Comment in response to
a query on the talk page of
WP:NJournals. The International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mathematics is published by the "Science Publishing Group" a
predatory publisher included on
Jeffrey Beall's list. This means that it is doubtful that any article published in one of their journals has undergone proper peer review. Any article in such a journal should be regarded as self-published and treated as such (note that we sometimes accept self-published sources]]. See also
Talk:Ibn Zuhr for a similar discussion. I have no time to look into the details of the above and therefore don't express any opinion either way. Not watchlisting this, so ping me if more comment is needed. Hope this was helpful! --
Randykitty (
talk)
09:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: I notice the comment from
Graeme Bartlett that the doi looks fake. If 10.11648/j.ijtam.20160202.25 is a real and correct doi, then it should find the article by the link
http://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.ijtam.20160202.25; it does not. However,
http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/html/10.11648.j.ijtam.20160202.25.html (with the same claimed doi) does find the article, so the doi is not wrong. It is fake. Looking at the article and its 74 equations, anyone familiar with peer review and science literature will see that any alleged review was inadequate (
OR, I know). No view on the DRv, but the paper looks like junk to me, especially when reference 7 is "McCarthy & Guinot: Julian Day Number (2013), 91–2, at /info/en/?search=Julian_day"... (
Randykitty, you might find this reference amusing.)
EdChem (
talk)
12:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The reason I thought the doi is fake is because it has 5 digits after the 10. 5 digits would only be allowed if there were over 9999 registrants. But looking up the prefix at doi.org does yield "Science Publishing Group". So Headbomb, you could be correct.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
21:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: I've given the editor a
WP:NOTHERE block because from what I can see, all they've done since they first came on to Wikipedia was to try to insert various fringe theories into Wikipedia via new article creations and insertions into existing articles. They seem to be fairly single minded in their goals, but what makes their actions disruptive is that they have repeatedly re-added their deleted content despite clear indication that this was not seen as appropriate. I honestly don't see their article getting restored via this DRV because even if the hoax status wasn't an issue, the content is still seen as a non-notable fringe theory or original research - and their past actions give enough evidence to suggest that they will just try to restore the content again despite prior deletions.
Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)07:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The g13 doesn't apply, since the page was not created through an AfC. Unfortunately, the mistakes like this one have been too common. --
Taku (
talk)
18:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
It's a fairly clear-cut that the deletion was incorrect. But I wanted to post here because I wanted to raise an issue that there is a perception that (1) the draft namespace is used only for the AfC process and that (2) because of (1), many editors don't distinguish between the AfC draft pages and the other user drafts. Perhaps we need an AfC draft namespace? If an enough number of the editors keep making a wrong assumption on the draft namespace, then, obviously, the problem is systemic (which requires a systemic solution). --
Taku (
talk)
03:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I would like to apologize, since I'm the one who caused this trouble. I've been tagging non AfC'd drafts for G13, because I can't read what G13 actually applies to, apparently. Given the fact that drafts in my
CSD log are mostly redlinks, I think perhaps administrators are also suffering from this as well.
Zupotachyon Ping me (
talk ⋅
contribs)
03:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I didn't mean to single-out a particular editor or a particular deletion. The point I wanted to raise is that this is a systemic issue; the current system that the draft namespace consists of pages of two different types, with the g13 applying to one type and not to the other is too confusing. I myself am caught up with the real-life obligations to propose any structural change to the community. But, one simplest solution is to retire g13 (since it's not really necessary to clean-up the draft namespace). The other solution is to split the draft namespace into two namespaces, the one for AfC and the other for other drafts. --
Taku (
talk)
03:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
What I was trying to get at with my previous response is that that difference is perhaps lost on deleting administrators, too, since my CSD log is chock-full of non-AfC drafts deleted by my G13 tags.
Zupotachyon Ping me (
talk ⋅
contribs)
03:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Comment in response to
a query on the talk page of
WP:NJournals. The International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mathematics is published by the "Science Publishing Group" a
predatory publisher included on
Jeffrey Beall's list. This means that it is doubtful that any article published in one of their journals has undergone proper peer review. Any article in such a journal should be regarded as self-published and treated as such (note that we sometimes accept self-published sources]]. See also
Talk:Ibn Zuhr for a similar discussion. I have no time to look into the details of the above and therefore don't express any opinion either way. Not watchlisting this, so ping me if more comment is needed. Hope this was helpful! --
Randykitty (
talk)
09:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: I notice the comment from
Graeme Bartlett that the doi looks fake. If 10.11648/j.ijtam.20160202.25 is a real and correct doi, then it should find the article by the link
http://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.ijtam.20160202.25; it does not. However,
http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/html/10.11648.j.ijtam.20160202.25.html (with the same claimed doi) does find the article, so the doi is not wrong. It is fake. Looking at the article and its 74 equations, anyone familiar with peer review and science literature will see that any alleged review was inadequate (
OR, I know). No view on the DRv, but the paper looks like junk to me, especially when reference 7 is "McCarthy & Guinot: Julian Day Number (2013), 91–2, at /info/en/?search=Julian_day"... (
Randykitty, you might find this reference amusing.)
EdChem (
talk)
12:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The reason I thought the doi is fake is because it has 5 digits after the 10. 5 digits would only be allowed if there were over 9999 registrants. But looking up the prefix at doi.org does yield "Science Publishing Group". So Headbomb, you could be correct.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
21:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: I've given the editor a
WP:NOTHERE block because from what I can see, all they've done since they first came on to Wikipedia was to try to insert various fringe theories into Wikipedia via new article creations and insertions into existing articles. They seem to be fairly single minded in their goals, but what makes their actions disruptive is that they have repeatedly re-added their deleted content despite clear indication that this was not seen as appropriate. I honestly don't see their article getting restored via this DRV because even if the hoax status wasn't an issue, the content is still seen as a non-notable fringe theory or original research - and their past actions give enough evidence to suggest that they will just try to restore the content again despite prior deletions.
Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)07:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The g13 doesn't apply, since the page was not created through an AfC. Unfortunately, the mistakes like this one have been too common. --
Taku (
talk)
18:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
It's a fairly clear-cut that the deletion was incorrect. But I wanted to post here because I wanted to raise an issue that there is a perception that (1) the draft namespace is used only for the AfC process and that (2) because of (1), many editors don't distinguish between the AfC draft pages and the other user drafts. Perhaps we need an AfC draft namespace? If an enough number of the editors keep making a wrong assumption on the draft namespace, then, obviously, the problem is systemic (which requires a systemic solution). --
Taku (
talk)
03:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I would like to apologize, since I'm the one who caused this trouble. I've been tagging non AfC'd drafts for G13, because I can't read what G13 actually applies to, apparently. Given the fact that drafts in my
CSD log are mostly redlinks, I think perhaps administrators are also suffering from this as well.
Zupotachyon Ping me (
talk ⋅
contribs)
03:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I didn't mean to single-out a particular editor or a particular deletion. The point I wanted to raise is that this is a systemic issue; the current system that the draft namespace consists of pages of two different types, with the g13 applying to one type and not to the other is too confusing. I myself am caught up with the real-life obligations to propose any structural change to the community. But, one simplest solution is to retire g13 (since it's not really necessary to clean-up the draft namespace). The other solution is to split the draft namespace into two namespaces, the one for AfC and the other for other drafts. --
Taku (
talk)
03:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
What I was trying to get at with my previous response is that that difference is perhaps lost on deleting administrators, too, since my CSD log is chock-full of non-AfC drafts deleted by my G13 tags.
Zupotachyon Ping me (
talk ⋅
contribs)
03:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
