Talk:MDPI/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Claim that Mario Capecchi was put on the editorial board of MDPI unjustly

Information to be added or removed: Dr. Capecchi's Office later contested this and stated that he was indeed aware of being an honorary editorial board member of the MDPI journal Biomolecules. eCampus News, the website which Beall based his information on[7], posted a correction on this issue in which they stated that "eCampus News regrets the error".[27]

Explanation of the issue: In the section "Inclusion in Beall's list", it is stated that "Among the reasons Beall gave for adding MDPI to his list of questionable publishers was the accusation that the company listed Nobel Prize–winning geneticist Mario Capecchi in one of the editorial board without his knowledge.". However, the reference [7] (https://web.archive.org/web/20140306052944/http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/02/18/chinese-publishner-mdpi-added-to-list-of-questionable-publishers/) does not mention this name (Mario Capecchi). However, it was clear that Jeffrey Beall (from his comment on that page [7]) referred to an article of eCampusnews stating in the comments section: "This news story backs up what I said about the Nobel Laureates (at least one of them) not knowing about being on the editorial board: http://www.ecampusnews.com/research/open-access-publisher-566/2/". However, in the new version of this article (http://www.ecampusnews.com/research/open-access-publisher-566/2/) the name Mario Capecchi is also not mentioned at all. In the archived link of eCampusnews (https://web.archive.org/web/20140310085753/http://www.ecampusnews.com/top-news/open-access-publisher-566/3/) the name Mario Cappechi was mentioned, but the news outlet removed it and posted the correction notice: "Correction 2/21/2014: An earlier version of this article stated that Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Mario Capecchi was not aware he was listed as a member of the editorial board for the MDPI journal Biomolecules. At the time, Capecchi’s assistant, Lorene Stitzer, told eCampus News that “he was not aware of the fact that he had been included on the listing.” After being contacted by MDPI, Stitzer now says Capecchi is in fact aware of being an honorary board member. eCampus News regrets the error.". However, when I mentioned this [Dr. Capecchi's Office later contested this and stated that he was indeed aware of being an honorary editorial board member of the MDPI journal Biomolecules. eCampus News, the website which Beall based his information on[7], posted a correction on this issue in which they stated that "eCampus News regrets the error".[27]], my contribution was removed due to the lack of references, which is odd as I base myself on the references ([7] + eCampusnews) already mentioned in the article. Hence, therefore the suggestion to (1) keep my contribution, (2) remove the name Mario Capecchi all together (where are the references mentioning Mario Capecchi?), or subsequently (3) provide a reference in which the name Mario Capecchi is mentioned.

References supporting change: http://www.ecampusnews.com/research/open-access-publisher-566/2/; https://web.archive.org/web/20140306052944/http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/02/18/chinese-publishner-mdpi-added-to-list-of-questionable-publishers/; https://web.archive.org/web/20140310085753/http://www.ecampusnews.com/top-news/open-access-publisher-566/3/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenji1987 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC) — Kenji1987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

After doing research, several Nobel Prize Laureates confirmed on their academic CV that they are an editorial board member of an MDPI journal. They include Mario Capecchi (http://capecchi.genetics.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Capecchi-CV-11.02.18.pdf), Eric S. Maskin (https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/maskin/files/curriculum_vitae_e._maskin_july_2019.pdf), and Steven Weinberg (https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/~weintech/CVSW0416.pdf). As Jeffrey Beall claims that several Nobel Laureates have been unwillingly added as an editorial board member, shouldn't we actually mention the other side as well in order to maintain neutrality? I will await the reply of a Wikipedia editor before I make the edit, as I do not want to be blocked for edit-warring Kenji1987 (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Above question has not been answered. Are we or are we not able to add that several Nobel Laureates have confirmed to be on editorial boards of MDPI? The paragraph heavily relies on one single source (ref 7), would it benefit the article to show that several Nobel Laureates added their editorial membership of MDPI on their respective CVs? If yes, have we reached the consensus that I can add the names, if no, may I kindly request you to explain, instead of claiming that you have 'helped' me, but in fact you did not? I am now following the advice Wikipedia editors gave me (kindly see my edit page). This is not referring to my previous discussion. This is a genuine question to the editors. Or should I open a new section, asking this question?Kenji1987 (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• No, adding that would be inappropriate because it would be based on WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. --Randykitty (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

How about adding this as a separate section? Jeffrey Beall does not provide any evidence that MDPI has done this. In his web-blog (isn't this a WP:OR issue btw?) he refers to one investigation (I kindly advise you to re-read his post - he really says it). We do not know which one that is. In the comments section he mentions eCampus News, but that website already retracted its claim. On the other hand, academic CV's from the Nobel Laureates websites themselves show that they are MDPI editorial members. Wouldn't it be misleading the reader? Judging from the Wikipedia page, it seems no Nobel Laureate is on MDPI's editorial board. Thank you by the way for replying. Evidence supporting my claim, from ref [7]: "1. The publisher cleverly uses the names and reputations of legitimate scholars, including Nobel laureates, to make the operation look more legitimate and accepted than it really is. The publisher claims that that several Nobel Laureates serve on its editorial boards, but one investigation found that they didn’t realize they were listed." & "This news story backs up what I said about the Nobel Laureates (at least one of them) not knowing about being on the editorial board: http://www.ecampusnews.com/research/open-access-publisher-566/2/". I understand that all of you see Jeffrey Beall's blog as impeccable evidence, that whatever he claims true is, but the reason I have these discussions now, is exactly the reason why my students are not allowed to cite Wikipedia. Kenji1987 (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Putting it in a separate section does not change the fact that it would be SYNTH/OR. Citing Beall's blog is not OR: like it or not, but Beall's blog is considered a reliable source and obviously independent from MDPI. We can only write what such independent reliable sources say, not what we think of conclude. See also WP:NOTTRUTH. --Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Therefore, we can conclude that academic institution websites of the respective Nobel Laureates are not reliable sources? I do not challenge the idea that Jeffrey Beall is a reliable source or not (discussion for another time), I do ask you to read his blog. Why can't we mention that he bases himself on ONE investigation, which is unnamed? Kenji1987 (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Upon investigating the respective Wikipedia pages of the Nobel Laureates, exactly the same domains are cited as legitimate sources! Why does someone's official website not count as a reliable source about themselves?Kenji1987 (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• You really have to read the policies and guidelines that I linked to. Somebody's official website can be used as a source for non-controversial information, such as their list of publications, research interests, etc. for an article about those people. If both the MDPI site for a certain journal list somebody as board member and that person also lists this on their official website, that information is considered reliably sourced. However, saying "John, Joe, and Sam are Nobelists and therefore Beall was wrong" is a synthesis based on original research. What you need is a reliable source independent of those Nobelists and MDPI that says "Beall was wrong". Without such a source, you can't say it. It really is all very simple (and again, please read OR/SYNTH/RS). --Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Dear Randy, this: “If both the MDPI site for a certain journal list somebody as board member and that person also lists this on their official website, that information is considered reliably sourced.” is exactly the case. Both MDPI and respective Nobelists show this on their websites. Could I add this now to the MDPI page, not to prove that Beall is wrong, but to show that Nobelists do connect themselves with MDPI? I have all the references with me. We could do this in a seperate section, not right besides Beall. Kenji1987 (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• It would be reliably sourced to mention in a person's biography. However, "Nobelists do connect themselves with MDPI" is a conclusion that you draw from the fact that these people are on these boards. The OR is that you went out to find this info from primary sources, the SYNTH is your conclusion. Unless you have a reliable independent secondary source discussing this, it's not admissible (and even if such a source can be found, it really has to be an in -depth discussion, otherwise it's just puffery to make MDPI look good. --Randykitty (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Puffery to make MDPI look good", I think this is what it is all about. The reason why we can't mention the fact that Nobelists are indeed MDPI editorial members is all because it would make MDPI look like, you know, your regular academic publisher. With its fair share of controversies but also achievements (in my field the journals Sustainability and Forests are well respected and published in). There is no logical explanation why a biography has more value than someone's academic CV. Rather, the claim from Jeffrey Beall (which is, I should add， based on ONE investigation (most probably eCampus News)) is more valuable than Nobelists official website content (yes I simply found it on their official websites). I can live with the fact that Beall's blog is considered to be a reliable source, but what I find more dubious is that no one reads this valuable source (hence, you and others initially did not find it a problem that Mario Capecchi was mentioned on MDPI wiki page for a long time, while it was not backed by any source - hence David Eppstein kept on undoing the change and threatened me with a ban). And even if I would find a secondary source mentioning the fact that MDPI has Nobelists amongst its editorial board members, it would still be dismissed as probably not "indepth" enough (lets face it, I am probably never able to state the fact that there are Nobelists among MDPI editorial boards). Then, I'd like to know why we are not able to state where Beall got his information from (you know that one unnamed investigation?)? Or would that make Beall look bad or MDPI look good? (which seems to be the real reason why we are having this discussion). Kenji1987 (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. You really seem not to want to understand the issues here. I've spend a lot of effort trying to explain things to you, but apparently I'm not clear enough. I repeat, read and try to understand the policies about OR and SYNTH. Have a look at other articles on publishers. Most Nobelists are on many editorial boards, yet we hardly ever (if ever) mention this in those articles (nor in the bios on these people). Because it's mostly trivial and good sources are almost never available. I've done my best, I won't continue this conversation any more. Good luck. --Randykitty (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• It would have been something trivial if it was not claimed that MDPI falsely added Nobel Prize Winnners on its editorial board. The CVs I am referring to are published on the institution's website. Hence, this is not a case of own research. Furthermore, adding this information is not a case of SYNTH either, if it is not placed to discredit Jeffrey Beall. Hey while we are at it, why don't we call MDPI a Chinese publisher, as Jeffrey Beall claims that it is? Kenji1987 (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Your claim "eCampus News, the website which Beall based his information on" is dubiously supported at best. eCampus is not linked anywhere in Beall's original post. It was merely added later in a comment thread as additional supporting evidence. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, the name Mario Capecchi is not mentioned in the respective reference either: "https://web.archive.org/web/20140306052944/http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/02/18/chinese-publishner-mdpi-added-to-list-of-questionable-publishers/". Hence, there is no reference regarding Mario Capecchi being placed on the editorial board of MDPI unjustly. The only reference that did mention it (and therefore I felt compelled to address this issue) was eCampus News, which later retracted its statement and is now being discredited as a dubious source. Therefore, I felt it justified to remove the name Mario Capecchi all together, until a source or reference could prove otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenji1987 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

After some research, Prof. Mario Capecchi lists being an editorial board member for MDPI on his CV (please see here: http://capecchi.genetics.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Capecchi-CV-11.02.18.pdf - please search for "MDPI"). It is extracted from a reputable website: http://capecchi.genetics.utah.edu/. Hence, I will update it accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenji1987 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

In fact, Beall said "several Nobel Laureates". So the concentration on a single person, who might not even have been one of those several, seems spurious to me, more designed to discredit Beall by synthesis than to make a valid argument about the legitimacy of MDPI. I should also remind you (since you have only edited on this topic) that if you have a conflict of interest you are required by Wikipedia policy to disclose it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Mario Capecchi is not mentioned in this respective reference. His academic CV lists him to be an editorial board member of MDPI: http://capecchi.genetics.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Capecchi-CV-11.02.18.pdf. Regarding potential conflict of interest, note taken, but there are none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenji1987 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

If he's not mentioned, why are you edit-warring to mention him? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Because his named is linked to a reference, which simply does not mention his name. Kindly show us where Mario Capecchi is mentioned, and why I am not allowed to show that his academic CV proves otherwise. Either add the proper reference, or remove his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenji1987 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I have received an official warning that if I continue to edit the page, I will be blocked. Hence, I will not edit the page any longer, but everyone is able to see that Professor Capecchi is an editorial board member of MDPI (http://capecchi.genetics.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Capecchi-CV-11.02.18.pdf) and that Jeffrey Beall never referred to Mario Capecchi in the reference material which cited on the Wikipedia page which claims otherwise (https://web.archive.org/web/20140306052944/http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/02/18/chinese-publishner-mdpi-added-to-list-of-questionable-publishers/). If my edits are reversed, David Eppstein and other need provide a solid justification why they think they did the right thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenji1987 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Nobel Laureates and Jeffrey Beall

My apologies for repeating myself, but this needs a serious discussion. It is now written on MDPI's page that Jeffrey Beall claims that MDPI put Nobel Laureates on its editorial boards without their knowledge. This is based on the sentence: " "1. The publisher cleverly uses the names and reputations of legitimate scholars, including Nobel laureates, to make the operation look more legitimate and accepted than it really is. The publisher claims that that several Nobel Laureates serve on its editorial boards, but one investigation found that they didn’t realize they were listed." & later in the comments section: "This news story backs up what I said about the Nobel Laureates (at least one of them) not knowing about being on the editorial board: http://www.ecampusnews.com/research/open-access-publisher-566/2/" (ref [7]). Hence, in the web-blog, Beall claims that he bases himself on "one investigation", and later in the comments section he mentions the eCampus News website. This is problematic because of three reasons. Reason 1: we do not know which investigation he refers to. Reason 2: if it is the eCampus News website, then we could dismiss this source, as they themselves already retracted their statement regarding this issue. Reason 3: Several Nobel Laureates add on their own academic CV, that they are an editorial board member of an MDPI Journal. They include Mario Capecchi (http://capecchi.genetics.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Capecchi-CV-11.02.18.pdf), Eric S. Maskin (https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/maskin/files/curriculum_vitae_e._maskin_july_2019.pdf), and Steven Weinberg (https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/~weintech/CVSW0416.pdf). Hence, the question, why can't we mention these Nobel Laureates, and also acknowledge that Jeffrey Beall bases himself on ONE INVESTIGATION?

I leave it up for the Wikipedians to resolve, but this deserves a new section. Kenji1987 (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Why is this post being ignored? If a blogger claims that MDPI falsely puts nobel prize winners on their editorial boards, but the websites of all MDPI's Nobel prize winners say something else, then why do we keep the bloggers claim there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenji1987 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Jeffrey Beall removed MDPI after a succesfull appeal

Jeffrey Beall argues the following after removing MDPI from his list: "UPDATE 2015-11-13: MDPI has been removed from the list following a successful appeal". (http://scholarlyoa.com/chinese-publisher-mdpi-added-to-list-of-questionable-publishers/). The wording here is important as MDPI succesfully appealed for being removed from the list. Now with not mentioning this, it looks like a SYNTH case by adding Beall's comment in 2017 that he had been pressured to remove the list, by organizations like MDPI. As Jeffrey Beall's blog is considered a reliable source, we need to add the following: MDPI was removed from Beall's list in 2015 due to a succesfull appeal.Kenji1987 (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

It is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish your requests from those of the many MDPI-affiliated and self-serving sockpuppets previously afflicting this article, or to believe your protestations that you are not one of them. How do you think this continued behavior makes us feel about the supposed reform of MDPI from their predatory past? In any case, the language you request is already in the article. I can only presume that you want to move everything that serves to promote MDPI into the lead from the rest of the article, since the lead is the only place where this is mentioned without the wording you suggest. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• I honestly don't understand the purpose of your first sentence. You have warned me about the potential conflict of interest (fair enough), I said that I have none (which I did in good conscience), and now you repeat your suspicions (clearly ad hominem), while I am just trying to generate a discussion here (I do not dare to self-edit, otherwise you might block me, hence I am using the Talk page to improve the quality of this C-graded Wiki page). I do not have to accept this, and I politely ask you to adhere to Wikipedia's own rules. To refer back to the rest of your reply (and yes, thank you for coming back to me), yes, I do think this information should be in the lead or remove the reason why Beall resigned all together. Scholars who search for MDPI on Google, often only read the lead, which they then automatically assume that MDPI must be predatory. But the fact is, Jeffrey Beall, classified MDPI as non-predatory (the reason he resigned was because of his own conflicts with his university). MDPI is also not on Cabell's blacklist nor on any other credible black list. But the publisher is on plenty of white-lists, including DOAJ, OASPA and their impact factors gradually increase every year. Let's highlight this for a change, no one with any authority thinks MDPI is predatory. Therefore, it is strange that Wikipedia is suggesting or hinting, through using this wording, that MDPI is predatory. This does not do any justice to its purpose as an encyclopedia. The reason why Beall removed his list, 2 years after it deemed MDPI as not predatory, should be placed in his Wiki-page or perhaps moved down to the controversy section of MDPI. Therefore, who decided whether this information is relevant? I only see a few editors heavily "guarding" the MDPI page. Kenji1987 (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hindawi's Lead versus MDPI's

Hindawi's lead writes: "[..] all of Hindawi's journals have been open access and published under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY).[7] It is a founding member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association[8], a participating publisher and supporter of the Initiative for Open Citations,[9][10] and a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).[11][12]". Actually, this is also the case for MDPI (not sure if it is a founding member, but definitely a member). It is a member of the aforementioned initiatives. Hence, we should streamline how we present academic publishers on Wikipedia. Hence, the request to add this information on MDPI's page. Therefore the question: can I add this to the MDPI page? If no, should we delete it from Hindawi's lead as well?

Source: https://publicationethics.org/taxonomy/term/584; https://i4oc.org/; https://oaspa.org/membership/members/

(my apologies for the many sections, I really do think the MDPI Wiki page should be improved). Kenji1987 (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

MDPI becomes the largest contributor to articles in DOAJ in 2018

Information to be added or removed: Add to the lead that, as of 2018, MDPI is the largest contributor of peer-reviewed open access articles to DOAJ with 63’116 published papers.

Explanation of the issue: MDPI journals grew rapidly in recent years and it is significant that MDPI is now the leading open access publisher with 63’116 articles in DOAJ. Compared to this, for 2018 DOAJ has 30'156 papers from BMC, 28'349 papers from Frontiers, and 24'702 papers from Elsevier. Despite the rapid growth, the Impact Factors of the vast majority of MDPI journals increased year-on-year.

References supporting change: https://doaj.org/search?source=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22filtered%22%3A%7B%22filter%22%3A%7B%22bool%22%3A%7B%22must%22%3A%5B%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22index.publisher.exact%22%3A%22MDPI%20AG%22%7D%7D%5D%7D%7D%2C%22query%22%3A%7B%22query_string%22%3A%7B%22query%22%3A%222018%22%2C%22default_field%22%3A%22bibjson.year%22%2C%22default_operator%22%3A%22AND%22%7D%7D%7D%7D%2C%22from%22%3A0%2C%22size%22%3A10%7D — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErskineCer (talk • contribs) 13:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Reply 1-FEB-2019

  Unable to implement  

• This is the repeat of an edit request proposed 25 days ago which had an unknown resolution.
• The COI editor is asked to resume discussions with involved local editors regarding this request. Pinging Guy for their input.
• The COI editor is gently reminded to sign all posts using four tildes (~~~~).

Regards,  Spintendo  13:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The concern raised by Guy was about the use of primary sources. However, in this case we are referring to DOAJ, which is a trusted database. The fact that MDPI is now (by some distance) the largest contributor of OA open access articles to DOAJ is, in any case, worth mentioning to the reader. Regards, ErskineCer (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• MDPI is not the largest in DOAJ. PLOS has 4 times as many articles (https://doaj.org/search?source=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22filtered%22%3A%7B%22filter%22%3A%7B%22bool%22%3A%7B%22must%22%3A%5B%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22index.publisher.exact%22%3A%22Public%20Library%20of%20Science%20(PLoS)%22%7D%7D%5D%7D%7D%2C%22query%22%3A%7B%22match_all%22%3A%7B%7D%7D%7D%7D%2C%22from%22%3A0%2C%22size%22%3A10%7D ). It's also a pretty trivial accomplishment touting volume over quality. --Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to the year *2018* -- MDPI is the largest open access publisher in the world with 63’116 articles in that year. As you mention PLOS, they contributed 17,011 articles to DOAJ in 2018 (https://doaj.org/search?source=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22filtered%22%3A%7B%22filter%22%3A%7B%22bool%22%3A%7B%22must%22%3A%5B%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22index.publisher.exact%22%3A%22Public%20Library%20of%20Science%20(PLoS)%22%7D%7D%5D%7D%7D%2C%22query%22%3A%7B%22query_string%22%3A%7B%22query%22%3A%222018%22%2C%22default_field%22%3A%22bibjson.year%22%2C%22default_operator%22%3A%22AND%22%7D%7D%7D%7D%2C%22from%22%3A0%2C%22size%22%3A10%7D#.XFR5LS2ZN24 ) --Randykitty (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

There are comments on this Talk page from WP editors that MDPI is publishing "crap", has a "toxic" reputation, publishing questionable papers, etc. This is definitely not what we hear from our editors, reviewers and particularly authors, who submit more and more papers to our journals. ErskineCer (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

And I'm sure if you ask the authors and editors of Journal of Cosmology, they would all tell you that they too are real scientists that do good work, and aren't crap. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the first time I hear of the Journal of Cosmology, but as you are obviously an expert in that field, please compare that journal to the content published in /Universe/, which was recently accepted for coverage in SCIE: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/universe. The fact that MDPI is now publishing more open access papers each month compared to any other publisher is a significant piece of information (like it or not) and should be mentioned. ErskineCer (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

According to you, an employee of MPDI. If it's a 'significant piece of information', as you say, then there would be reliable independent source discussing it.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Several good papers for you to read in /Universe/, for example: https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/2/4/23 ErskineCer (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

In any case, we would need a better source for this factoid. A search result is not an acceptable source. --Randykitty (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

So if on the NSD website a "0" appears in connection with MDPI that is immediately jumped upon (because negative) and added to the lead, despite almost all MDPI journals having a "1" (although it is not clear the ratings mean, how they are decided, what control mechanisms exist, etc.), and the fact that most MDPI journals have a "1" is conveniently omitted, whereas data from DOAJ is not considered a solid source - strange! ErskineCer (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

It is amply documented what the ratings mean and how they are decided, and this has been discussed before. The ratings "0", "1" and "2" are related to funding and based on quality. A "0" rating simply means that the publication channel doesn't count, funding-wise or otherwise, because it is not officially regarded as scientific/scholarly in the national research documentation system of Norway. As far as the official academic career system or public funding of research institutions in Norway are concerned, a level 0 publication is the equivalent of a blog post or a letter to the editor in a newspaper, and not an academic paper or book. 0-level publication channels aren't even systematically included in the database, so a 0-rating usually means that the publication channel was either nominated for level 1 status and failed to be approved as such, or that it has been downgraded. In any event it is a clear statement that the publication channel isn't regarded as academic in Norway. If you, for instance, wanted to submit a doctoral dissertation in Norway consisting of a collection of articles, a "0-level" publication wouldn't be regarded as an academic publication that could be part of a dissertation.

Level "1" and "2" on the other hand are both designated as "regnes som vitenskapelig i rapporteringssammenheng" (regarded as scientific/scholarly for the purposes of research documentation) in the CRIStin database and generate different degrees of funding. The criteria and procedure are described here. As you can see the criteria for level "1" status are very basic and only implies that the publication adheres to academic minimum standards. Any respectable publisher, even the most obscure ones, should be able to be designated as "level 1". Over the last years some MDPI journals have had (journal-level) "1" ratings and some have had "0" ratings. This was all in a situation where MDPI as a publisher was under review as a result of the negative attention surrounding the company following its inclusion in Beall's List.

Although they are automatically renewed unless they are changed, ratings are in principle valid on a year-by-year basis. A rating for 2018 is of no use after 2018. Ratings are given both at the publisher level and the individual journal level. Four weeks ago, a publisher-level rating of "0" for MDPI was implemented. I expect the journal-level ratings to follow suit soon. If you look at MDPI journals individually, you'll notice they all only have ratings for 2018 with no rating valid for this year (2019). All non-MDPI journals I looked at had ratings valid for 2019. So the situation is that MDPI has a publisher-level rating of "0" and it seems that all its journals have no currently valid ratings. It is therefore not true that MDPI journals have "1" ratings; what is true is that many MDPI journals had "1" ratings last year and that they don't have it this year. The list that you obviously looked at only shows their last valid ratings, but not ratings that are valid in 2019. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Update: At least MDPI's Arts journal is now level 0, compared to level 1 in previous years.[1] I didn't find any other MDPI journals with journal-level ratings valid for 2019 (compare with the entry on e.g. Nature which has a "2" rating for 2019[2]), so there is clearly something going on with MDPI's journals in the Norwegian Scientific Index. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

As you mentioned a rating of "2" for the publisher of Nature (Springer Nature), this blog post by Frontiers is quite interesting as it shows average citations across publishers. For the period 2015-2017 MDPI journals received more citations (3.10 on average) compared to Springer Nature (2.35 on average), see:

https://blog.frontiersin.org/2018/07/11/scientific-excellence-at-scale-open-access-journals-have-a-clear-citation-advantage-over-subscription-journals/

If MDPI journals were so poor (="0"), then why are average citations higher in comparison? Elsevier's average is marginally higher than MDPI's at 3.15. It is not clear what data the NSD used as basis for their decision, or what the reason(s) was/were for the change. As there is no publicly available information available about the rating at this time, and due to the fact that MDPI publishes relatively few papers from authors in Norway (642 out of 67'384 in 2018, less than 1%), the issue should be discussed in the "Controversies" section and not in the lead of the article. Regards, ErskineCer (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Frontiers is pretty much a canonically unreliable source, but even so, citations are a completely unreliable measure when comparing open access with closed sources, due to FUTON bias (which predates predatory open access publishing by a long time). Guy (Help!) 15:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

"It is not clear what data the NSD used as basis for their decision" what you have to understand is that we don't care and we are not allowed to care. The NSD is a reliable and reputable organization, so we report where they stand on it. If external sources called the NSD's evaluation into question, sources not affiliated with MDPI, then we would have a reason to debate inclusion. But absent of those, the NSD's evaluation stand as is.

Want MDPI to gain standing? The best way to do that is improve your game and stop publishing shit journals with ludicrous acceptance rates. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The NSD issue should be covered, I am not arguing that it should be removed. I am just requesting it to be first covered in a separate section under the "Controversies" section, and, if it turns out to be a bigger issue, it should then be added to the lead. At the moment, there is a "0" on a website of the NSD, but all journals are still showing as "1" and there has been no announcement yet by the NSD, or any further information. At present, we are reaching out to the NSD and have requested clarification - so until it turns out to be a major issue for the publisher, the point should be covered in the main body of the article.

You mention the rejection rate: in 2018 the rejection rate across our journals was 61%, see page 3 of the 2018 annual report: https://res.mdpi.com/data/2018_web.pdf. I do not know if 39% is a "ludicrous" acceptance rate. The decisions on which papers are accepted and which papers are rejected is decided on by the members of the editorial board. While Entropy is perhaps not the leading journal in its field, the JCR rank is 22 out of 78 (so in Q2, see: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/entropy/stats). Of course it depends on where you consider the "shit" starts: Is any journal that is covered by SCIE "not shit", or anything that is not in the top 10? ErskineCer (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Except the NSD coverage isn't "controversial" in the least. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Once again: It's patently false that "all journals are still showing as '1'". Most journals have no rating valid for 2019 at all. Last year's ratings aren't relevant for a discussion that is based on the fact that MDPI as a publisher was downgraded to "0" status on 1 January 2019. The only MDPI journal with a journal-level rating valid for this year has a "0" rating[3]. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

For 2019 to date, 119 out of 130 MDPI journals have received a "1", and 11 newer/smaller journals rated "0" (several of which have not yet released their first issue). So I would still stand by the fact that the vast majority of MDPI journals are rated "1" by the NSD in 2019, which should be mentioned if in the lead mentions the NSD rating so prominently. There is clearly a mismatch between the journal rating, and the publisher rating. The data with the ratings by journal can be downloaded here: https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/AlltidFerskListe.action?request_locale=en. To filter, it is best to apply "contains=MDPI" in the column "AI" (URL information), as the data in the column "Publishing Company" is not yet complete. Regards, ErskineCer (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

MDPI has a rating of 1 again for 2020. Again! NSD is a reliable source. MDPI was given a 0 rating as they did not know it also publishes books. So the whole discussion about them, to quote headbomb, publish shit journals can now be regarded as an opinion and not a fact. So my request is to strictly follow reliable sources such as NSD. Kenji1987 (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

If I may add to this discussion, Scientific Reports, published by Nature has an acceptance rate of whopping 56% (https://www.nature.com/content/scirep-facts/index.html), and Plosone 48.4% (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information). These acceptance rates are higher than most MDPI journals! Additionally many good journals in my field are rate "1" by the Norwegian Index, such as Applied Geography. It is simply not true that a "1" stands for mediocre. Kenji1987 (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

When is something newspaper style, and when is something encyclopedic?

I would like to see how we can improve the controversies section, as I find the text very fragmented, and it can definetely be made more coherent. On the other hand, I would like to know when is something newspaper style and when is something encyclopedic.

Two examples:

[1] A Professor of Neurobiology at John Hopkins stated: “It seems journal x has a unique publication policy—‘If you are caught plagiarizing someone else’s work in journal x, all you need to do is apologize and publish a corrigendum.’ I don’t think this is something the community should support or we are condoning this behavior.”

[2] Scott Lane, who was listed as the journal editor who handled the submission, described his experience with this manuscript as "one of the most bizarre and atypical experiences I have encountered in my academic career" and declared that he "was not in involved in the final decision regarding correction/retraction/authorship."

Example 1 was removed on another page for being written in the style of a newspaper, while example 2 is listed on the MDPI page. Hence, my question, what makes example 2 different from example 1? What are the exact criteria? Kenji1987 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• "John Doe stated "bla bla bla" is newspaper style. For the rest, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I agree that (2) also needs to be rephrased. There's probably 100,000 other instances in WP articles. --Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• OK, good to know! So there is plenty of things to change here then. Kenji1987 (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  Kenji1987, perhaps, but not by single-purpose accounts devoted to whitewashing crappy publishers. Guy (help!) 16:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, wrongfully whitewashing crappy publishers should not be allowed at Wikipedia. Ill keep my eyes out. Kenji1987 (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  Jzg, single-purpose accounts? Projecting much? Also, your last reply is clearly a violation of WP:GOODFAITH, but you are an admin, so who cares.Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I have several editors and admins accusing me of being a single-purpose account or having COI. I know the Talk Page should not be used to mention this, but I find the atmosphere very toxic, and not very welcoming. If we are ever going to have an honest discussion about open access publishers, we should be able to feel safe. I just don't know who I should ask for help. Kenji1987 (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know you or whether you have a COI, though I assume you don't judging on the tenor of your replies. I just chipped in for future reference should more users get interested in this discussion at some point and a new consensus emerge. As for the larger issues, I left you a message in your talk page. Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't and I am not allowed to remove any of the quotations. I am honestly confused when a quotation is justified and when it is newspaper style. The fact Randykitty is totally absent now in this discussion (and I'm sure he reads it), makes it even more frustrating. Kenji1987 (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

For example. This was the original text: "Scott Lane, who was listed as the journal editor who handled the submission, described his experience with this manuscript as "one of the most bizarre and atypical experiences I have encountered in my academic career" -> only this was half the quote, because Lane also added "However, other work I have completed for the journal has not been met with these kind of complications or misunderstandings". Isn't it very suggestive just to quote one part, but leave the other part out? JBL undid my revision, with the comment "go away", but why can't anyone just bother explaining it to me? Kenji1987 (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sciprofiles.com

I would like to add this URL to the external links. I think it is compliant with Wikipedia:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. Before editing, I hope someone may confirm this statement.

SciProfiles is a social network for researchers and scholars developed by MDPI. It is a freemium service which requires a subscription to get the full view ot its contents. This aspect brought me to doubt that it can be cited on WP. If it is not, this discussion can be clearly deleted in order to avoid any possible form of free sponsorhip. Thanks for your eventual help.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

That's something that's probably better as a section (or perhaps incorporated in the history section) than as an external link if there's coverage. And if there's no coverage, then it's probably irrelevant entirely. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Headbomb. I will try to incorporate in the history section as yoi have suggested. Otherwise, I won't cite it anymore. It may be useful but it issn't a basic content for the WP article.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Done.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Micheledisaveriosp, as Headbomb advised you, you should include it only if there is coverage in secondary sources: if there's no coverage, then it's probably irrelevant entirely. The "about" page of the website does not qualify. --JBL (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Joel B. Lewis, there was a misunderstanding. With the word coverage I didn't mean I have necessarily to use a secondary source.I've cited the samed mentioned in the current topic.

It is a primary source, not independent by the subject of the article. I've no secondary sources to cite, but this edit not so relevant. Just a question: there is a number of reverted edits after which an user account is permanently blocked? I won't this will be the case. Thanks for your reply.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Micheledisaveriosp, if there are no independent sources that have written about this, then I don't think it should be mentioned. As to your question: no, definitely not. You can read the Wikipedia blocking policy at WP:BLOCK. --JBL (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

:Hi Joel B. Lewis, I apologize for my wrong edit. So the topic is just closed. Thanks for your reply. Best regards.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Request to delete because of WP:NOR

"Individual MDPI journals have separate journal-level ratings, the ratings that are of primary importance for journal publications: For instance the journal Laws was assigned level 0 (non-academic) status in 2015, but received level 1 status in 2017;[34] the journal Arts was rated as level 1 from 2013, but downgraded to level 0 in 2019;[35] the journal Languages has been rated as level 0 every year since 2016.[36]" Kenji1987 (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I added the sentence: "As of 2020, 165 MDPI journals are listed in the Norwegian Scientific Index of which 158 have a rating of "level 1", and 7 have a rating of "level 0"." It makes absolutely no sense to talk about these few journals have level 0, whereas in fact 96% of the listed MDPI journals have a level 1. Kenji1987 (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

David Eppstein - before you re-do my edit, take a look here. cheers. Kenji1987 (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why, from your pattern of edits, I shouldn't just treat you as a promotion-only editor and revert on sight without paying attention to content. But in this case, my statement in my edit summary is clear: By leaving in place the statement that MDPI as a whole has rating 1, and removing the statement that that's not actually true and that some of its journals really have rating 0, you are being misleading. By doing it again after I reverted it once with that explanation, you are being deliberately and promotionally misleading. Stop making deliberately and promotionally misleading edits or I will push for you to be blocked. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

David Eppstein I think you don't really understand how the NSD index works. You can get a rating as a publisher, and individual journals also get a rating. Take a look at the page for Elsevier here: https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=18173&bibsys=false - several Elsevier journals also received a 0 rating, due to not passing the criteria for the review. MDPI is rated as 1, as a publisher, but a few MDPI journals did not pass the judgement. So why is it relevant to mention about these few journals that received a 0, but not to show the full picture? 158 MDPI journals have a rating of 1 - what is the logic in all of this? Kenji1987 (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Because if you say the publisher is rated 1, and don't say that some of its journals are rated 0, you are misleadingly implying that the rating found no problems and rated everything 1. I understand that you would like to include only the good things to say about MDPI, and not include any of the bad things, and that you will wikilawyer everything that doesn't go that way, but that is really not the way to build a neutral encyclopedia. Nor a good way to engender any level of goodwill towards MDPI among the other editors here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Both publishers and journals are rated. If you say that MDPI has a 1, then there is nothing lied about this. In general it is a 1. If some of its individual journals have a 0 - then it's fine if this is mentioned, but then also mention about the journals rated a 1. There is no misleading information here, you just don't understand how this Index works. 96% of the MDPI journals has a 1, and 4% a 0. In case of Elsevier, 1.9% of its journals is rated 0, while 98.1 has a rating of 1 or higher. It's that simple, but you know what, let's close the discussion right here, I have made my point. You just don't understand how this index works - so let's focus more on those 7 journals rated 0 - this really will be beneficial towards the MDPI wiki page. Kenji1987 (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Continued wikilawyering, whataboutism, and insults ignored. If other publishers have problems, that does not mean that it's not a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think inserting the count of journals with 1 and 0 is only fair. As well as indicating which ones have 0. I've attempted an edit to compromise. [4] --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The publisher-level rating doesn't have any importance (other than perhaps a symbolic one) for a publisher that only publishes journals, at least not in Norway, because it is the journal's rating that directly determines the status of publications as academic or non-academic, and that generates funding and "publication points" in the Norwegian system. The publisher-level rating is only relevant to publications that aren't part of any journal or series, but MDPI has never published anything to which such a publisher-level rating would apply. The journal-level ratings are theremore more important in this case. Had MDPI been a book publisher, the publisher-level rating would have been more important. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Around 4.2% of MDPI's journals have level 0 opposed to 1.9% for Elsevier, 1.6% for Sage, 2.3% for Taylor and Francis, 5.1% for Hindawi, 1.3% for Cambridge University Press, 6.4% for the De Gruyter Open, 3.8% for Springer, and 3.8% for University of Chicago Press. I know the editor above said that if other publishers have a "problem", it doesn't mean that MDPI doesn't have one. I agree with that, but these are just normal ratios, compared to other scientific publishers. Besides that MDPI does publish books, a simple Google search could have shown you that. Kenji1987 (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Since when does an electronic mailing list counts as a reliable source?

I am all in favour of mentioning the 2020 resignation of Processes editors, but since when does a listserv count as an published source? Isn't this a case of original research? Besides the usual editors, I'd hope outside editors could comment on it. This is the source used: https://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind2004&L=CAST10&P=3191 . Kenji1987 (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_for_software_articles#Mailing_lists_and_conferences - oh ok, so this link says mailing lists are reliable? Kenji1987 (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources for software articles -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah ok, I have frankly no idea what counts as a reliable source. How can we find out?Kenji1987 (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Since it was written by the editors of the journal for WP:ABOUTSELF purposes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Reliability is not a problem, but without secondary coverage it raises issues of due weight. --JBL (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Mass resignations are always due weight. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Im keeping an eye on Retraction Watch, once they report on it, Ill mention it here.Kenji1987 (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, saying the same thing repeatedly does not make it true. I have been doing the same as Kenji1987, and as soon as anyone actually notes this somewhere, it will be due. (Anyone who is more impatient should try sending a tip to the RW people.) --JBL (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Editing the lead with more recent assessments

Whoa... I just edited the lead to this article without reading this discussion page. Only now realise what a mess hides behind the curtain. The conversation above has lost all WP:CIVILity IMHO. I hope we can go back to the sources and have a calm discussion on this. I added the fact that "MDPI journals are currently included in the Directory of Open Access Journals list of peer-reviewed, open access scholarly research journals.[12]" Seems like a safe addition. Revert if it isn't.

I've cross checked also with the National Publication Committee of Norway (mentioned in the article) that confirmed level 1 for 2020 [5] and Publons (that lists MDPI as an official partner and states most of the journals have been independently verified by them). Not sure about the "independence" of Publons though. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Publons is pretty meaningless. To my understanding, it's mostly a count of how many reports of refereeing (as in the publisher telling Publons "yes, we have conducted a review"), without assessing what the reviews are. Nothing that deserves a mention. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

They conduct an evaluation of publishers/journals and show a checkmark if they pass. MDPI has the checkmarks. See Spot reputable titles at a glance by looking for the blue tick (indicating our rigorously-vetted publishing partners), as well as a strong review history and expert endorsements.[6][7] --Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It's poorly controlled for-profit open access publishing, albeit stuff like this tends to excite UFO buffs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Source? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Norwegian level 1 is an unexceptional rating that just confirms that a publisher meets the most basic criteria to be considered academic. Until a couple of years ago any publisher/journal that said they were peer-reviewed, had an editorial board and some other formalities in place and didn't look conspicuously disreputable would be included; in the last few years the most horribly predatory ones, like OmniScriptum/VDM and SCIRP (and for a time, it seemed, MDPI) have been excluded/assigned level 0 status.

There has been a struggle over the status of MDPI in the ranking in recent years; it was the inclusion in Beall's list that triggered a series of expressions of concern and attempts to get MDPI downgraded to level 0 from several academics who contacted the publication committee; it seems to me that the publication committee has concluded for now that MDPI is a borderline case and that it has retained level 1 status mainly because it has been given the benefit of the doubt, not because it is considered a very reputable publisher. It's not like it's a big accomplishment to (barely) retain the standard rating for an academic publisher, for a publisher that wants to be and presents itself as an academic publisher. (and the same goes for Publons and inclusion in DOAJ, or the Directory of Predatory Journals as I like to call them when I'm in a good mood, who have the same kind of minimum criteria). --Bjerrebæk (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems like they have been level 1 since 2017. If what you state is true and they are giving MDPI the "benefit of the doubt" it seems to be holding the test of time. It's been 4 years now. I've had a look at the approval process using google translate to verify if what you say is true ("most basic criteria to be considered academic.")

They state (from [8] and omitting details)Proposals for new channels (Level 1) may not come from commercial publishers but exclusively from researchers or research administrative staff at research institutions, journal editors or journal editorial members, and members of scientific associations. so there needs to be an independent proposer. The proposer must also document that the proposed publishing channel meets the criteria for approval of scientific publishing channels: Scientific editorial / scientific publishing program: Proposer should attach documentation to the series / journal's scientific editorial or publisher's scientific publishing program [...] Professional peer review: Proposers should attach documentation to the publishing channel's peer review routines [...] Author circle: Proposer should attach documentation to the last two years of the publishing channel [...] NSD collects information on proposed publishing channels through www.issn.org , websites, library systems and by direct contact with editors / contacts. Based on available information, NSD creates a setting for the registry for each proposal. New proposals and comments on the register are presented to the National Publishing Committee, which has the opportunity to reject or accept NSD's recommendations. The final status of the register is set in January.

Seems pretty thorough to me... of course this is not Nominations for channels with the highest international prestige (Level 2) are made in a separate process under the auspices of the National Publishing Committee and National Academic Strategic Bodies. but still (on paper at least) a pretty good assessment.

It looks like a lot of people have strong opinions about this for some reason (I don't understand how this could be so polarising) but no sources have been brought forth at the moment to dispute recent assessments of this publisher. Am I missing something? Where does all this animosity come from? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The animosity comes from MDPI behaving poorly, and from unleashing an army of IPs, socks, PR consultants, etc... to edit this page over the years, and their continued poor practices. For example, this source which you tried to add is a direct result of ErskineCer's lobbying/whitewashing efforts on this very page. And that more or less summarizes the problem with MDPI in a nutshell, their considerable resources are directed towards managing their reputation, rather than towards improving their publishing practices.

The best way to summarize the opinion about MDPI amongst serious researchers is more or less this. Whether or not MDPI deserves to be called predatory, MDPI is at the very least questionable. There is a nominal peer-review process in play, the quality of which being on the lower end of things, but many serious researchers submit work in MDPI journals for better or for worse, which makes MDPI papers not outright dismissable. An MDPI paper gives you pause, and while you should always fully read any paper you cite to make sure the analysis is sound, this advice especially applies in the case of MDPI journals.

Amongst the more stringent OPEN ACCESS GOOD ELSEVIER BAD proponents, who often publish or have partnerships with MDPI and Frontiers Media (a mild-to-severe case of a conflict of interest, depending on the exact proponent), any criticism of MDPI is the fault of big publishing (Elsevier in particular) and other for-profit publishers (which conveniently forgets that MDPI is one of the most profitable publishers out there), and quoting Jeffrey Beall amounts to slander, racism, discrimination, and the list goes on. There's also the BEALL IS ALWAYS RIGHT crowd, which should be dismissed just as much as the OPEN ACCESS OR DIE fellows, but those are rarer to encounter, mostly because most anti-predatory people don't usually leave their brains at the door.

The reality is MDPI is commercially very successful, invested a lot of resources in partnerships to confer respectability, but is still very much motivated by profits and remains a source of questionable, but not outright dismissable, scholarship. And so that's what Wikipedia reflects. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable assessment thanks. For the record I see two edits by ErskineCer. They cite sources and one of the edits discloses he is an MDPI employee. I understand the "risk" though.

I agree the article does accurately reflect the controversy. I've made a couple of edits to fix chronological issues with the text and added the OASPA review and investigation in passing in the lead (more details in the body). Please review. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed the OASPA connection with the Beall appeal, that was an independent event from appealing the listing on Beall's list. The OASPA review could in principle be mentioned in the lead, I suppose, but as we already state that MDPI is a member of OASPA, it seems redundant to mention that OASPA concluded MDPI could remain a member of OASPA. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I see what you mean. How about in a subsequent sentence? I think it's relevant to point out that the incidents were investigated. How about Following the controversy the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association conducted an investigation and concluded that MDPI satisfactorily met the Membership Criteria..

Or maybe a more fair sentence would be: Following the controversy MDPI's overall publishing standards have been positively reviewed by independent organisations. However some specific MDPI journals have received negative evaluations. This is to summarise the evaluations by OASPA, Publon and the Norwegian Scientific Index. A synthesis of the content/sources currently in the article. What do you think? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Not really sure this needs to be in the lead, since it's already stated that it's a member of OASPA / COPE etc, which wouldn't be the case if those organizations found MDPI not meeting their own standards. If this needs to be mentioned in the lead, there's likely a possibility of reworking existing sentences, rather than adding mostly redundant information. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I see what you mean. My proposal is an attempt at WP:SYNTH and would substitute the other sentences not be in addition.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

*Gtoffoletto - I kind of started out like you, thinking that I could make a positive change. But the truth is, if you edit this page a little bit longer than you are supposed to, you will be easily targeted as someone having a COI or doing white-washing, or whatever. I am now considered to be a promotional-editor, just because I can't stand the bias here against MDPI. The fact is, actually there is a lot of crap science in MDPI, and if you look at some of the open peer reviews on the site, you wonder how it was ever accepted, at the same time, many established and respectable authors publish here as well, so it is not black and white. But so far, MDPI is on no blacklist, most of its journals are indexed, and some have a pretty high IF. I don't think most editors here tend to look at MDPI past 2015 - when it was still a much more controversial publisher. Kenji1987 (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Just stay calm and keep the discussion on the edits and not on the editors. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but to be honest, I dare not to make edits anymore. Edits that I made a few days ago were reversed, and I see now that the current edit was exactly that one I proposed! Maybe you can take a look at this quote in the article: "one of the most bizarre and atypical experiences I have encountered in my academic career" and declared that he "was not in involved in the final decision regarding correction/retraction/authorship.", but the full quote is: "was one of the most bizarre and atypical experiences I have encountered in my academic career. However, other work I have completed for the journal has not been met with these kind of complications or misunderstandings." https://retractionwatch.com/2018/06/13/journal-corrects-but-will-not-retract-controversial-paper-on-internet-porn/ - I have no idea if there is a policy on Wikipedia to show the full quote or not, but you seem to be one of the most rational ones here, without claiming that I am a professional editor, just waiting to be banned eventually. I won't make direct edits, as they are automatically reversed, and it would make little sense to fight the more senior editors here, so I just do it from the sidelines. Please check it, and if you say, this is common Wiki-policy, I'll take your word for it, and won't make a fuss about it. Cheers! Kenji1987 (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the source just doesn't support that whole bullet. They seem to be talking about potential conflicts of interest and not about a problematic peer review. I've removed it and see diffs for more details: [9]. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmm I tend to disagree with you here. The editor of this manuscript mentioned this to be a most bizarre experience, meaning he was not really involved in the editorial decision regarding this manuscript, so we could ask ourselves, who decided then that this manuscript could have been accepted? (hence the quality of the peer review). You edit has been quickly reversed by a senior editor here. However, if we look at the full quote: "was one of the most bizarre and atypical experiences I have encountered in my academic career. However, other work I have completed for the journal has not been met with these kind of complications or misunderstandings." , the second part seems to be very relevant, as this particular experience was rather an anomaly than standard practice. Only the second part of this quote is left out (and I don't know why, I have certain assumptions, but we all edit in good faith). I tried to raise this issue, but all my edits on this page, are almost automatically reversed. Kenji1987 (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

*Gtoffoletto I hope that you understand now what is really going on this page. I have tried to address it like you, but they will quickly find a way to label you as having a COI, and reversing any edit you make that is not negative of MDPI (just see my recent edits in the history -negative parts are kept there; any nuances are quickly reversed (MDPI is a Chinese company!)). I am taking a small break again. I keep this for the records - one day all of this will eventually be exposed. This is really a systematic problem, and I don't really know how we can report this to higher WP authorities. Kenji1987 (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Rewriting the criticism section, please contribute

I have changed the criticism section, to make it look less like a journalistic article and more like a encyclopedia. Please see below, and feel free to improve it. The biggest changes I made: deleting double information (for example OASPA's investigation); removing quotes as MDPI is published in multiple languages it would be hard to translate these quotes, and the general consensus is that this is not suitable for a WP article (please see section above), merged paragraphs together to make it more coherent.

Extended content

Controversial articles In December 2011, the MDPI journal Life published Erik D. Andrulis' theoretical paper, Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life, aiming at presenting a framework to explain life. It attracted negative coverage by the popular science and technology magazines Ars Technica and Popular Science " A member of the editorial board of Life resigned in response. MDPI defended their choice for accepting this paper as the peer review reports were in support of publication. In 2013, another MDPI journal, Entropy, published a review paper claiming glyphosate may be the most important factor in the development of obesity, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, cancer, and infertility. The paper itself does not contain any primary research results. It was criticized as pseudo-science by the popular science magazine Discover. Jeffrey Beall also criticized MDPI for publishing this study. In 2016, MDPI journal Behavioral Sciences published a review paper that claimed that watching pornography is a cause of erectile dysfunction. Six scientists independently contacted MDPI concerned about fraud and other issues in the article. An independent review by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) was initiated, which recommended that the article be retracted. Issues raised by COPE and/or critics included: The article also failed to provide an accurate and complete conflict of interest declaration. Author Gary Wilson was listed as affiliated with The Reward Foundation, but it was not disclosed that this is an activist, and anti-pornography organization Another author, Andrew Doan, is an eye specialist and the founder of Real Battlefield Ministries, an organization advocating about addiction which adopts an anti-pornography position, but this association was also not disclosed. MDPI issued a correction that amended the conflicts of interest declaration Retraction Watch noted that this modified declaration does not identify the activities of The Reward Foundation nor does it address Doan's conflict of interest, though it does declare that no other conflicts of interest exist. It also does not address the concerns COPE raised about ethics and informed consent, nor act on its recommendation that the paper be retracted by the journal. In 2019, Richard Lynn published a controversial editorial on race and intelligence in the MDPI journal Psych, which raised concerns from the academic community regarding the racist content. Three months after publication, MDPI issued an expression of concern and they changed the status of the article from editorial to opinion. Who's Afraid of Peer Review? One of MDPI's journals had been targeted in the Who's Afraid of Peer Review? sting operation and rejected the fake paper. Inclusion in Beall's list and OASPA evaluation MDPI was included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies in February 2014. Beall's criticized MDPI for being a fast outlet for promotion and tenure proposes rather than to communicate science. Beall also claimed that MDPI used email spam to solicit manuscripts and that the company listed researchers, including Nobel laureates, on their editorial boards without their knowledge. Following Beall's criticism of MDPI, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) conducted an investigation in April 2014. This investigation was based the controversy surrounding two papers, one in Life, the other in Nutrients; the listing of Nobel Prize winners on the website; the roles of editorial board members and of Shu-Ki Lin within the company; and the functions of the different office locations. OASPA concluded that MDPI satisfactorily meets the OASPA Membership Criteria. MDPI was removed from Beall's list in October 2015 following a successful appeal. After Beall's list was shut down in 2017; Beall wrote that he had been pressured to shut down the list by his employer University of Colorado Denver and various publishers, specifically mentioning MDPI. Beall remained critical of MDPI after removing the publisher from his list. Data breach In August 2016, MDPI was breached, leaving exposed 17.5 GB of data, including 845,000 e-mail addresses and e-mail exchanges between authors, editors and reviewers. According to MDPI, the unprotected instance at which the data was breached has since been protected. Resignation of editors In August 2018, 10 senior editors (including the editor-in-chief) of the journal Nutrients resigned, alleging that MDPI forced the replacement of the editor-in-chief because of the reason that MDPI "pressured them to accept manuscripts of mediocre quality and importance". Recent evaluation The National Publication Committee of Norway listed MDPI as "level 1" in the Norwegian Scientific Index since 2017, the standard rating designating a publisher as academic.

Kenji1987 (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion to delete:

"Other criticism - Further critique was raised in an article by Martin Haspelmath published in a journal of Frontiers Media that argues that the publication model employed by MDPI allowed authors to publish their low-quality work without risk of rejection. In response to Haspelmath, MDPI published a commentary in the same journal disputing a number of points "

• It is published in Frontiers Media, can we see this as a reliable source given their own track record with Jeffrey Beall?

Since there are no further edits, anyone care to improve my proposed reconstruction? Or can I change it? Kenji1987 (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Ill change it in 3 days if there are no other edits or objections. Kenji1987 (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Kenji1987, no, do not do this. Frontiers is unreliable, especially for this content. Someone aklso included a primary-sourced denial from MDPI. We don't do that: we cover what has been discussed in reliable independent sources. Of course MDPI rejects criticism. WP:MANDY. Guy (help!) 09:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The Frontiers piece qualifies as an independent source, and criticism from a specific scholar. While Frontiers is borderline for many things, this amounts to the opinion of a specific scholar, so it's not particularly problematic, as long as things are properly attributed. It doesn't belong in the Beall section however. The MDPI denial stuff is obviously WP:MANDY though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok but perhaps good to mention it is published by Frontiers Media. It is funny and remarkable that this author chooses this outlet to express his concerns (never heard of him though, what makes him qualified) about predatory journals. Any other edits above are highly appreciated. I changed it a bit, as a result of the discussion with Eppstein on the Nutritions MDPI page. Kenji1987 (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no MDPI journal named Nutrition. If you mean Nutrients (journal), the only 'discussion' you had with David Eppstein amounts to this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

There's a little more at User talk:David Eppstein#Accusing me of whitewashing. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I meant Nutrients (those one-named journals can be confusing), and thanks David for notifying. I just wanted to say that I agree with keeping the quote (though still confusing, when is something journalistic and when is something encyclopedic, but fine, I already understood that there is there is no objective way to determine). Kenji1987 (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

My edit has been rejected, even though I asked everyone to contribute one month ago. I was just wondering, do we really want the MDPI page to be improved or not? Now it is still full of journalism style quotes , and it gets rejected, without giving substantial comments. Randykitty David Eppstein - since you two are particularly concerned on keeping the page as it is, I would like to have an open feedback on how the controversies can be improved, so that it looks more like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Reports than the current state it is in now. Just reversing my edits David Eppstein without really giving feedback or points of improvement is not constructive. Kenji1987 (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

How not to edit an article on a controversial subject

I thought my edit summary was clear: your changes involve taking specific examples of problematic behavior of MDPI, and replacing them with vague statements of controversy over behavior written in a passive way so that who did what or even what they did can no longer be discerned. Just to take a single example, compare, for instance, the previous (quoted from Beall) "MDPI's warehouse journals contain hundreds of lightly-reviewed articles" with your supposed paraphrase of that part of the Beall quote, "Beall's criticized MDPI for being a fast outlet". No. He did not criticize MDPI for being fast. He criticized them for failing to provide a proper review. In contrast, the Scientific Reports article that you cite as such a good example does in fact state SR's problematic behavior very specifically: "19 editorial board members stepped down due to the journal not retracting a plagiarised 2016 study". If the instance I just gave of problematic rewording in your new version were the only example of this sort of thing, we could put it down to sloppy reading and summarizing on your part, but this same pattern of rewording things to shift blame and make problematic behavior look less problematic has been happening over and over and over in your edits. It is why I banished you from my talk page, and it is why I didn't participate in your dubious editing exercise: because you have not convinced me that you are capable of editing this subject neutrally. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The current controversies page is sloppy, fragmented and a mess. Ill improve it per paragraph then. Kenji1987 (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Questions about rewriting of controversies section - David Eppstein I think your previous feedback is actually quite useful, would you mind helping me out here?: In December 2011, the MDPI journal Life published Erik D. Andrulis' theoretical paper, Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life, aiming at presenting a framework to explain life. It attracted coverage by the popular science and technology magazines Ars Technica and Popular Science, which characterized it as "crazy" and "hilarious". A member of the editorial board of Life resigned in response.

-> what is the relevance of mentioning that the magazines say that it is "hilarious" and "crazy"?

In 2013, another MDPI journal, Entropy, published a review paper claiming glyphosate may be the most important factor in the development of obesity, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, cancer, and infertility. The paper itself does not contain any primary research results. It was criticized as pseudo-science by the popular science magazine Discover. With regard to the same controversial study, Jeffrey Beall has rhetorically asked, "When publishers like MDPI disseminate research by science activists like Stephanie Seneff and her co-authors, I think it’s fair to question the credibility of all the research that MDPI publishes. Will MDPI publish anything for money?".

-> should we include what Jeffrey Beall rhetorically asked? Why is this relevant?

In 2016, MDPI journal Behavioral Sciences published a review paper that claimed that watching pornography is a cause of erectile dysfunction. Six scientists independently contacted MDPI concerned about fraud and other issues in the article. An independent review by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) was initiated, which recommended that the article be retracted. Issues raised by COPE and/or critics included:

• Scott Lane, who was listed as the journal editor who handled the submission, described his experience with this manuscript as "one of the most bizarre and atypical experiences I have encountered in my academic career" and declared that he "was not in involved in the final decision regarding correction/retraction/authorship." This raises questions about the nature and processes of peer review undertaken by the journal in relation to this manuscript.
• The article failed to provide an accurate and complete conflict of interest declaration. Author Gary Wilson was listed as affiliated with The Reward Foundation, but it was not disclosed that this is an activist, anti-pornography organization with a declared mission to "highlight the benefits of quitting porn based on the latest research and self reports of those who have." Another author, Andrew Doan, is an eye specialist and the founder of Real Battlefield Ministries, an organization advocating about addiction which adopts an anti-pornography position, but this association was also not disclosed.
• Wilson made extensive social media postings describing the review as a study "by the US Navy," but omitting the fact that the manuscript stated that it does not reflect the views of the US Navy.
• COPE determined that proper and ethical informed consent was not obtained for two cases included in the article, and that the identities of the men involved were not adequately protected.

MDPI issued a correction that amended the conflicts of interest declaration to read:

"Gary Wilson is the author of Your Brain on Porn: Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction. He holds an unremunerated, honorary position at The Reward Foundation, the Registered Scottish Charity to which his book proceeds are donated. The authors declare no other conflicts of interest. Opinions and points of view expressed are those of the authors' and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. NAVY or the Department of Defense."

Retraction Watch noted that this modified declaration does not identify the activities of The Reward Foundation nor does it address Doan's conflict of interest, though it does declare that no other conflicts of interest exist. It does not address the concerns COPE raised about ethics and informed consent, nor act on its recommendation that the paper be retracted by the journal. It does take account of Scott Lane's comments, in that it adds that "[i]n addition, the academic editor's name has been removed from the manuscript," but in doing so leaves unresolved questions about the approval and review process for the article. According to retraction Watch, an MDPI spokesperson's final words on the subject were "The argument is already done. Both sides got large audience. Time to stop and made peace."

References

-> Shouldn't this be shortened? Removing the quotes? Summarizing it? Kenji1987 (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Kenji1987, I am becoming very bored with your whitewashing. This section is a perfect summary of why poorly controlled for-profit open access publishing is a problem, and points directly to a failure by MDPI to correctly handle research fraud. The full context is valuable and explains the issue well. Guy (help!) 13:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Im really bored of people accusing me of whitewashing, but we are not here to entertain each other. I'd like to go from paragraph to paragraph to see how we can improve this page. I'd appreciate your cooperation, but it is not necessary. Kenji1987 (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Im really bored of people accusing me of whitewashing I can think of several easy ways of fixing this. For example, you could stop. --JBL (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

This is off topic. Randykitty can you please tell me if these comments are allowed? Thanks Kenji1987 (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the above that if you want to no longer be accused of whitewashing, you should stop whitewashing the article. The Life article didn't merely 'attract coverage'. It was absolutely derided in the press. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

That's peculiar to say at least, as you have been helping me to improve the section above. I would appreciate if you could tell me, or anyone, when a quotation is justified (ie in Scientific report it gets deleted all the time), and when it is not. But let's blame the new guy of white-washing. You know it very well, the MDPI page is crap and of low quality, but no one is doing something about it, and when people do, you get accused of white washing. You helped me edit the section above, that was constructive, this not so much. I think it is time to realize that MDPI is a legit publisher, even Beall deleted them from his list, and he wasn't very keen on them either Kenji1987 (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Christ please just go away. There are 6000000 articles on Wikipedia. More than 5900000 of them do not involve the low-quality publishers you are so fond of. Go demonstrate that you have any interest in improving Wikipedia whatsoever by editing any of those 5900000 articles to make them better, and perhaps those of us who do have such interest might be inclined to treat you as something other than a paid hack. --JBL (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to take a look at my contributions to Wikipedia. Besides that, I really don't think you can say things such as "Christ please just go away." Kenji1987 (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, obviously I can, just as obviously you can devote your time here to whitewashing articles of crap publishers (at least until you are eventually blocked as not here to improve the encyclopedia). --JBL (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I find it peculiar that you can. Kenji1987 (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Everyone is invited to add their 2 cents at ANI. --JBL (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I gave you my two cents. Just to summarise: JBL proposes a total ban for me because of not here to improve the encyclopedia). If I do get banned, it's all documented, and I leave it at that. In the meanwhile MDPI's quality is still considered low, in the future, editors could have a discussion why that is the case. Kenji1987 (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

{{help me}}

I would like an external editor to see whether some of the replies here are appropriate or not. I know that for some editors it is frustrating that I keep on replying or asking questions, but I find the situation a bit toxic now. Thank you. Kenji1987 (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. We must suppose Wikipedia:Assume good faith and this was not the case. As an external editor I can't find no single proof of a conflict of interests. WP has a policy on Wikipedia:No personal attacks and we can read someone swearing, possibly because you seemed to be Christian in the current or in other contexts.

Apart of those issues, with the unique exception of this minor fix, your oldid saved on 28 February 2020 has been substantially confirmed and kept untouched.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Micheledisaveriosp, er, what? Guy (help!) 22:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Kenji1987 said "I would like an external editor to see whether some of the replies here are appropriate or not.". I don't think so, even if his last edit in chrono hasn't been deleted nor radically modified.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like you know how to read article histories/diffs very well. --JBL (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

See also WP:SUICIDEPACT. There's a limit to the amount of whitewashing and disruptive editing someone can push for, even when done in good faith. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Let us just conveniently forget that you helped me change a rewritten version of the controversies page Headbomb - with you helping I thought that at least I had a seal of approval from you, which motivated me to change the page (also because I did not receive objections). I think it is important to disclose this here. Kenji1987 (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Dietrich Rordorf

Dietrich Rordorf, who seems to be in his 20s now, is claimed to be a founder of MDPI a decade ago. Shu-Kun Lin, according to MDPI born in 1957, started his publishing and conference activities in the 1990s. It seems more plausible that Rordorf is simply one of Shu-Kun Lin's/MDPI's employees, and that they now choose to highlight his name to make a point of a local connection to Switzerland. Much in the same way that their COO, the guy who makes all the calls to places like Beall's employer, is a former aspiring actor from the UK with no academic background, but a British-sounding name that is valuable to a publisher like MDPI for the same reason that SCIRP has an address in California. Certainly all third-party coverage that I've seen (e.g. Beall) regarded MDPI as a company founded and owned by Shu-Kun Lin and made no mention of Rordorf. I regard it as part of their modus operandi as a questionable publisher trying to pass itself off solely as a Swiss company to exaggerate the roles of their handful of European employees in a quest for what they regard as legitimacy. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) His CV (self published obviously) seems to support the fact he was a co-founder. He was also the first CEO and then CTO of the company apparently. [10][11] Not sure what his age has to do with this. He is now co-founder of another publishing company. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The original version of their history page[12] described Rordorf as "Dr. Shu-Kun Lin's assistant" and mentioned his involvement with the "new version of the publication system" and the new legal entity set up in 2010, but also makes it clear that MDPI as a publisher was started in 1996 by Shu-Kun Lin. It doesn't seem accurate to describe him as one of two equal co-founders of MDPI as a publisher in the first paragraph of the lead. It would be sufficient to mention Rordorf in the body, below. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above + Shukun Lin IS Swiss. He does not need another Swiss person to prove this connection, as he IS the connection. Kenji1987 (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks and accusations

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@David Eppstein:: by long-term undeclared-COI promotional editor Kenji1987 I think this type of edit summary has no place on Wikipedia. Let's please keep this WP:CIVIL. If an editor has a WP:COI it should be discussed appropriately. Edit summaries are not the place to do so. This kind of disqualification of opposing views is unacceptable. Stick to sources and not opinions, talk about content and not editors, and the result will be fine. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 08:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC) I think it is appropriate to point this out in the edit summary when the editor edits this article. The editor's ties to MDPI has been discussed in different venues. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC) There is no evidence that I am a promoter for MDPI or that I have a COI. That I have been accused to have one since Day 1, makes editing this particular page extra frustrating. Hence, I welcome this particular section, but I am afraid it won't make a lot of difference. Kenji1987 (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia likes to assume good faith. So innocent until proven guilty and such comments and similar ones are inappropriate for anyone in this discussion on either side. Focus on content not editors per WP:FOC and provide sources. No need to fight over this. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 11:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC) It is not uncivil to describe a SPA as such, and it is not uncivil to correctly characterize an SPA's edits as unduly promotional when they are, and it is not uncivil to derive conclusions about the trustworthiness and good faith of an editor based on a long history of promotional, SPA behavior. If Kenji wants not to be called an SPA, all they have to do is to edit in other topic areas. Finally, if you're going to go around tut-tutting people about civility, maybe you should direct your attention to the editor who has falsely accused others of vandalism just one thread above. Really. --JBL (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)