and further explicitly quotes MDPI's response. I feel like it's pointless continuing this conversation. I will wait for other editors to respond but will not respond to you further. Banedon (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- What is your point then? That specific article elicited a major reaction from an independent source, and thus the coverage of that reaction is proportional to its importance per WP:DUE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I swear, it feels like you are missing the point. You write "The focus of that section is the details of the COPE investigation", yet the section is clearly titled "Controversial articles", a title that obviously implies a broader scope. Please actually take a look at the article before commenting. Banedon (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- The focus of that section is the details of the COPE investigation, the reactions to the investigation, and its consequences. This isn't a small potatoes run-of-the-mill retraction, MDPI's hand was forced by COPE here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Are you sure? As an example, right now, in the paragraphs after this sentence, "In 2016, MDPI journal Behavioral Sciences published a review paper that claimed that watching pornography is a cause of erectile dysfunction", we have several paragraphs of text dedicated to one paper. Meanwhile, the other papers described in the section all get one paragraph only. Banedon (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Personally, I find the criticism found in the article commensurate to its coverage in mainstream sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think the criticism is about not having independent praise included in the article, but rather that the controversies section is covered in too much detail. In other words, this isn't about WP:NPOV, but about WP:UNDUE. Banedon (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree we are giving undue weight. And I think we are giving a lot of weight to sources that are not very strong. In general sourcing seems poor for this article. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 10:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've added this source to the article: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/08/10/guest-post-mdpis-remarkable-growth/ seems a pretty recent and thorough review to me. I think we could use it to better cover MDPI in the article (it includes many useful references) and not just focus on controversy (it would be interesting to add a "business model" paragraph for example in which we describe their approach and their growth which is definitely an interesting aspect of this publisher). Let's bear in mind we are talking about the largest OA publisher in the world and the 5th (soon 4th?) overall. Apparently they are following the "move fast and break things" mantra (and growing 60%+ in the last 3 years!) and they definitely stirred up some controversy but overall most sources seem to regard them as reputable. Those might be mostly isolated incidents (maybe with specific journals?) rather than systemic problems with the publisher. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 11:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- The Nutrients editorial board's mass resignation after MDPI pushed them to lower their standards is proof positive that this is systemic. That said, no objection to include some of Petrou's analysis on growth and such. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- The Nutrients mass resignation was 2 years ago. And that topic is covered in detail with a specific section of the article. I think we need to expand the rest of the article and remove stuff like "money machine" in the lead based on a professor's comment in a university newspaper (I removed it citing WP:UNDUE but you reverted me here [10]) -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 22:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Can't help to chip in here. I have absolutely no problem if MDPI is criticized for being too commercial (I even added several controversial articles). But in the lead "money machine" seems to refer to a direct quote in the cited sources, but none of the sources, including the Norwegian one, literally writes "money machine". Thus, "money machine" seems to be an interpretation of the MDPI editors. Or am I missing something here??????? Kenji1987 (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- It is a literal translation of a quote in Norwegian in the cited source, "
MDPI er en pengemaskin som drives av det totale antallet aksepterte artikler, ikke av kvalitet.
" —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)- Ah Eppstein is correct. Ok disregard it then. I think the lead has improved. Another thing: "Norway will introduce a new "level X" for questionable publishers in 2020" -> this never came, our Nordic folks have made MDPI level 1 again for 2021, including most of its journals. Is this still relevant? The controversies section is a mess, but I don't dare to touch it, last time I did it, caused a lot of drama, if headbomb and Gtoffoletto are so kind? Cheers Kenji1987 (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've used google translate and the statement we had in the article does not seem to match the source. So I've removed it entirely. The source seems to state (google translated)
And here we are at the problem that we must solve in the National Publications Committee. This type of publisher deftly ensures that it does not fall into the category of "robber journals", but apparently follows the criteria we have for incorporating them into the funding system for research in Norway.
. The quote appears to be by the authors of the article and not by the NPC itself as we incorrectly stated in the article. If any native speaker can confirm this or else revert my edit. Thanks. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 11:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)- Reverted, this was added by someone who does speak Norwegian, and did not rely on machine translations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: Was it you? Do we have some native speaker that can verify? It would be a pretty major factual error to keep in the article and machine translation at this point rarely makes such major mistakes. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 13:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Found this specific edit by Bjerrebæk that seems to introduce this change: [11] -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 14:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Reverted, this was added by someone who does speak Norwegian, and did not rely on machine translations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've used google translate and the statement we had in the article does not seem to match the source. So I've removed it entirely. The source seems to state (google translated)
- Ah Eppstein is correct. Ok disregard it then. I think the lead has improved. Another thing: "Norway will introduce a new "level X" for questionable publishers in 2020" -> this never came, our Nordic folks have made MDPI level 1 again for 2021, including most of its journals. Is this still relevant? The controversies section is a mess, but I don't dare to touch it, last time I did it, caused a lot of drama, if headbomb and Gtoffoletto are so kind? Cheers Kenji1987 (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- It is a literal translation of a quote in Norwegian in the cited source, "
- Can't help to chip in here. I have absolutely no problem if MDPI is criticized for being too commercial (I even added several controversial articles). But in the lead "money machine" seems to refer to a direct quote in the cited sources, but none of the sources, including the Norwegian one, literally writes "money machine". Thus, "money machine" seems to be an interpretation of the MDPI editors. Or am I missing something here??????? Kenji1987 (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- The Nutrients mass resignation was 2 years ago. And that topic is covered in detail with a specific section of the article. I think we need to expand the rest of the article and remove stuff like "money machine" in the lead based on a professor's comment in a university newspaper (I removed it citing WP:UNDUE but you reverted me here [10]) -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 22:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- The Nutrients editorial board's mass resignation after MDPI pushed them to lower their standards is proof positive that this is systemic. That said, no objection to include some of Petrou's analysis on growth and such. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, after having looked a bit more into MDPI and skimming through analyses (I intend to fully read them at some point) such as this, this and this, I am increasingly convinced this article not only violates WP:DUE, but also WP:NPOV. MDPI is much more reputable than the article gives it credit for. I'm tagging the article as such, and absent strong objections, will rewrite it substantially in the future. Banedon (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- I hope you are not planning on treating Dan Brockington's blog as a reliable source! (In addition to being a blog post by someone with no obvious expertise, it is also completely unconvincing as to its central thesis.) --JBL (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- If anything, my personal experience with MDPI involves more problematic behavior than what is reported here, not less. So I strongly disagree with Banedon's conclusion that they are more reputable than we make out. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Problem with personal experience is the sample size of one. There are also people who have had positive experiences with MDPI (e.g. see 3rd source above, this, and I know some people in real life who've told me the same). It's impractical to survey the entire world, of course, but the fact that MDPI managed to grow by such a huge amount over the past few years is I think a powerful (if indirect) piece of evidence that most people approve. More directly there's the fact that so many of their journals are now indexed by Web of Science. And while Dan Brockington is clearly no publisher, I don't see any reason to disbelieve his analysis (he also did share the raw data if anyone wants to look at it). The skeptic could say that they're clearly growing so fast only because they're accepting low-garbage junk, but if any predatory publishers of decent size are growing nearly as quickly I am not aware of them, and besides the citability of their biggest journals are clearly going up, not down. Accepting low-garbage junk is also an easy way to get delisted from Web of Science, but the number of journals indexed is also going up, not down. If you are aware of any recent (post 2015, preferably post 2018) non-anecdotal, statistics-based analyses of MDPI illustrating problem behavior, please share. Banedon (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Stack exchange? Really? No, if you think that's remotely reliable, you should not rewrite this article. It's fine to talk about growth and all, but I'll revert any trimming or reframing of the controversies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- That's in response to David Eppstein's personal experience above. It's aimed at showing that David Eppstein's personal experience is also not remotely reliable (your words). I'm of opinion we can keep the controversies but they need massive trimming per WP:DUE. That issue is discussed earlier in this section. Right now this is adding an NPOV objection on top of WP:DUE. Banedon (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Of course it's not reliable. That's why it's not in the article. But no, the controversies do not need massive trimming. This is a company that started out as predatory and, while perhaps rising above that, has continued to behave very badly; our article needs to reflect that. It is your proposal to cut all that and portray it as a respectable academic publisher just like all the others that is a massive NPOV violation, and plays into their massive promotionalism that should have been obvious to any intelligent reader of the history of this talk page. A few of the more minor scandals could be cut: the "data breach" one is something that could have happened to any publisher, and the "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" one also does not reflect particularly badly on MDPI. (On the other hand, cutting an incident where their behavior was actually exemplary could have the effect of making them look worse, the opposite direction of change from what you are suggesting.) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Last year I rewrote the controversies section with input from Headbomb. That one got reverted. Now the controversies section remains a mess (content I am fine with, but its full of quotes, unstructured all over the place).Kenji1987 (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Just so we don't get lost, I want to empahsize that I have two objections to the article:
- Controversies section currently violates WP:DUE
- Article overall currently violates WP:NPOV
- Fixing #1 would involve keeping all incidents, but making sure they all get roughly the same number of words. The 2016 article under "controversial articles" right now is the biggest offender. Another example problem is, e.g., giving Norwegian scholars Olav Bjarte Fosso and Jonas Kristiansen Nøland's criticism of MDPI's inclusion in the Norwegian Scientific Index, given that they are two people and the Norwegian Scientific Index is created by much more than two people. Fixing #2 involves adding the material above about the massive growth MDPI has shown, as well as increase in citability, etc. Banedon (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- PS: At no point did I say cut all controversies entirely. That's your proposal, not mine. Banedon (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Of course it's not reliable. That's why it's not in the article. But no, the controversies do not need massive trimming. This is a company that started out as predatory and, while perhaps rising above that, has continued to behave very badly; our article needs to reflect that. It is your proposal to cut all that and portray it as a respectable academic publisher just like all the others that is a massive NPOV violation, and plays into their massive promotionalism that should have been obvious to any intelligent reader of the history of this talk page. A few of the more minor scandals could be cut: the "data breach" one is something that could have happened to any publisher, and the "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" one also does not reflect particularly badly on MDPI. (On the other hand, cutting an incident where their behavior was actually exemplary could have the effect of making them look worse, the opposite direction of change from what you are suggesting.) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- That's in response to David Eppstein's personal experience above. It's aimed at showing that David Eppstein's personal experience is also not remotely reliable (your words). I'm of opinion we can keep the controversies but they need massive trimming per WP:DUE. That issue is discussed earlier in this section. Right now this is adding an NPOV objection on top of WP:DUE. Banedon (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Stack exchange? Really? No, if you think that's remotely reliable, you should not rewrite this article. It's fine to talk about growth and all, but I'll revert any trimming or reframing of the controversies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Problem with personal experience is the sample size of one. There are also people who have had positive experiences with MDPI (e.g. see 3rd source above, this, and I know some people in real life who've told me the same). It's impractical to survey the entire world, of course, but the fact that MDPI managed to grow by such a huge amount over the past few years is I think a powerful (if indirect) piece of evidence that most people approve. More directly there's the fact that so many of their journals are now indexed by Web of Science. And while Dan Brockington is clearly no publisher, I don't see any reason to disbelieve his analysis (he also did share the raw data if anyone wants to look at it). The skeptic could say that they're clearly growing so fast only because they're accepting low-garbage junk, but if any predatory publishers of decent size are growing nearly as quickly I am not aware of them, and besides the citability of their biggest journals are clearly going up, not down. Accepting low-garbage junk is also an easy way to get delisted from Web of Science, but the number of journals indexed is also going up, not down. If you are aware of any recent (post 2015, preferably post 2018) non-anecdotal, statistics-based analyses of MDPI illustrating problem behavior, please share. Banedon (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- If anything, my personal experience with MDPI involves more problematic behavior than what is reported here, not less. So I strongly disagree with Banedon's conclusion that they are more reputable than we make out. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)