This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hindawi (publisher) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is an advertising site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hi pedler ( talk • contribs) 01:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This is advertising - see the use of the word 'our' and 'we' in the second paragraph - it was obviously written by the company.
This is 2 lists masquerading as an encyclopedia article. At the very least, we don't need 2 lists when one is a subset of the other. I'm not sure whether to cut it with a big knife or a little knife. Nurg ( talk) 03:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Cut the long list. Not needed. - 134.131.125.49 ( talk) 14:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hindawi spam me a lot. Apparently I'm not the only one: http://www.google.com/search?q=hindawi+spam -- maybe someone who could be bothered to write a criticism section could gather the sources. 80.192.19.6 ( talk) 07:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
They do spam a lot, but I couldn't find any "reliable source" talking about the problem to quote.-- Per Abrahamsen ( talk) 08:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Guillaume2303 removed suggested removing the spam and other criticism section. While I normally would agree with him/her, in this case I think a blog post is acceptable. Here is why, the author of the blog post is an scholar/expert in the relevant field: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=EtHsEcMAAAAJ According to wikipedia standards: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Of course, please correct me if I'm misreading the community standards..but I think I'm right here. Thanks. Pengortm ( talk) 20:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hindawi has been placed on the Watchlist section of Beall's List of Predatory, Open-Access Publishers [1] for exhibiting some characteristics of predatory open access journals (in particular, publishing so much that it is unclear they are maintaining quality standards.)
Hindawi uses unsolicited bulk emailing (sometimes considered spam) to market their journals [2] [3].
References
I've just reinserted the discussion of their use of page charges, previously deleted by user Guillaume2303 at this revision, who commented "we don't publish subswription [sic] rates either" in explanation; I'm not clear who 'we' are and don't see why this is in any way relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikalra ( talk • contribs) 11:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems that the two links that should be directing to pdf documents at ithaka.org are outdated after Ithaka launched a new website. Using the search function on the new ithaka.org I was unable to retrieve any results for "hindawi", so I hope that someone more experienced than me might try to fix this problem? E.Wende ( talk) 06:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I think this short article currently reads too much like "Hindawi according to Beall". I think a more fair and unbalanced approach would be to plainly describe the business and its practices in neutral terms and then state what others have written about it in reliable sources. I don't think it's balanced that 3 of the 8 references are Beall's, and 2 of those are primary sources (lists that he admits are ultimately
his personal opinion). Are the lists on his blog peer-reviewed? In the interest of
due weight, I wonder if Beall's listing and delisting is even worth mentioning: The
Nature article simply states: "A set of Hindawi's journals appeared on a version of Beall's list because he had concerns about their editorial process, but has since been removed. “I reanalysed it and determined that it did not belong on the list,” he says. “It was always a borderline case.”" So all we know is that some unknown number of Hindawi journals were at one time placed on Beall's list, prematurely. Criticism about Hindawi's editorial practice may be valid, but let's not let this article be dominated by any one person's self-published views.
--Animalparty-- (
talk)
06:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
And here are some other perspectives:
--Animalparty-- (
talk)
06:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added some hopefully neutral information on the growth and editorial practices from the above mentioned Loy Case Report, as I feel it presents a rather fair overview, and I have no reason to doubt the veracity or authenticity of the claims I've used it to reference. There is still room for improvement and expansion, especially in harmonizing the lead with the body. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 22:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
pls see Talk:Predatory open access publishing#fringe theory? Fgnievinski ( talk) 21:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
This is probably too much like original research, so not posting to article page. Looking into Hindawi's Neurology Research International I see that the first editorial board member they list actually died almost year ago. This doesn't suggest a very engaged editorial board or editor. ( http://www.hindawi.com/journals/nri/editors/ and http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/in-memoriam:-dr-george-bartzokis-neuroscientist-who-developed-the-myelin-model-of-brain-disease). -- Dan Eisenberg ( talk) 19:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Can we include following citation in main article? [1] Jessie1979 ( talk) 12:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I will point out some inaccuracies/outdated information on this page for potential correction. As I work at Hindawi, I will leave it to others to decide on the merit of making these changes.
Lespleen ( talk) 23:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
References
I hope people editing this page have read this explanation of the structure and changes over the years of what Hindawi (the academic publisher) is: https://about.hindawi.com/blog/a-2018-update-on-hindawis-corporate-structure/
In light of this, the page requires significant editing to make it accurately describe what Hindawi is _now_ in 2019, whilst accurately reflecting what the structure of what it was before the relocation to London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metacladistics ( talk • contribs) 10:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The article says that Hindawi had a staff of over 450 employees in 2011, and only 42 in 2019. A company losing more than 93% of its staff is a huge and dramatic change, but the article doesn't explain this phenomenon at all, or even note that it exists. Some explanation or correction should be put into the article. — BarrelProof ( talk) 00:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I see the last discussion on this page re: content was 2019. I plan to update the page organization to be in line with other publishing groups (e.g. Frontiers Media, MDPI), which primarily means an overt Controversies section. The current section title of "Journals" makes little sense to me, as the section is not a list of journals, and includes many entries about journal-specific controversies. I'll also be cleaning up some grammar as I see it. I've added a line on listing of many Hindawi journals on a warning list by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. I just wanted to make a note here as I know these pages can be controversial, and want to be sure that others are alerted to my intention to make changes and can discuss my proposed restructure here. I will be directly editing the article, so if these edits are not approved, the page should be reverted to its form from Jan 1st, 2022. Cheers. Crawdaunt ( talk) 18:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Is this worth mentioning? I think that this is the first time that the entire catalogue of a publishing house has been blacklisted.
"On January 3rd, Zhejiang Gonggong University (浙江工商大学), a public university in Hangzhou, announced that all the journals of the three largest Open Access (OA) publishing houses were blacklisted, including Hindawi (acquired by Wiley in early 2021), MDPI founded by a Chinese businessman Lin Shukun, and Frontiers, which has become very popular in recent years. The university issued a notice stating that articles published by Hindawi, MDPI and Frontiers will not be included in research performance statistics."
Source: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/NO5By3PtF0XPwNxyKl8j1A
Jonathan O'Donnell ( talk) 23:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Nearly 20 Hindawi journals were among the journals recently delisted by Clarivate's Web of Science. This means that this journal loses its Clarivate impact factor. Discussion of a different journal on the list. Times Higher Education, Retraction watch ScienceFlyer ( talk) 16:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Bringing to attention of page.
Also see note elsewhere that I have a COI to declare per these publishers: /info/en/?search=Talk:MDPI#Declaring_COI
Cheers -- Crawdaunt ( talk) 12:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hindawi (publisher) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is an advertising site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hi pedler ( talk • contribs) 01:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This is advertising - see the use of the word 'our' and 'we' in the second paragraph - it was obviously written by the company.
This is 2 lists masquerading as an encyclopedia article. At the very least, we don't need 2 lists when one is a subset of the other. I'm not sure whether to cut it with a big knife or a little knife. Nurg ( talk) 03:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Cut the long list. Not needed. - 134.131.125.49 ( talk) 14:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hindawi spam me a lot. Apparently I'm not the only one: http://www.google.com/search?q=hindawi+spam -- maybe someone who could be bothered to write a criticism section could gather the sources. 80.192.19.6 ( talk) 07:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
They do spam a lot, but I couldn't find any "reliable source" talking about the problem to quote.-- Per Abrahamsen ( talk) 08:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Guillaume2303 removed suggested removing the spam and other criticism section. While I normally would agree with him/her, in this case I think a blog post is acceptable. Here is why, the author of the blog post is an scholar/expert in the relevant field: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=EtHsEcMAAAAJ According to wikipedia standards: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Of course, please correct me if I'm misreading the community standards..but I think I'm right here. Thanks. Pengortm ( talk) 20:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hindawi has been placed on the Watchlist section of Beall's List of Predatory, Open-Access Publishers [1] for exhibiting some characteristics of predatory open access journals (in particular, publishing so much that it is unclear they are maintaining quality standards.)
Hindawi uses unsolicited bulk emailing (sometimes considered spam) to market their journals [2] [3].
References
I've just reinserted the discussion of their use of page charges, previously deleted by user Guillaume2303 at this revision, who commented "we don't publish subswription [sic] rates either" in explanation; I'm not clear who 'we' are and don't see why this is in any way relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikalra ( talk • contribs) 11:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems that the two links that should be directing to pdf documents at ithaka.org are outdated after Ithaka launched a new website. Using the search function on the new ithaka.org I was unable to retrieve any results for "hindawi", so I hope that someone more experienced than me might try to fix this problem? E.Wende ( talk) 06:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I think this short article currently reads too much like "Hindawi according to Beall". I think a more fair and unbalanced approach would be to plainly describe the business and its practices in neutral terms and then state what others have written about it in reliable sources. I don't think it's balanced that 3 of the 8 references are Beall's, and 2 of those are primary sources (lists that he admits are ultimately
his personal opinion). Are the lists on his blog peer-reviewed? In the interest of
due weight, I wonder if Beall's listing and delisting is even worth mentioning: The
Nature article simply states: "A set of Hindawi's journals appeared on a version of Beall's list because he had concerns about their editorial process, but has since been removed. “I reanalysed it and determined that it did not belong on the list,” he says. “It was always a borderline case.”" So all we know is that some unknown number of Hindawi journals were at one time placed on Beall's list, prematurely. Criticism about Hindawi's editorial practice may be valid, but let's not let this article be dominated by any one person's self-published views.
--Animalparty-- (
talk)
06:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
And here are some other perspectives:
--Animalparty-- (
talk)
06:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added some hopefully neutral information on the growth and editorial practices from the above mentioned Loy Case Report, as I feel it presents a rather fair overview, and I have no reason to doubt the veracity or authenticity of the claims I've used it to reference. There is still room for improvement and expansion, especially in harmonizing the lead with the body. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 22:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
pls see Talk:Predatory open access publishing#fringe theory? Fgnievinski ( talk) 21:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
This is probably too much like original research, so not posting to article page. Looking into Hindawi's Neurology Research International I see that the first editorial board member they list actually died almost year ago. This doesn't suggest a very engaged editorial board or editor. ( http://www.hindawi.com/journals/nri/editors/ and http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/in-memoriam:-dr-george-bartzokis-neuroscientist-who-developed-the-myelin-model-of-brain-disease). -- Dan Eisenberg ( talk) 19:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Can we include following citation in main article? [1] Jessie1979 ( talk) 12:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I will point out some inaccuracies/outdated information on this page for potential correction. As I work at Hindawi, I will leave it to others to decide on the merit of making these changes.
Lespleen ( talk) 23:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
References
I hope people editing this page have read this explanation of the structure and changes over the years of what Hindawi (the academic publisher) is: https://about.hindawi.com/blog/a-2018-update-on-hindawis-corporate-structure/
In light of this, the page requires significant editing to make it accurately describe what Hindawi is _now_ in 2019, whilst accurately reflecting what the structure of what it was before the relocation to London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metacladistics ( talk • contribs) 10:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The article says that Hindawi had a staff of over 450 employees in 2011, and only 42 in 2019. A company losing more than 93% of its staff is a huge and dramatic change, but the article doesn't explain this phenomenon at all, or even note that it exists. Some explanation or correction should be put into the article. — BarrelProof ( talk) 00:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I see the last discussion on this page re: content was 2019. I plan to update the page organization to be in line with other publishing groups (e.g. Frontiers Media, MDPI), which primarily means an overt Controversies section. The current section title of "Journals" makes little sense to me, as the section is not a list of journals, and includes many entries about journal-specific controversies. I'll also be cleaning up some grammar as I see it. I've added a line on listing of many Hindawi journals on a warning list by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. I just wanted to make a note here as I know these pages can be controversial, and want to be sure that others are alerted to my intention to make changes and can discuss my proposed restructure here. I will be directly editing the article, so if these edits are not approved, the page should be reverted to its form from Jan 1st, 2022. Cheers. Crawdaunt ( talk) 18:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Is this worth mentioning? I think that this is the first time that the entire catalogue of a publishing house has been blacklisted.
"On January 3rd, Zhejiang Gonggong University (浙江工商大学), a public university in Hangzhou, announced that all the journals of the three largest Open Access (OA) publishing houses were blacklisted, including Hindawi (acquired by Wiley in early 2021), MDPI founded by a Chinese businessman Lin Shukun, and Frontiers, which has become very popular in recent years. The university issued a notice stating that articles published by Hindawi, MDPI and Frontiers will not be included in research performance statistics."
Source: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/NO5By3PtF0XPwNxyKl8j1A
Jonathan O'Donnell ( talk) 23:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Nearly 20 Hindawi journals were among the journals recently delisted by Clarivate's Web of Science. This means that this journal loses its Clarivate impact factor. Discussion of a different journal on the list. Times Higher Education, Retraction watch ScienceFlyer ( talk) 16:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Bringing to attention of page.
Also see note elsewhere that I have a COI to declare per these publishers: /info/en/?search=Talk:MDPI#Declaring_COI
Cheers -- Crawdaunt ( talk) 12:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)