Talk:MDPI/Archive 3

Lead section again
The first sentence is now "MDPI is an organisational acronym used by two related organisations, Molecular Diversity Preservation International and Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, which were both co-founded by Shu-Kun Lin".

Normally, a Wikipedia article has only one topic. In this case the only notable topic is the publisher MDPI. The first sentence should focus on that. "Molecular Diversity Preservation International" can instead be mentioned briefly in a history section, but it shouldn't be treated as one of two equal topics covered by the article, and as if the topic is the acronym rather than the publisher MDPI.

Also, there is no mention of China in the lead any longer, even though the company has nearly all its 2,000+ employees in Wuhan and Beijing, China. Beall perceived it as a Chinese publisher, much like SCIRP is perceived as a publisher in Wuhan, China despite its official address in southern California. The fact that most of its employees are based in China should be mentioned in the lead section. For publishers that are in reality based in China, like MDPI and SCIRP, having an official address in places like California and Switzerland is part of the business model (partly because they to a significant extent cater to Chinese people required by their employers to publish in "international" (i.e. non-Chinese) journals, and partly because they believe it makes them more palatable to an international audience in general). --Bjerrebæk (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about MDPI vs. MDPI -- the lead should reflect the relative significance of these two organizations, as the body does. Moving the less-notable organization out of the first sentence would be an improvement. --JBL (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first point. But I disagree with calling it a Chinese company - all current secondary sources (e.g. WoS, SJR, your beloved Norwegian index, etc.) show that it is a Swiss company. SCIRP has only a mailing address in the US, and therefore rightfully a scammy company. MDPI on the other hand has its headquarters in Basel. That they do many of their operations in China is not really relevant in the lead (and its borderline racist to call it a Chinese company just because of the CEO's ethnicity). You may say that they run offices in China, Spain, Serbia, and God knows where, but to question the "Swissness" of the company in the lead is not encyclopedic - in regards with your theory, if you find secondary sources claiming this, you may add it in the controversies section. All major academic publishers run their day-to-day operations in India, Phillipines, etc. Just the way how transational companies function in a globalised world. Beall mentioning MDPI's China connection is mentioned in the controversy section. I changed the Nordic version of MDPI, because someone claimed it to be a Chinese company. Kenji1987 (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment above sounds reasonable, +1 -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 15:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * There was no proposal to "[call] it a Chinese company", only to mention somewhere in the lead that most of its employees are based in China, and not necessarily in the first paragraph. As I understand it around 98% or more of its employees are based in China, so it clearly has significant ties to China, and this has been pointed out in third-party coverage.
 * 1) Jeffrey Beall considered it to be, in reality, a Chinese publisher, in the same way that SCIRP is a Chinese publisher despite its official address in California
 * 2) Norwegian scholars Olav Bjarte Fosso and Jonas Kristiansen Nøland (both at NTNU) in their thorough discussion of MDPI and why the publisher is viewed as predatory by many academics in Norway in Universitsavisa in January this year, also point out that it is in reality a Chinese operation, noting that "Most of the work is done in China, although the headquarters is a small 'artificial' office in Switzerland". They also point out that "MDPI is known for launching sky-wide journals, often on the basis of vague and short names, which can mean anything. Examples of such jumbled journals are the journals 'Inventions', 'Technologies', 'Systems' and 'Challenges'. This is more reminiscent of business development than research"; that "MDPI's strategy is to bombard academics with emails and lures", that "[MDPI relies on] Chinese assistant editors without scientific qualifications. The main editors are only figureheads [...] MDPI does not disclose its internal routines or algorithms. In addition, peer review is a 'nuisance' that reduces their income". They conclude that "MDPI is a money machine driven by the total number of accepted papers, not quality".


 * It's not "racist" to call a Chinese (either de jure or de facto) company, or a company with very significant or predominant ties to China, a Chinese company (although this wasn't even the proposal here); in fact, this precise, identically worded, strange argument was made by one of MDPI's employees against Beall several years ago, which makes me wonder somewhat.
 * I should caution you against making the kind of edits you just made on the Norwegian Wikipedia (my "home project"). We don't take kindly to that kind of pointy and promotional edits by editors who don't even speak the language and who are clearly NOT THERE to contribute to an encyclopedia in Norwegian, but simply to promote a publisher that is widely viewed as predatory in Norway (or "narrow self-interest or promotion of themselves or their business" as WP:NOTHERE describes it). --Bjerrebæk (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) That's covered in the controversies section, but you have countless of secondary sources stating that the company is Swiss, such as WoS, Scopus, SJR, etc. Or are you claiming that these sources aren't true? Are you claiming that there is no headquarters? May I refer to the OASPA evaluation, which also investigated claims about MDPI's location? Are you saying that OASPA is wrong as well? 2) Most of these things are covered in the controversies section, but feel free to add a paragraph, if this is considered a reliable source (to be honest I don't know anymore what is considered reliable or not, so you and other editors be the judge of that - I just don't know any of these gentlemen, and why their opinion is important in this regard). The only problem is that non-Nordic speakers can't verify whether it is true or not. But then again, I refer to my point 1. 3) I have been following the discussions on MDPI, Beall, and other publishers for quite some time now (I am researching the topic - feel free to ask me in my talk page what I exactly do). But the argument that it is a Chinese company often pops up, especially in relation to the CEO, and that is borderline racist. His ethnicity shouldn't matter whether or not we judge the company to be Chinese or not. 4) I ignore your last point, as I have any right, like anyone else, to make edits on Wikipedia, given that it improves the quality of the articles. Whether you take it kindly or not. Ps. This source: https://danbrockington.com/2019/12/04/an-open-letter-to-mdpi-publishing/?fbclid=IwAR0pYIbWbFzcQFfuj3IqgD6kyK4aq9fqiu0xwvEP35x2QlYi-uDM5TId3h8 is a very interesting analysis, and I was wondering whether this counts as a verifiable source or not. Kenji1987 (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that you now added a new text, citing the Norwegian source above, maybe good to have a discussion about it here as well. I personally don't mind that it is there. But I don't know whether the course is verifiable, who those gentlemen are, and why their opinion should be considered reliable. Some questions: is this an opinion piece? If yes, should we add it? What exactly is the "Danish index" and the "Finnish index"? Do you have other secondary sources show that these indices count MDPI as non-scientific? If you do, this would strengthen your text greatly. Kenji1987 (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you continue your behaviour on the Norwegian Wikipedia you will wind up permanently banned there, so ignore my advice at your own peril. We do not welcome editors who don't speak Norwegian, with no interest in writing an encyclopedia in Norwegian, whose only interest is the promotion of one company (something they have been criticised for here as well) and who add random English language text (including tags) to a non-English project. There is no "right" to edit Wikipedia, at least not on the Norwegian edition. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is limited to editors with an ability and interest in contributing productively to the encyclopedia, and being able to write in the language of the project concerned (in this case Norwegian) is one of the minimum requirements. Until you demonstrate such an ability and interest, I'm not willing to engage with you on that project. If a Norwegian editor had insisted on writing in Norwegian here, and only been interested in promoting one particular company, he/she wouldn't last long here either. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you assume I don't speak/understand Norwegian. I want to highlight one sentence here (and I am conveniently ignoring the rest, like you are ignoring my questions at your convenience): "and who add random English language text (including tags) to a non-English project." Aren't you adding random Norwegian language texts to an English project yourself??? You come with obscure Nordic scientists who make a whole lot of claims, but we can't verify whether it is a reliable source, whether your interpretation of the text does any justice, etc. etc. But you know what? I am fine with that being there, I myself won't change it, or ask others to change. I just wonder whether we should add sections about what African countries think of MDPI, and Asian countries, and Latin American Countries, maybe we can add all these sections, and make it a new project. What do you think? Kenji1987 (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) You have admitted that you don't understand the language, 2) you added English language text to a Norwegian article, 3) you have not demonstrated an interest in writing an encyclopedia in Norwegian 4) no, I have not added any Norwegian language text here, and 5) the you can easily use Google Translate to translate the original sources in question, both published in reputable reliable sources. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you keep on turning the discussion to me. I am asking you several questions, and you would like to talk with me about my fluency of Norwegian, or what kind of stuff is happening on the other-language page? Let's talk about what is happening here. You are adding Norwegian sources here, in which the general user (or in other words "we" - hence not admittance of not speaking the language but talking in general terms), can't verify whether it is reliable, what is being stated (and no Google translate does not always work well - and I do think your translation makes sense, but with some broken English here and there), and who the heck these obscure Nordic scientists are that are making these claims? I would like to ask you some questions. 1) Should we add that this is about an opinion piece or not, and what's makes the source you just added reliable?; 2) Should we add more sections about how MDPI is evaluated in other countries, geographic regions? What makes the Nordic countries stand out?; 3) I liked your first suggestion to separate both MDPI organizations, will you change it?; 4) What is the desirability to add non-English references to this English project? These questions are not only for you, but for everyone here.Kenji1987 (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The Nordic countries stand out because they actively evaluate MDPI's quality, something African countries do not (to my knowledge), and because, quite frankly, they are authorities in this field, i.e. the evaluation of research and research channels, in general; they hand out the world's most recognised science prizes, they have pioneered government-backed indices of academic journals and publishers, and so on. In fact, you were quite keen on including the Norwegian evaluation in another article where the Norwegian evaulation was quite favourable to the journal (something I supported despite my personal scepticism towards that publisher). An article by two professors and well-regarded academics in a well-regarded trade journal for the university sector or newspaper (it was published both in Universitetsavisa, a kind of Norwegian Chronicle of Higher Education, and in Dagens Næringsliv, one of the main newspapers, is a reliable source. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * OK I let the other editors be the judge of whether the Norwegian-text sources are reliable or not. Yes, I am hugely in favor of adding the Norwegian Science Index, which is in my opinion, one of the few legitimate white lists (in addition to Cabell's, but which is just so damn expensive to acquire). I also think you improved the article by referencing the Danish index, but I still don't see a lot of evidence of the Finnish index. While we are at it, what do the Swedes think of MDPI? Regarding your geographical bias towards the Nordic countries (and I don't mean it unpleasant, but who cares about Norway?), you'd be surprised how many scientific indices other countries, including African countries, produce. I am just asking everyone an open question - do we include regional evaluations, yes or no? If no, what to do with the Nordic ones? And also what to do with non-English references? Kenji1987 (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Norway, Denmark and Finland have national indices of this nature, and are working on a joint Nordic list with Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands as observers. I don't think Sweden has a similar index, but Sweden has the Directory of Open Access Journals, which was started at Lund University in Sweden as a result of the Nordic Conference on Scholarly Communication in 2002, another example of Nordic dominance in this field, which should answer your "who cares about" question. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I do care about Nordic indices (DOAJ another great examples of a reliable list). I care less about relatively unknown Nordic scientists writing opinion articles. I have checked around. I know technically the Netherlands isn't completely Nordic, but it seems they do add MDPI to their list of accepted publishers for funding: https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/jbrowser?q=MDPI&wq_srt_asc=title - should we add it in the Nordic assessment? Yes or no? Kenji1987 (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not Nordic, but the heading could be adjusted to something more inclusive (e.g. "European assessments" or something like that).


 * Also, the National Publication Committee in Norway took Fosso's and Nøland's article very seriously and responded that they shared their concerns over MDPI and gave more insight into their thinking, revealing that MDPI is regarded by the committee as a borderline publisher that just barely and superficially meets the formal criteria (for level 1) and that MDPI is a prime candidate for a brand new rating specifically for questionable publishers that they have created largely with MDPI in mind; MDPI itself certainly seems to place great importance on how it is evaluated in the Norwegian Scientific Index, and their COO "raised hell" with never-ending emails and phone calls (described in the published minutes of the committee), much like he did when they were included on Beall's list. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Great, I don't want to change it myself, because most of my edits are reversed when it comes to MDPI - but if any editor wants to change it? I also think that there needs to be a discussion on whether it is favorable to include regional evaluations or not (or more importantly analyses of regional evaluations - as we can't verify which source are reliable or which regions deserve to be included, and which regions are to be left out (I mean the Polish have the copernicus index, which is generally considered to be pretty scammy)). Kenji1987 (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , they are reversed because you are a promotional WP:SPA. It's best for you to discuss here and get consensus, then have someone else make the edits. Guy (help!) 10:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, this is an unfounded accusation. Kenji1987 (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * is vandalizing the lead right now. I'd like an experience editor to take a look at it. Kenji1987 (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it (or any other senior editor to comment on this. Kenji1987 (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I'm mostly just implementing what we discussed above and making some additional improvements to a lead section where the first paragraph used to bombard readers with information about the chemicals archive and the publisher's various memberships, and so on. I also briefly included the fact – after mentioning Switzerland – that it is primarily based in China (which seems fair considering that 98% or so of the company is based there) and based on third party RS which have described it as China-based, an issue that didn't seem to raise much protest from anyone but you. This is the second time in a day or so that you are making the exact same accusations as those made by IP addresses and accounts belonging to MDPI over the years. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * no one in this thread agreed to change the lead as you suggested. But you go ahead anyway. Other more reliable sources are stating otherwise. Putting obscure Nordic references in the lead will surely not improve the page. Do you have a source for that 98%? I now file an appeal to the other editors to form a judgement. Kenji1987 (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe it was a reasonable edit based on the discussion. Regarding China, I could just as well have used an article by Beall that described the publisher as Chinese, but I didn't want to bombard the lead with footnotes, and since the publisher has such antipathy towards Beall I thought I could use the article by the two Norwegian academics instead. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked you, where is your source for 98%? Kenji1987 (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The exact figure 98% is not included in the article. The article includes at least two sources (Beall, and Fosso & Nøland) for the fact that it is mainly based in China (which is included in the article). --Bjerrebæk (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So there is no source for this 98%? Why then should I believe you that your obscure references is reliable and worthy to be in the lead? Im now waiting for other editors to comment on this. You went ahead and changed the lead without consensus on the talk page. Guys, like Guy, wont make me reverse the edit, but I trust the judgement of other editors in this. Kenji1987 (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The rough figure 98 was based (from memory) on previous conversations with MDPI regarding the size of their European offices as compared to their 2,000+ employees in China. It was never included in the article, and doesn't need a source to be mentioned here on the talk page, when we have multiple reliable sources for the material that is included in the article. There was never any proposal to state an exact figure in the lead, or even the article, only to mention the China connection briefly in general terms, because this connection is mentioned by multiple reliable sources. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK dude/dudess, MDPI is a Chinese company, and only Swiss in name. You win! I wonder whether their headquarters even exist. I'd suggest you, or anyone else, calls it a Chinese company, like it was labelled in the Norwegian version. You have the source of Beall, 2014 - go ahead. Kenji1987 (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They previously said they have around two dozen employees or so in Switzerland. Not much for a company with 2,137 employees. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So go ahead change it - it is a Chinese company (Beall, 2014). You are cherry picking now. Beall is more authoritative than some unknown scientists from an unknown university. So change the lead accordingly. What is the point of mentioning a fake office address? Probably it is a mailing box like that of SCIRP and Karachi Journal of Science, Education and Engineering. By all means, don't let that Swiss address fool you. Kenji1987 (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and cleaned up the lead a little bit. It was a real mess. Please stop turning this into a WP:Battleground and let's stick to major sources at least in the lead. Also, it is absolutely necessary to treat the controversy appropriately. But the article should first of all discuss what MDPI does and its history. The article isn't titled "how bad MDPI is" or "a critique of MDPI" and we should maintain a balanced treatment of the subject while covering the issues that have emerged. Thanks. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 09:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but these edits were no improvement. Prominently mentioning not only Switzerland, but the precise location Basel, without mentioning that the publisher is primarily based in China, is misleading. About one percent of the company's employees are based in Switzerland, yet it figures prominently in the first paragraph with no mention of where the company is actually based. The company's attempt to portray itself as a Swiss company is deceitful and typical of predatory publishers. Also, drowning the criticism of MDPI's peer review/quality in its memberships of various associations isn't very helpful; its memberships are the least important part of the lead. The defining feature of MDPI is their establishment of hundreds of (very) broad-scope journals usually with one- letter word titles, which you also removed, and MDPI is best known for the controversies surrounding the company and for being at the very centre of debates on predatory publishing (including, but not limited to, Beall's list and the Norwegian Scientific Index). A reader wouldn't get a very good idea of what MDPI is by reading your proposed version. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What is a one-letter title? And what counts as being based in a certain country? So Apple is a Chinese company? I can guarantee you that most Apple employees work in China. What does it mean with being based? Shouldn't we focus at where the headquarter is based? Or where the company is founded? Kenji1987 (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Their use of one-word (sorry, a typo) titles has been prominently commented upon by many commentators (Beall and others), as a defining feature of MDPI. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Apple hasn't been perceived as a China-based company in RS in the same way that MDPI has. But if Apple had, say, 98% of their employees in China, it would be reasonable to at least mention China in that article as well, like we did here when we mentioned their HQ location first, and the fact that it is mainly based in China only after that. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Where is your source for the 98%? I think I asked you this 4 times already. The general definition of where a company is based, is where their headquarters are based. This is the place where decisions are made. Or where the company is founded. What does being based somewhere mean? And why are you not answering my other question? Why isn't it better to call MDPI a Chinese company, as Beall said it is? Kenji1987 (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It is described by Beall as a Chinese publisher; it is described by Fosso & Nøland as a publisher that is mainly based in China with "a small artificial office in Switzerland".; it is described by Martin Haspelmath in this way: "two Chinese companies that are publishing a large number of open-access journals, some of them in my field of linguistics: Wuhan-based SCIRP [...] and Beijing-based MDPI." --Bjerrebæk (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So why dont you change it into a Chinese company then? Interesting that you mention Haspelmath's work, he actually published this piece in a predatory journal (Frontiers). The evidence is there, Beall, Lars, and a random guy who publishes in frontiers say its Chinese. But where did you find 98%? Again the definition of being based somewhere is not decided by where the employeees work, but where the decisions are made. Kenji1987 (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it is reasonable, based on the sources, to describe them, like I did, as a publisher with a registered office in Switzerland (...) and that is mainly based in China. I don't think many people (outside China) agree that SCIRP is a Californian company. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between headquarters and registered office. A company is based in a country where their headquarters are located. Unless you provide evidence that MDPI's headquarters is in Beijing or China (and still waiting for 98% source), this is simply not true. Kenji1987 (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not under dispute that their registered office, i.e. their official address, is in Switzerland. A registered office is frequently also the headquarters. I wouldn't object very strongly to use the word headquarters instead, as long as the fact that they are mainly based in China is also mentioned. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * An apple is a fruit, but a fruit is not necessarily an apple. The word headquarters is essential. You have not defined what you mean with "based". I wouldnt object if the other registered offices including those in China are mentioned. Kenji1987 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This was defined by the source used: Most of the work is carried out in China, where their largest offices by far are located. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That does not give away that MDPI is NOT based in Switzerland. If you formulate it like that, I have no objections, I think its factually true (but we need a source). But decisions are made in the headquarters.Kenji1987 (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Congrats, the edits are reversed (surprise, surprise). MDPI is a good old fashioned Chinese company with one letter titles, and merely having "a registered office" in Switzerland. Lets ignore WOS, Scopus, SJR, or other relevant secondary sources, but we choose a Norwegian op-ed as the most reliable source. Kenji1987 (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok JBL is working on it, so I might have been too fast with this response. I wont touch the lead, Ill trust JBL to do a good job. Kenji1987 (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't see this part of the talk-page discussion while I was editing (in bed, on mobile). The question of whether the company is "really" Chinese or Swiss is honestly not very interesting or important; it can be discussed in the body but I don't see any reason to put in the lead either way.  Hopefully the result is reasonably satisfactory.  Also, the following thing is not relevant but I can't help myself: I can guarantee you that most Apple employees work in China. I doubt very much that this is true.  Thanks to the wonders of modern capitalism, multinational corporations do not hire workers directly in developing countries, instead they make contracts with other companies who hire the workers to do things like assemble electronics or make clothes.  It is an important mechanism of avoiding responsibility for environmental and labor abuses. --JBL (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think what is now missing in the lead is when MDPI was established, and where. Regarding employees at Apple, you got a point. Many of them work indirectly for Apple. 350,000 people alone work for Foxconn (https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-iphone-factory-foxconn-china-photos-tour-2018-5), but whether your outsource people directly as part of your company or through external contractors, the question where a company is based depends on where their headquarters are located. A mailing address in California does not count. Kenji1987 (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Where" it was "established" isn't very interesting. MDPI became notable through their hundreds of broad-scope journals with vague titles in recent years. I don't see the big difference between SCIRP's tiny, official HQ office in California and MDPI's tiny, official HQ office in Basel; perhaps MDPI's Basel office is slightly larger, but there is probably no editorial work going on in Switzerland. It seems that the main thing they do in MDPI's Basel office is sending endless emails to MDPI's critics, threatening Beall's employer etc. etc. (reputation management); of course that's why predatory publishers have HQ offices in places like California or Europe in the first place. On Glassdoor there are comments by former MDPI employees who say the company's presence in Europe is just a facade. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Danish and Finnish indices
The Danish index is found on and the Finnish on ; but we also have a third-party RS, the article by Fosso and Nøland(/), that describes how MDPI's journals are rated in those two indices: a third of MDPI's journals lack recognition as academic in the Finnish index (the journal Laws is for example level 0, the status it also held in Norway until 2017) with the remainder being assigned the lowest possible status, while all MDPI journals lack recognition as academic in the Danish index. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Norwegian oped in the lead
Should this Norwegian oped be in the lead? (Even the second source that's mentioned). Yes or no? https://www.universitetsavisa.no/ytring/2020/01/06/Forskere-blir-ledet-til-etiske-overtramp-20758190.ece Kenji1987 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're trying to censor any criticism of MDPI, again? It looks like a reliable source to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added two articles in the controversies section, I dont hear Epp talk about this, but just always the accusations. Id rather want to know why it should be in the lead. Kenji1987 (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? So we can also add opeds praising MDPI? In any language? Kenji1987 (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Depends, if your purpose is to whitewash MDPI, no. If it's to reflect an WP:IRS's opinion, yes. Provided such opinion is WP:DUE. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So the Nordic oped is allowed to be in the lead for what reason? Especially as this is the English page for MDPI. Kenji1987 (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it is an independant reliable source from known experts. That the source is in Norwegian is irrelevant. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How do we know they are experts in predatory publishing? How do you know? Is any academic counted as an expert? Regardless of their field? Kenji1987 (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I thought you were taking a break from doing MDPI's PR on Wikipedia? Guy (help!) 09:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats the fifth one within a month. Keep it up! Kenji1987 (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Author-pays
Kenji1987 now claims the term "author-pays" is "not neutral." It seems to me to be a well-established term, and author-pays open access is even used by well-respected publishers who (also) use this model "Open access" alone is such a broad, vague term that it doesn't really convey much information on its own; it could be a non-profit journal run by some academics at a university with no article processing charges, or it could be SCIRP. I think it's useful to identify the form of open access. Interestingly, I've never heard of a predatory journal with platinum or green open access, and I wonder why all predatory or questionable publishers love the author-pays model and show no interest whatsoever in other open access models? Curiously, Kenji1987 just added author-pays to Frontiers but then made a point of removing it; it seems like a WP:POINTy operation aimed at, in the end, removing the term from MDPI. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please check my edits for Plosone, Scientific Reports, and Frontiers. Im just standardizing all the leads. On plosone talk page arguments are given, and I agreed with them. Kenji1987 (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And why predatory publishers dont like green oa or platinum? How are they making their money then, bit obvious no? Thats like mafia running an NGO, unless it is in Japan, it is highly unlikely. Kenji1987 (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's precisely the point, there is a big difference between the mafia and the NGO sector, and the vague descriptor that includes both predatory publishers and non-profit platinum open access publishers is conflating two very different types of publishing much in the same way that a term that included both the mafia and the NGO sector would. In the world of publishing, predatory publishers are the mafia. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So plosone scientific reports and MDPI are predatory?Kenji1987 (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you continue your widespread habit of tedious and tendentious contributions, I will be forced to bring you to ANI. Wikipedia talk pages are not for showing off your oratorical skills: make an argument, based on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and quality sources; if it's a good one then you might actually be able convince someone to agree with you for once.  Drawing out every conversation with endless rhetorical questions is a waste of the time of volunteers who are actually improving Wikipedia. --JBL (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * [Kenji asked for my substantive opinion but then deleted the query while I was slowly drafting a response; here it is.] The term "author-pays" strikes me as basically clear and not obviously pejorative. I find the different "colors" of open access a little jargon-y and hard to keep track of (what is the meaning of green vs gold, etc.) -- these terms are not widely used in my field, where author fees of any kind are rare, and I'm quite confident they are not meaningful to non-academics. If high-quality sources show a strong preference for one term over another, I would go with what they say. --JBL (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining and apologies for deleting. We keep it at this then. Kenji1987 (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No apology necessary -- such things are bound to happen from time to time. --JBL (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * would you be so kind to repeat your argument why author-pays adjective is misleading? Kenji1987 (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not made that argument, so I will not repeat it. What I said was that framing APCs as "pay-to-publish" absent of sources describing the model as such was general unhelpful. And before you go on an indiscriminate purging of "pay-to-publish" on Wikipedia, no, this does not apply across the board, and exceptions exist. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Concerning the "is a publisher of author-pays open access scientific journals" bit however, here and elsewhere, I find that mentioning APCs right before open access is loading the sentence necessarily. This is best covered in a separate sentence, if needed. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was going to say that also -- in some cases it can be helpful to spread information over several sentences. (E.g. in math articles one sometimes sees things like "In mathematics, Euler's theorem (Fr: Pascal's Theorem, Farsi: Al-Khwārizmī's Theorem), named after Euler but first proved in an unnoted paper by Freud, is ..." and the right way to present this information is to not cover it all in a single sentence.) --JBL (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Lynn and alleged scientific racism
I see my edits got reverted. I'm not going to wage any edit war, and if slandering Lynn and MDPI is the hill you wish to die on, I don't much care. I'll just note that the text:

due to his promotion of discredited sexist and racist views, such as scientific racism.

is not what the sources say, and the only place I can find the term "scientific racist" in the sources, is Saini referring to Jensen and Rushton. BBC in particular, mentions his claims of differences in average IQ between different ethnicities, but apparently, a neutral reporting based on the sources would be too weak, so it needs to be embellished with a little slander to reach Wikipedia quality.

Saini pointed out that another paper in the same journal defends the work of notorious scientific racists, Arthur Jensen and Philippe Rushton,

This is described in the Article as 'defending scientific racism', which is also not an entirely accurate rephrasing of the source, but that's a minor thing. As far as I can tell, Saini bases her harsh assessment on their article in APA Psychology,_Public_Policy,_and_Law. This is not usually regarded as a racist rag, but I guess Saini is the authority on this - she may not have any scientific merits, but she has the right progressive mindset, which of course is the important thing.

Ketil (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Developed vs. developing, WASH
Yesterday added a section about a recent kerfuffle involving an MDPI journal, with a primary source; I reverted because it was undue without secondary sourcing. Today Retraction Watch published a piece about it, so my objection no longer stands; if someone wants to add something in based on the RW piece, be my guest. --JBL (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Request edit to "Preferential treatment of authors from developed countries"
Given the sources posted by Lingac45, the statement "a group of Water, Sanitation and Health researchers from the University of Leeds was informed by an MDPI representative that scholars from developed countries would be given priority for publication" is factually wrong. Instead, the subject of the email exchange was waiving the article-processing charges for some selected authors from developed countries. By suggesting to invite authors from a sub-group to publish for free, the journal editors were *not* influencing the editorial decision on whether or not to to accept any paper for publication. On behalf of MDPI, we request to update the entry accordingly. (this comment written by an employee of MDPI) Mdpi comms (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:ROLE -- it is not acceptable to edit Wikipedia through a role account. --JBL (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I added a COI-username notice. &thinsp;Darth&thinsp; Flappy   '&laquo;Talk&raquo;'  23:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I think that it's disingenuous to say that it did not affect the editorial process when it manifestly did, both in preventing the editors from using these waived charges to encourage certain non-priviledged authors from submitting and in the eventual resignation of the editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Accepted: Not clear that it affected the editorial decision, typically fees are paid after acceptance and often some negotiation is possible after acceptance, This is relatively typical. PainProf (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Undone. The source explicitly says, in a quote directly from MDPI, "scholars from developed countries will be given priority"., perhaps you are unaware, but this article has had an enormously long history of editors trying to whitewash MDPI's misdeeds by using euphemistic wording to make them seem more minor. Please don't assist them with that goal. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ? The source says that they didn't offer waivers to developing countries, however, it does not provide evidence that any editors from developing countries were actively discriminated against. Whilst not waiving fees would discriminate against authors from low-middle income countries, there is no evidence that it influenced the decision to publish. The decision to publish appears to remain with the editor, these are bad facts but they do not show that MDPI changed the editorial process, I think that's the companies complaint here. So you can say they are discriminatory financially, but not editorially. Editorial influence would be far worse which I'm guessing is why they're complaining about it. Maybe there's a way to word it where the horribly bad facts are clear but not allege editorial influence. At the moment it reads to me like MDPI's journal staff interfered during the publication process rather than applied discriminatory publication fees PainProf (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They did interfere during the publication process, by preventing the editors from reaching out to the authors they wished to reach out to with an offer of waived publication fees and therefore affecting the likely balance of submissions to the issue. Their interference also had a very concrete effect on the publication process, in causing the editors to withdraw from the issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I propose: In June 2020, MDPI sparked controversy when - while attempting to publish a special issue on failures - a group of Water, Sanitation and Health researchers from the University of Leeds was informed by an MDPI representative that only scholars from developed countries would be given publication fee waivers, effectively discriminating against contributors from developing countries. PainProf (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's probably an improvement. It is still a little inaccurate, though, in that it implies that any such scholar would be given such a waiver, when my reading of the story was that there were a limited number of waivers to be handed out by the editors. The gist of the story was that the editors were constrained by MDPI in which scholars they could hand them out to. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

MDPI downgraded to level 0 in the Norwegian Index for 2020
I see that this is now mentioned on the main page of MDPI. But isn't it a bit too early to mention this? As far as I know they hold evaluation meetings at fixed dates in which they discuss these scores. In 2019 they mention MDPI to be a level 1 publisher, could it be that after their evaluation meeting, MDPI will also be scored as a level 1 publisher? Hence, should we wait to mention this until all the scores are released for 2020? Kenji1987 (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What happened last year is that the website of the NSD showed "0" for "2019" and the rating then moved to "1" after the evaluation meeting. So it is probably too early to assume "0" for "2020". Or is there a secondary source that confirms the rating is "final" for 2020? ErskineCer (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ill assume you guys will contact the NSD on this to confirm?Kenji1987 (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct, we contacted the NSD about the 2019 rating and will again reach out to them with regards to the 2020 rating.62.202.7.117 (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Normally a publisher's rating is automatically renewed for each year. A publisher (or journal) isn't discussed in these evaluation meetings unless it is a new publisher/journal nominated for inclusion, or unless there is some other particular reason to discuss it (usually following a proposal to downgrade it). I've not seen any other examples of publishers that first got a 0 rating before having their previous rating reinstated, like it happened last year with MDPI. All the other publishers I looked into, including Routledge, OUP, CUP, Berghahn, Brill and Princeton UP, all have 2 ratings for both 2019 and 2020. There is something weird and unusual going on with the MDPI ratings. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is something weird going on there, but now it is 1 again for 2020.Kenji1987 (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Funny, now it is clear that NSD did not give a 0 rating to MDPI, it is taken out of the lead. Not surprised though. Kenji1987 (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed it because you complained about inconsistencies between this article and the one on Frontiers in Psychology. As I explained elsewhere, this is a very marginal rating service and putting it in the lead (whether with a zero or other rating) is WP:UNDUE. --Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, due to lack of power, I can't challenge you on this, and we leave it like this (unless an admin can help me out here). Just be aware that when NSD changes MDPI back to 0 again (for whatever reason), I will make sure it won't be put in the lead, referring to what you state here now Kenji1987 (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I do have to say that the anti open acces bias by some wikipedia editors is shocking. People can claim that MDPI only produces shit journals (headbomb) or that the NSD is suddenly not that important (Norway is only a small country?), but we are expected to believe that all their edits are objective and neutral. If you already made up your mind that MDPI is shit, how on earth are you able to edit the page then? NSD only came to our attention when it rated MDPI 0 by mistake. Now that we now that there is literally no institution, metrics, committee, or university doubting whether MDPI is legit or not, Wikipedia seems to be the last bastion holding on to a deceased blog, who falsely recognized 1 out of 5 publishers as predatory (which is a fact). I have to share this, as it incredibly frustrating to deal with editors who first accuse you of COI, then threaten you wit bans, and then simply use their power to uphold what they see as legitimate. What is their COI? Can't we have a discussion on that? NSD is far as I know the only credible source on predatory and white lists. Once MDPI is rated 0 Ill be the first one to change this. I do think it needs to be mentioned in the lead, not to trick the reader to think that MDPI is predatory. Even Beall said that they appealed succesfully. Kenji1987 (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For me it's the behavior of MDPI, not some obscure nordic ranking, that convinces me they are not fully legitimate. This behavior includes both the heavily promotional spin seen repeatedly and over the long term on this very talk page, as well as stunts like supporting student travel to conferences only on the condition that the student devote a whole slide of their short talk to an advertisement for MDPI. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * SAGE and Springer spam my inbox almost every week with promotional stuff and special issues and what not. It is almost the same calibre as "greetings from journal of management, social scienes and biology (JMSSB), we got an impact of 7 from Journal Impact Factor". But this does not reflect their reviewing and publishing practices. What happens here on the talk page is that people seem to realize that not everything is completely kosher with MDPI's wiki page, mind you their wikipage not MDPI perse. Was that also the reason you were the first one accusing me of having a COI? Because you are convinced that they are illegit and hence anyone who thinks different, must have a COI? This is by the way an excellent and critical analysis on MDPI: https://danbrockington.com/2019/12/04/an-open-letter-to-mdpi-publishing/. Id like to see how this can be integrated into this Wiki page. Ps. I also heard the Nobel Prize is some kind of obscure Nordic award. And if NSD was that obscure why werent you the first one to remove it from the lead when it was added to show MDPI had a score of 0? Kenji1987 (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that after several months of editing, you are still directing baseless and unwarranted accusations of hypocrisy at other users. Such comments are a violation of our policy WP:NPA.  If you continue, I will seek to have you sanctioned. --JBL (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm inquiring. People also do not really seem to understand how referencing works. Because it is for example decided that everything that what Beall writes must be trustworthy, he is uncritically referenced anywhere. For example, till date there is no single proof that MDPI falsely put nobel prize winners as editorial board members on their journals. Still it is mentioned on MDPI's wiki page. Why? Because of Beall. But when you check his claim, there is literally no source to support it. Still it is mentioned on this page. Hence, I'm inquiring. Kenji1987 (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are basing the 1 in 5 figure on being able to spot papers with fake author names and "designed with such grave and obvious scientific flaws that they should have been rejected immediately by editors and peer reviewers" that is a very low bar to reach and does not imply that a journal is not predatory let alone of quality. --Haansn08 (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's nothing to do with open access and everything to do with crappy standards (and abuse of Wikipedia for promotion of course). Guy (help!) 00:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok so Guy thinks MDPI has crappy standards. Fair enough, you have your reasons to decide when a publisher is crappy or not, and I respect that. NSD, Web of Science, Scopus, and other indexes and standards on the other hand think differently. I dont know whether you work in academia, but aforementioned criteria mean a lot Kenji1987 (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are based on sources, not what editors "think", and trying to frame the discussion that way is unhelpful and disruptive. We have sources saying MDPI is a disreputable publisher (e.g.) and we are bound to reflect them. Alexbrn (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well said, Im not disputing these sources either, but some editors are so convinced that MDPI is crappy that they refuse any source which claims otherwise. Scientific reports for example also had a massive resignation of editors. Does it make Science crappy? Of course not. Hence, why is Beall significant and NSD not? NSD is widely respected in the EU, and not a marginal index. Academics they know this, hence, my edits. When NSD ranked MDPI 0 it was placed in the lead. When it is factually proven that it is a legit publisher, then suddenly this information is deemed less important. Think about it. Kenji1987 (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Any sources supporting your claim that NSD is "widely respected in the EU"? --Randykitty (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Claiming to know what editors are "convinced of" is likewise problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * When an editor claims that MDPI is crappy, Im pretty sure they mean crappy Kenji1987 (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Claiming that assessment comes from conviction (rather than, as in the normal case, a neutral assessment of the sources) unhelpfully personalizes the dispute. Of course there can be other reasons why an editor's view is inappropriately slanted - conflict of interest for example. Alexbrn (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I am also very interested in knowing why people think MDPI is crap or predatory Kenji1987 (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to know why people think MDPI is predatory or crap, you only have to look at the practices of MDPI. It is not as bad as OMICS, but their standards, reviewing process, and general practices are clearly not up to par for what people consider reputable standards and behavior. This view is not universal of course, and the article reflects that too. We do mention indexing in scopus and web of science for instance, as well as the NSD rating, and membership in various open access associations. However inclusion in Beall is significant, and has been the focus of widespread coverage. Therefore we would be in violation of NPOV if we fail to mention it, and when would be in violation of DUE if we did not mention it in the lead. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * MDPI has its fair share of embarrasing controversies, and some journal's rejection rate is too low. But compared to other open access publishers, including the more credible ones, I don't see much difference. Would love to see more sources which support your claim. Beall is a good source, but even he removed MDPI from his list, after independent evaluation. Kenji1987 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And we also mention that MDPI was removed after appeal. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I put it in the lead. But there is literally no evidence that MDPI systematically has any real problems making them 'crappy' besides some embarrassing controversies, some which were solved, others unaddressed. Kenji1987 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And since our article does not say "MDPI is crappy" nor anything like it, but instead reports (clearly, and with proper sourcing) on the situation broadly, there seems to be no problem. --JBL (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well some developments here are concerning. Hence, I edit to make sure the information is more balanced. For example, if the NSD decides that MDPI is 0 (there is a chance this might happen) we now decided this should not be in the lead Kenji1987 (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A "1" rating just says that a publisher meets the minimum requirements to be considered an academic publisher. Most publishers get a "1" rating, it's an unexceptional rating. Just don't be SCIRP or OmniScriptum, and you'll get your "1" rating; before people had heard of predatory publishing basically any publisher that included some basic information about an editorial board and procedures for peer review on their website would get the "1" rating. A "0" rating expressly states that a publisher/journal does not meet the minimum requirements to be considered academic at all. In this context, a "0" rating would be much more exceptional and noteworthy than a standard "1" rating. In other words: "1" = nothing out of the ordinary; "0" = it's like SCIRP. So no, we haven't decided what we would do in that case, only that a "1" rating isn't very noteworthy. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To elaborate a bit on my concerns. I first noticed that Mario Capecchi's case was still mentioned on the Wiki page, 4 years after the news was debunked. I tried to change it, but my revisions kept on being undone. Part of it was my fault, but every time the revisions were undone, Capecchi kept on being mentioned, until Randykitten finally deleted it. Then, I realized that the way Hindawi's page was organized was completely different from MDPI. Beall kept on being mentioned, even though Beall himself said that MDPI fulfilled all the requirements of being a reputable publisher. He never claimed later that MDPI was not, just that they were annoying. Which I understand, the Beall list does affect your income and reputation (unfortunately! I never understood why academics blindly followed Beall - literally a one man army - people are obsessed with lists and rankings, especially academics and even worse managers who run universities). NSD was mentioned in the lead only when it gave MDPI a 0 score (correct me if I am wrong!). But once they also established that they see MDPI as a standard publisher, it is suddenly this obscure Nordic ranking. What I also noticed that many editors accussed me of having a COI, up until this date (see the talk page of frontiers in psychology for example). I am not deleting any information to make MDPI look good - I just don't see any evidence that they are any different from other publishers in terms of reviewing procedures and so on. Scientific Reports and PLOSEONE each have rejection rates of 40-50% - very similar to MDPI's journals (I find it way too high, but that is my personal opinion). Hence, I would honestly like to know why editors personally find MDPI crappy, based on eligble sources and evidence. Once, knowing editors' point of view, I think we can have a more constructive dialogue to represent MDPI in a more balanced way. I have done my fair share, and I am planning to restructure the controversies page, at some point in time, as it is way too messy now. Of course, Ill mention it in the talk page first. Hence, these are my concerns. Kenji1987 (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , MDPI is a bottom tier publisher. Slightly better than OMICS or Frontiers, but a lot worse than reputable publishers. Guy (help!) 16:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 60+ journals have an IF and around 80% are covered by Scopus. In my field, the journal Forests, is well respected. Comparison with Omics does not make sense. Kenji1987 (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you think MPDI and Frontiers are comparable to OMICS, you are either extremely biased or completely uninformed on the issues.Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You know what is seriously nonsense? Having a discussion on whether MDPI as a publisher is counted 0 or 1. The Nature Publishing Group is rated "0" (https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=14775&bibsys=false), but I don't see anyone adding this to the Nature Publishing Group wiki. Why is that? Kenji1987 (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's because 'Nature Publishing Group' is now 'Springer Nature' since 2015 or so. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not according to the Norwegian Index, the original source. They continue giving it a rating for each year. Kenji1987 (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Shu-Kun Lin and CHMINF-L
On 3 December 2020, MDPI President Shu-Kun Lin posted to the CHMINF-L mailing list an off-topic message in support of Donald Trump writing "perhaps Trump is the man to save the western civilization because Trump has been protecting the social system of rule of law." He believes it "is strange that the media, including scholarly journals (like Nature and NEJM abandons political neutrality and start to create hatred between genders, races, nationalities and perhaps classes, ...." and followed up by expressing the belief that Trump won the US election.

There responses in CHINF-L were universally negative, with some librarians expressing how these messages have caused them to re-consider their support for MDPI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.255.22.84 (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * That's hilarious but of course not usable on Wikipedia without coverage in reliable secondary sources. --JBL (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

"Author-pays"
The lead currently states: "MDPI is a publisher of author-pays open access scientific journals", where "author-pays" is wikilinked to article processing charge (APC). I've removed "author-pays" because "it may give the impression it's a vanity press; I don't see such language and emphasis on APCs in the lead of any other member of Category:Open access publishers". has reverted the change, stating that "If it gives that impression to you, you might consider whether maybe it is one? But the language is accurate and neutral." Later, agreed with removal, stating "This is not clear and not in line with other Category:Open access publishers". has reverted the change again, stating "do those other articles have sourced content criticizing them as "money machines" for which this lead text can serve as a summary". agreed with the removal, saying it was "not lead-worthy". Finally, reverted the change, saying "Agree with DE (and why hasn't anyone started a talk section yet?)", plus unrelated discussion about Nordic countries.

I've created the redirect "author-pays model" five years ago and it remains a valid description for a certain open-access funding model. In the context of an individual publisher, though, it's nothing but innuendo. I don't think we need to spin it for making an indirect criticism at MDPI -- there's already plenty of sourced accusations in the second paragraph of the lead. The first sentence should be rewritten to be more clear and assertive, as in: "MDPI is a controversial publisher of open access scientific journals". If you insist, then mention it's "funded by article processing charges", but I still think APC is a trivial fact for commercial OA publishers, plus not all author-pays publishers are predatory or vanity presses. fgnievinski (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Author-pays is not lead worthy. Almost every open access publisher uses an author-pays model, and we don't plaster their leads with 'author-pays' on any of them. There's no reason to do it here either. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In any case, it is a falsehood that open access publishing is almost always author-pays. I can point to many diamond-model open-access publications. It may be the case that commercial open access publishers are author-pays, but that's kind of oxymoronic; how else would they survive as commercial entities. Also, I don't see the argument that "author-pays" is unnecessarily pejorative; it is an accurate and neutral description of their publishing model, distinguishing them both from diamond-model and from a common model in computer science conference publication where the costs are handled indirectly through registration fees rather than directly on a per-paper author-pays basis. As I said in an earlier edit summary, if you think that it reeks of vanity press publishing, you might consider whether maybe that's because author-pays in general motivates publishers and authors to take on some of the characteristics of that model, and whether maybe the pejorative nature of the connection between this distasteful concept and the neutral words in the lead is in your head rather than in the actual words. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's very useful for us to distinguish clearly between "platinum/diamond" or "true" (as we call it in Norwegian) open access and the author-pays model, which are very different models indeed. The MDPI/Frontiers lobby has a vested interest in conflating the two models, but for our readers it is more informative to distinguish clearly between them. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree with and . "Author-pay" isn't a clear description and is not used in the other open access publisher's leads. What is it with this article and the constant useless discussions? The publisher's controversies are amply covered. Let's remove this and move on. -- &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 00:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Author-pay" is about as clear as a description could possibly be. Consistency between articles is an extremely weak basic for making any editing choice, especially when it concerns an aspect that is not uniform -- and MDPI is not, in fact, just another run-of-the-mill publisher.  The rest of your comment is gobbledygook. --JBL (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Consistency in how we treat journals is desirable since it supports NPOV and I think there is some sort of a neutrality issue at stake here. The PLOS One article does mention the funding model in the lead, in the first sentence of the second paragraph, but it uses the language of APCs: 'Submissions are subject to an article processing charge, and according to the journal, papers are not to be excluded on the basis of lack of perceived importance or adherence to a scientific field.'
 * I've generally supposed that APC was the dominant terminology, but 'author pays' is certainly a common phrase and I am not sure my impression was correct. I'll advertise this discussion at WT:JOURNALS; possibly an RfC is in order. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Article processing charge" is typical of modern euphemistic language in removing the agent from the action, leaving only the action to stand by itself, devoid of anyone to take responsibility or blame for it. "Author pays" is both shorter and clearer. It's also less ambiguous; for instance, a publishing institution whose support for the publication efforts comes entirely from state funding (such as for example several universities I could name that have their own programs of open access publishing) might still plausibly have article publishing charges within its accounting that are not visible to or made payable by authors. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Either we rewrite every other commercial open-access publisher article to mention "author-pays" instead of "article processing charge" or we bring the present exception in line with the treatment in the rest of Wikipedia. Again, any and all sourced criticism at MDPI should be made explicitly, with words such "controversial", which could even be done in the first sentence as I've proposed above. The current writing doesn't even follow MOS:LINKCLARITY. fgnievinski (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The quality of this argument is extremely poor. There is no requirement or obligation to use precisely parallel wording in different articles like this, no matter how many times people repeat it.  The current link is adequately consistent with WP:LINKCLARITY; on the other hand, here is what the MOS says about the word "controversial": MOS:LABEL. --JBL (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

General inclusion limits
This subsection is a mess. What should we include here exactly? It can't be a list of all retracted articles by the entire MDPI journal portfolio. It doesn't make sense. Retraction is a normal part of the publishing business. We should trim this down significantly and only include particularly notable retractions in which MDPI had an important role. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 11:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I support editors wanting to improve it, by not reducing the criticism, but by reorganizing it. Kenji1987 (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Gtoffoletto's statement here was accompanied by a bad edit with a similar edit summary removing the 2020–2021 University of Tasmania Fire controversy. Not only is this a notable controversy (with heavy coverage in the Australian news media and multiple international news stories covering it, only one of which is needed as a reference) but it helps balance the section by providing an example that does not reflect badly on MDPI itself, except possibly in their being attracted to articles that could become controversial (but you could say the same of Science). The article section title is "Controversial articles", not "Articles where MDPI's behavior is controversial". I agree that we shouldn't include all retractions, but retractions with significant public coverage are different. To put it another way, this incident seems to be the biggest topic of news coverage involving MDPI since the Nutrients mass resignation in 2018, with significantly wider coverage than the Magnetochemistry and Psych incidents. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ctrl + F that Guardian source for MDPI yields no results. I am for removing this article from the section because it's not related to MDPI, making it a COATRACK violation. Banedon (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You do know that MDPI can be spelled out in multiple ways? I found this controversy by searching Google News for "Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute", and used the Guardian source because it seemed more reliable than some of the other ones listed by Google. Is there any serious doubt that the journal involved is an MDPI journal, or are you trying to be pedantic purely for the sake of being pedantic? If you insist on a source that mentions MDPI, try this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ctrl + F that article for "Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute" in the Guardian article still yields no results. Also, 1) I'm not about to start finding sources for you, and 2) the objection is COATRACK, not that the journal that published it is not a MDPI journal. FYI, the UTAS article still does not touch much on MDPI. If you're not familiar with WP:COATRACK, I recommend reading about it. Banedon (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You aren't reading a word of what you're replying to, are you? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I Agree with and have removed it from the article. We should stick to notable controversies that relate directly to MDPI here and not every single retraction in MDPI journals. Remember MDPI publishes over 100k journals a year. MDPI is not mentioned directly by the source and does not seem to be directly connected to that story. -- &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I think you aren't reading a word of what you're replying to. You somehow got the idea that I was trying to trim the entire controversies section even though I explicitly said days ago that I wasn't, then came to the remarkable conclusion that I was claiming that it wasn't a MDPI journal that published the article. You're literally inventing things that I didn't say and ascribing it to me. It's very nonsense, especially since you are apparently unaware what you are doing. Banedon (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Trying to keep this on topic: do we agree that this section should contain notable controversies that relate directly to MDPI and not every single retraction in MDPI journals? Remember MDPI publishes over 100k journals a year so we can't include everything in here. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Verily. There are 19 papers retracted by MDPI in 2019 ; god forbid we add all of them to the article. For any article to be in the section, it needs to be more directly related to MDPI than "it was published by MDPI". Banedon (talk) 11:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a stupid standard that would make it impossible to list anything, and a false comparison to a standard of listing all retractions that nobody is even attempting to use. There are approximately zero controversial papers where we can state based on sources that the controversy was caused by MDPI's corporate management and not by the individual authors and editors of the paper. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but your comment is absurd as well as your accusation here . I have verified the sources for some of the other articles in this section such as the Entropy one or the Behavioral Sciences one and they both prominently discuss MDPI and even contain statements by the company and its founder. So those are clearly relevant for this section. The first Life paper was taken as an absurd breakdown of the peer review process so it is relevant here even if MDPI is not directly referenced (although the sourcing is poor and one fo the two references is broken). On the contrary, the paper you seem so adamant to include is completely unrelated to MDPI's practices itself and has no place in the encyclopaedia per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also we seem to have a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS against your position at the moment. Let's keep it civil and wait to hear what other editors have to say. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 17:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that the other controversial papers in the section do not go beyond "it was published by MDPI"? Banedon (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of them, yes. Unless you are ignorant of how scientific publishing works, you would understand that the editorial boards of journals make decisions that are largely independent of the publishing company that publishes and collects subscription or open-access publication fees for the journals. When editorial decisions are made by the company rather than by their academic editors, it indicates a serious breakdown of the legitimate academic publishing process, and while that may happen at some predatory publishers we don't have much evidence of it happening at MDPI, except maybe in the Behavioral Sciences case (even the Nutrients case involved editors being pressured to accept more rather than having their decisions actually overridden). So when we report that MDPI journals decided to include dubious papers like the Andrulis Life paper, the Entropy glyphosate paper, the Magnetochemistry microwave paper, the Psych race/intelligence paper, or the Fire forestry paper, what that really means is that the editorial board, not MDPI itself, made a dubious decision. The only case where we say something about actions by MDPI as a corporation are the Behavioral Sciences porn paper, where we have an official statement from the company saying they stand behind their editors' decisions. Everything else could plausibly be the work of the editors rather than of the company. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the Fire paper issue can be largely resolved by adding: "The Australian Senate passed a motion condemning the study as it did not meet the standard for "high-quality scientific works" as required by MDPI" (source: https://www.miragenews.com/utas-staff-to-undergo-training-in-scientific-520357/). As this source specifically links MDPI to this, and the Australian Senate labels MDPI as such, this would make this addition much better. Let's be honest, the Fire paper does not mention completely outlandish claims, unlike the Life paper, Behavioral science paper, etc. Therefore, the editors/reviewers who accepted this manuscript in the first place could not have known that the authors mislabeled the data they were using (and even then they were clear of misconduct). It is often said that there are no secondary sources praising MDPI. Actually, here we have one stating that the Australian senate recognizes that MDPI requires "high-quality scientific works". Whether or not we agree with this, it is a secondary independent source stating it. Kenji1987 (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are all the papers in the section:
 * 2011 Life paper: "A member of the editorial board of Life resigned in response" which makes it clear there is something more than "it was published by MDPI" (in particular, the rest of the editorial board + MDPI evidently do not agree with this person).
 * 2013 Entropy paper: this paper can arguably be removed. On the other hand, Beall (who is a notable OA critic, and is cited) did draw an explicit link with MDPI.
 * 2016 Behaviorial Science paper: this one is the easiest to keep since it led to COPE getting involved, MDPI removing the editor's name from the paper, etc.
 * 2019 Magnetochemistry paper: another easy keep, given the allegations of peer review failure in the cited source, and MDPI changing the paper's classification.
 * 2019 Psych paper: same as above.
 * Finally: I'm willing to bet that MDPI staff were involved in some of the decisions of these papers (even if the decision is "let's do nothing"). Publishers usually defer to the editorial board, but they can overrule the board, and sometimes that's not even "a serious breakdown of legitimate academic publishing process" (example). Banedon (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the review above. I think that solution is a stretch. That paper was a mistake unrelated to MDPI. It is irrelevant here. -- &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 14:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Behaviorial science article
But the Behaviorial science article consists of information that is not included in the secondary source: no mention of six scientists independently contacting MDPI, not clear whether COPE conducted an independent review or a COPE representative stating their opinion (those are different), and no mention of social media and the US navy. Also, the editor initially accepted the paper but was not involved in the retraction/correction of the paper. Which I think is not that unusual. Associate editors could accept or reject papers, but corrections and retractions are usually handled by the editor in chief, but it seems in this case Shukin Lin was directly involved, which I think is unusual (probably trying to protect his company). Kenji1987 (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC) Here I have to agree with Epstein. It is a controversial article, but not because how MDPI handled it, but how the right-winged politicians and logging industry reacted (https://www.mdpi.com/2571-6255/3/3/47). Just don't know why this is relevant to MDPI, it could have been submitted to any journal. I think other parts of the controversies are more of a mess (see above). Kenji1987 (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's relevant to MDPI because we have a section about controversial MDPI papers, and it's a controversial MDPI paper, maybe the most controversial one since the 2016 case. We might reasonably (probably better for an individual journal rather than an entire publisher; see as an example Tohoku Mathematical Journal) have sections about heavily-impactful papers, and in that sort of section we might list all papers that can be documented through independent sourcing to have a heavy impact, rather than restricting the list to where reliable sources point out that the journal or publisher did something unusual to cause them to be published. If we want to have a more restrictive list that only covers controversies involving MDPI misbehavior, then we need a different name for this section, but then we also need to document that misbehavior came from MDPI rather than from individual authors and editors, probably difficult even in the most egregious cases. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say a way to solve it is to give it a separate section (i.e. Incident surrounding an article published in MDPI's Fire journal), as this is not a controversial article due to MDPI's mismanagement or bad editorial practices, but this should be seen as controversial in the broader societal context (I am not adamant, but I see some of the editors are). Pretty impressive I have to say, 500,000+ articles published, and this is the most controversial paper since 2016! Scientific Reports does a much worse job. What I would find more important is to have a source for: (1) "six independent editors contacting MDPI"; (2) "independent review of COPE"; and (3) "US Navy and social media". Where did you get this information, it cannot be found in the RW source. What you also may want to add is that the editor was involved in the acceptance of the paper, but not in the correction, and later his name was entirely removed. Kenji1987 (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It all seems to have been added in this edit by an anonymous editor using only the Retraction Watch source. It clearly does source an investigation by COPE. However, I agree that the supposed claims of six independent complaints to MDPI and of social media posts claiming false affiliation are not present in that source (the affiliation might be true, because it is reflected in the updated COI statement at the journal, but we need a source saying so; we can't rely on inference) and I know of no other sources for that information. Searches turned up somewhat-related stories of legal battles between authors of the paper and people who I think were involved in instigating the investigation but with no direct connection to MDPI so probably unusable in this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, this particular part looks good now. To the point, and covering the essence of the RW source. Kenji1987 (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Controversies section of article
Does the current controversies section violate WP:DUE? Banedon (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No MDPI is a controversial publisher, and all these controversies have had extensive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No. We can quibble about whether some subtopics go into too much detail, or are too incidentally related to MDPI as a whole to be worth mentioning at all, or whether others are too telegraphic and should be expanded. And I'm sure it would be possible to improve what's there. But since Banedon appears to demand only yes or no answers (see above discussion), if faced with a choice of keeping the controversies section as is or significantly stripping it down (Banedon's expressed preference at the start of all this), I think the choice is clear: we need to keep much of the content of the controversies section, because it is a significant part of what MDPI has been known for. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Virtually all third party coverage of MDPI is critical and discusses MDPI as a questionable publisher. It's what they are known for. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is really a mess right now. Quotes here and there, it reads as a tabloid paper. It can be made much shorter, while the significance remains. Kenji1987 (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No. I am completely with Bjerrebæk here. WP articles should cover what reliable sources say. If that is overwhelmingly positive or negative, then our article will be overwhelmingly positive or negative. So if at some point there's an independent reliable source praising MDPI, we should include that. Until then, I'm afraid that DUE means that we mostly have to cover problematic issues. --Randykitty (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes the section is just bloated with quotes of all kinds. E.g. for the controversial paper published by Behavioral Sciences the article says COPE investigated, which is fine, except it then goes on to spell out exactly what the issues the investigation found are and then quotes extensively from the source. It even gives MDPI's response in blockquotes when it could be given as "MDPI issued a correction that amended the conflict of interest declaration for this paper", which is 14 words compared to the current 91. It's not that the incident does not deserve to be mentioned, but rather that it's given in way too much detail. Ctrl + F of the punctuation " yields so many results on the article it's ridiculous. The length of the section makes it sound like the COPE investigation is more important than the OASPA investigation which is also bogus.
 * One can cover everything sources say without going into as much detail as the section currently does, making it a WP:DUE violation. Section is majorly bloated right now and needs trimming. Banedon (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your proposed rewrite to the COPE section would strongly imply, in Wikipedia's voice, that the corrected conflict of interest statement was adequate and resolved the issue, in direct contradiction to what our article quotes reliable source Retraction Watch as saying. (Er, also you should be aware that referring to things as "14 words" can be problematic...Google that phrase to find out why.) —David Eppstein (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * it then goes on to spell out exactly what the issues the investigation found are and then quotes extensively from the source Yes, because it is important to explain a) what issues the investigation found, and b) to be accurate when reporting those issues (and the response). Going "it found problems and MDPI issued a response", or similar, neither explains what the problem were, nor what the response was. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment maybe the RfC question should've been "does the treatment of the 2016 Behavioral Sciences article violate WP:DUE?" instead. Any objections if I amend the question now? Banedon (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Since so many people have already responded, it's probably not a good idea to change the question now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment covering those controversies is necessary in this article. I think there are specific WP:DUE violations within this section (too much space given to poor sources and inflammatory direct quotes that should be avoided) and the fact that the article basically only focuses on controversies without covering anything else makes the article seem even more unbalanced. We should work to expand the article relying on the many sources that have covered this publisher (not only the controversies surrounding it which of course attract most of the coverage as more "news worthy"). For example cover in more detail the business model/approach/history/growth might give more balance to the article. I think the lead has already improved somewhat in this direction. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, MDPI has some dubious publishing practices and where these are discussed in reliable sources we should cover them. It violates WP:DUE not to do so. Polyamorph (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * no per Polymorph rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Article might be unbalanced
There's a page on MDPI's website criticizing this article. . They don't deny the controversies in the article, but they criticize the article for being unbalanced. To quote,

"Almost three quarters of the Wikipedia article covers controversial topics, mentioning 4 out of over 200,000 published papers, one instance where 10 editorial board members resigned (in 2018 we had over 43,000 Editorial Board Members and Guest Editors), and inclusion on Jeffrey Beall’s list, known as a source biased against open access and from which MDPI was removed (see our response here ). While we do not object to these topics being mentioned, the way in which they are presented is misleading."

I wonder what other editors think about this, because I can definitely see where the sentiment is coming from. I have no reason to disbelieve their numbers, and if the numbers are correct, then it certainly looks like much of the page is WP:UNDUE. Banedon (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:MANDY sums it up pretty well. We write base on independent sources, and independent sources are in great majority critical of MDPI. It's not universally shit, and we do recognize that. But the majority of what's written is critical of MDPI.
 * If MDPI has earned independent praise, this could be mentioned too. But so far, I've yet to see independent praise of MDPI, and they've got a history of meat-puppeting, paid editing (and probably astroturfing as well), etc, and are extremely litigious. So, unless you have sources, we shouldn't lose sleep over what MDPI thinks. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the criticism is about not having independent praise included in the article, but rather that the controversies section is covered in too much detail. In other words, this isn't about WP:NPOV, but about WP:UNDUE. Banedon (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find the criticism found in the article commensurate to its coverage in mainstream sources. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? As an example, right now, in the paragraphs after this sentence, "In 2016, MDPI journal Behavioral Sciences published a review paper that claimed that watching pornography is a cause of erectile dysfunction", we have several paragraphs of text dedicated to one paper. Meanwhile, the other papers described in the section all get one paragraph only. Banedon (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The focus of that section is the details of the COPE investigation, the reactions to the investigation, and its consequences. This isn't a small potatoes run-of-the-mill retraction, MDPI's hand was forced by COPE here. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I swear, it feels like you are missing the point. You write "The focus of that section is the details of the COPE investigation", yet the section is clearly titled "Controversial articles", a title that obviously implies a broader scope. Please actually take a look at the article before commenting. Banedon (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What is your point then? That specific article elicited a major reaction from an independent source, and thus the coverage of that reaction is proportional to its importance per WP:DUE. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the point not clear enough? I am saying that dedicating these many paragraphs to one controversial article violates WP:DUE. Just read the section, it is spelling out the objections raised by COPE (all four of them!) and further explicitly quotes MDPI's response. I feel like it's pointless continuing this conversation. I will wait for other editors to respond but will not respond to you further. Banedon (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree we are giving undue weight. And I think we are giving a lot of weight to sources that are not very strong. In general sourcing seems poor for this article. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added this source to the article: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/08/10/guest-post-mdpis-remarkable-growth/ seems a pretty recent and thorough review to me. I think we could use it to better cover MDPI in the article (it includes many useful references) and not just focus on controversy (it would be interesting to add a "business model" paragraph for example in which we describe their approach and their growth which is definitely an interesting aspect of this publisher). Let's bear in mind we are talking about the largest OA publisher in the world and the 5th (soon 4th?) overall. Apparently they are following the "move fast and break things" mantra (and growing 60%+ in the last 3 years!) and they definitely stirred up some controversy but overall most sources seem to regard them as reputable. Those might be mostly isolated incidents (maybe with specific journals?) rather than systemic problems with the publisher. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 11:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Nutrients editorial board's mass resignation after MDPI pushed them to lower their standards is proof positive that this is systemic. That said, no objection to include some of Petrou's analysis on growth and such. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Nutrients mass resignation was 2 years ago. And that topic is covered in detail with a specific section of the article. I think we need to expand the rest of the article and remove stuff like "money machine" in the lead based on a professor's comment in a university newspaper (I removed it citing WP:UNDUE but you reverted me here ) -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 22:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't help to chip in here. I have absolutely no problem if MDPI is criticized for being too commercial (I even added several controversial articles). But in the lead "money machine" seems to refer to a direct quote in the cited sources, but none of the sources, including the Norwegian one, literally writes "money machine". Thus, "money machine" seems to be an interpretation of the MDPI editors. Or am I missing something here??????? Kenji1987 (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a literal translation of a quote in Norwegian in the cited source, "MDPI er en pengemaskin som drives av det totale antallet aksepterte artikler, ikke av kvalitet." —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah Eppstein is correct. Ok disregard it then. I think the lead has improved. Another thing: "Norway will introduce a new "level X" for questionable publishers in 2020" -> this never came, our Nordic folks have made MDPI level 1 again for 2021, including most of its journals. Is this still relevant? The controversies section is a mess, but I don't dare to touch it, last time I did it, caused a lot of drama, if headbomb and Gtoffoletto are so kind? Cheers Kenji1987 (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've used google translate and the statement we had in the article does not seem to match the source. So I've removed it entirely. The source seems to state (google translated) And here we are at the problem that we must solve in the National Publications Committee. This type of publisher deftly ensures that it does not fall into the category of "robber journals", but apparently follows the criteria we have for incorporating them into the funding system for research in Norway.. The quote appears to be by the authors of the article and not by the NPC itself as we incorrectly stated in the article. If any native speaker can confirm this or else revert my edit. Thanks. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 11:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reverted, this was added by someone who does speak Norwegian, and did not rely on machine translations. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Was it you? Do we have some native speaker that can verify? It would be a pretty major factual error to keep in the article and machine translation at this point rarely makes such major mistakes. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Found this specific edit by that seems to introduce this change:  -- &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 14:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Re "The quote appears to be by the authors of the article and not by the NPC itself as we incorrectly stated in the article": Wrong, the quote is from an article by three members of the publication committee (who form its "working committee", i.e. presidium or executive committee), written on behalf of the committee in a Norwegian newspaper as the committee's response to another article. Originally it was phrased here as "Writing on behalf of the National Publication Committee of Norway, Anne Kristine Børresen, Vidar Røeggen and Gunnar Sivertsen ...", but it was shortened to simply "The National Publication Committee of Norway" solely to make the coverage of this more concise. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, after having looked a bit more into MDPI and skimming through analyses (I intend to fully read them at some point) such as this, this and this, I am increasingly convinced this article not only violates WP:DUE, but also WP:NPOV. MDPI is much more reputable than the article gives it credit for. I'm tagging the article as such, and absent strong objections, will rewrite it substantially in the future. Banedon (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope you are not planning on treating Dan Brockington's blog as a reliable source! (In addition to being a blog post by someone with no obvious expertise, it is also completely unconvincing as to its central thesis.) --JBL (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If anything, my personal experience with MDPI involves more problematic behavior than what is reported here, not less. So I strongly disagree with 's conclusion that they are more reputable than we make out. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Problem with personal experience is the sample size of one. There are also people who have had positive experiences with MDPI (e.g. see 3rd source above, this, and I know some people in real life who've told me the same). It's impractical to survey the entire world, of course, but the fact that MDPI managed to grow by such a huge amount over the past few years is I think a powerful (if indirect) piece of evidence that most people approve. More directly there's the fact that so many of their journals are now indexed by Web of Science. And while Dan Brockington is clearly no publisher, I don't see any reason to disbelieve his analysis (he also did share the raw data if anyone wants to look at it). The skeptic could say that they're clearly growing so fast only because they're accepting low-garbage junk, but if any predatory publishers of decent size are growing nearly as quickly I am not aware of them, and besides the citability of their biggest journals are clearly going up, not down. Accepting low-garbage junk is also an easy way to get delisted from Web of Science, but the number of journals indexed is also going up, not down. If you are aware of any recent (post 2015, preferably post 2018) non-anecdotal, statistics-based analyses of MDPI illustrating problem behavior, please share. Banedon (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Stack exchange? Really? No, if you think that's remotely reliable, you should not rewrite this article. It's fine to talk about growth and all, but I'll revert any trimming or reframing of the controversies. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's in response to David Eppstein's personal experience above. It's aimed at showing that David Eppstein's personal experience is also not remotely reliable (your words). I'm of opinion we can keep the controversies but they need massive trimming per WP:DUE. That issue is discussed earlier in this section. Right now this is adding an NPOV objection on top of WP:DUE. Banedon (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not reliable. That's why it's not in the article. But no, the controversies do not need massive trimming. This is a company that started out as predatory and, while perhaps rising above that, has continued to behave very badly; our article needs to reflect that. It is your proposal to cut all that and portray it as a respectable academic publisher just like all the others that is a massive NPOV violation, and plays into their massive promotionalism that should have been obvious to any intelligent reader of the history of this talk page. A few of the more minor scandals could be cut: the "data breach" one is something that could have happened to any publisher, and the "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" one also does not reflect particularly badly on MDPI. (On the other hand, cutting an incident where their behavior was actually exemplary could have the effect of making them look worse, the opposite direction of change from what you are suggesting.) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Last year I rewrote the controversies section with input from Headbomb. That one got reverted. Now the controversies section remains a mess (content I am fine with, but its full of quotes, unstructured all over the place).Kenji1987 (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The only input I had was formatting and reference cleanup. I did not endorse your proposed revisions, and I would appreciated if you stopped pretending I did.&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine, Ill publicly state it now: Headbomb added input to my rewritten controversies section, but Headbomb does not endorse. For the record: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MDPI/Archive_2#Rewriting_the_criticism_section,_please_contribute this is the link. I believe that my version is much better than the current one. Ill leave it up to others to pick it up. Kenji1987 (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just so we don't get lost, I want to empahsize that I have two objections to the article:
 * Controversies section currently violates WP:DUE
 * Article overall currently violates WP:NPOV
 * Fixing #1 would involve keeping all incidents, but making sure they all get roughly the same number of words. The 2016 article under "controversial articles" right now is the biggest offender. Another example problem is, e.g., giving Norwegian scholars Olav Bjarte Fosso and Jonas Kristiansen Nøland's criticism of MDPI's inclusion in the Norwegian Scientific Index, given that they are two people and the Norwegian Scientific Index is created by much more than two people. Fixing #2 involves adding the material above about the massive growth MDPI has shown, as well as increase in citability, etc. Banedon (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: At no point did I say cut all controversies entirely. That's your proposal, not mine. Banedon (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * PPS: You're suggesting cutting the "Who's Afraid of Peer Review" section because it doesn't reflect badly on MDPI? Are you sure you're not suffering from NPOV here? You are after all suggesting cutting the material that portrays MDPI in a positive light while keeping all the material that portrays MDPI negatively. Banedon (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Your inability to read this talk page appears to extend to this very section. I am suggesting cutting "Who's afraid" because it is a minor incident. But I am warning that this minor incident gives some balance to the controversies section, by showing that MDPI did the right thing, and that cutting it might cause the balance to go the other way than you appear to intend, by making the section more entirely negative. Also "all controversies should have equal numbers of words" is a ridiculous and bad way of assessing balance. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * First, reminder that your second sentence violates our civility policies. Second: on what basis do you call the "Who's Afraid of Peer Review" hoax a minor incident (I note you specifically called it a "minor scandal" too, which doesn't make sense given the MDPI journal rejected the hoax article)? That incident was a watershed moment in OA history. It triggered reforms by multiple publishers and OA associations. It had long-lasting impact. It continues to be cited (1226 citations as of time of writing, many in 2021). If you really think it's minor, I question either your objectivity or your knowledge of open access publishing. Banedon (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Re "Who's Afraid": It may have been a major scandal in predatory publication in general, but it was minor in regard to MDPI, because nothing untoward or unexpected happened: bad papers were submitted and rejected, something that happens all the time. Anyway, since my point seems to need spelling out: You claimed that the controversy section needed trimming. I looked over the controversy section and the two that most stood out to me as capable of being trimmed were the data breach and "Who's Afraid". But I pointed out that trimming "Who's Afraid" would have the undesired effect of removing one of the few non-negative points in that section, so even that much of a trim might be a bad idea. Instead of taking that point, you have been repeatedly casting about for the least favorable way of misinterpreting my comments, first trying to make out that I was trying to misrepresent the company as even worse than they are by removing this favorable material, and now after that was contradicted trying to make out that my interpretation of this incident as it applies to MDPI makes me somehow ignorant or incompetent. Behaving like this is not a particularly strong way of attempting to persuade me to agree with your general position. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Agree with DE on all counts here. Who's Afraid was favourable to MDPI. Cutting it would unbalance the article in favour of only controversies which were disfavourable to MDPI. And that would be a violation of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. The controversies section is fine as is, and is well-balanced, save perhaps for the databreach, which is not very relevant to anything, save for being in the news for a while.
 * That a lack of coverage on MDPI's 2015-2020 growth and alleged improvement of reputation does not make the controversies/article unbalanced or in violation of NPOV. It, at worse, makes the article incomplete. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems what I'm trying to say needs spelling out as well, because you seem to believe that the way to fix WP:DUE violations is by deleting sections. Are you saying that this highlighted section is in compliance with WP:DUE? Yes/no answer please. It's a clear-cut no from my point of view - there are five papers in the section and this one paper takes up more than half the section - but we have phrases such as "controversies do not need massive trimming" and "I'll revert any trimming or reframing of the controversies" above. Banedon (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As as I said above, the focus of that section is the details of the COPE investigation, the reactions to the investigation, and its consequences. This isn't a small potatoes run-of-the-mill retraction, MDPI's hand was forced by COPE here. This is fully complaint with WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. We cover the incident in depth, and accurately report what COPE concluded. So yes, if you cut that section, or reframe it, I will revert. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's slow down a bit here please. It is clear some editors have very strong personal opinions on this topic. I think the only solution here is to stick to the sources. I think most of those problems would be fixed if we manage to improve the sourcing of the article a bit and let the content reflect the strength of those sources. A couple of examples: As an independent reviewer of this article and the sources included it is clear that the *current mainstream consensus is that MDPI is one of the largest publishers in the world and while it's record includes many controversies it's reputation is improving steadily*. I think the Norwegian survey is a pretty accurate reflection of that consensus as well as this LSE article by Kyle Siler: Frontiers and MDPI are large OA-only publishers that are arguably exemplars of grey publishing. Both publishers have been successful in recent years, as evidenced by rising APCs, founding of new journals and increases in publishing volume. However, both publishers have faced criticism and controversy over business practices, particularly regarding excessively permissive peer review and subordination of academic functions to business interests.. Our article should reflect this consensus and not skew based on personal opinions by some editors here. I think statements such as my personal experience with MDPI involves more problematic behavior than what is reported here are problematic. We need to reflect sources not personal experience. If editors can't personally detach from this topic I think it would be best if they refrained from editing the article. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * dedicating sentences in the lead and entire paragraphs to blog posts on university magazines by some researches is giving WP:UNDUE weight to weak sources
 * Misattributing statements: such as the mixup in who said what in the Norwegian article discussed above)
 * Focusing on negative bits of an article while ignoring more balanced and solid views: In the same article we cite above we include inflammatory statements by individuals while ignoring a very solid mention of a nation wide survey that indicated that MDPI was criticised by a lot of researchers but also praised by some.
 * There is no misattribution of any Norwegian sources. This type of incorrect and nonsensical claims is typical of the disingenuous "arguments"/hairsplitting we've seen from MDPI employees/defenders here over the years. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * These persistent long-term efforts here are exactly why I think it was a mistake for Banedon to try to remove the quote from Beall, describing MDPI as having "tried to be as annoying as possible to the university so that the officials would get so tired of the emails that they would silence me just to make them stop." That is a very accurate description of their behavior here as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you ignoring the question asked above now? I'm also getting the feeling this heavy difference in opinion is not going to be possible to resolve without triggering the next step in the content dispute process, either via mediation or (preferably) RfC. Banedon (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are we playing gotcha now? If I don't WP:BLUDGEON the discussion by replying to every single little point, you are going to take it as an excuse to ignore everything else I say? As for that section: publishing one bad paper, by itself, is a minor issue. Triggering a full COPE investigation that uncovered serious editorial irregularities in the whole publication process is a major issue. Whether the current balance of word count per topic is equal or in proportion to the severity of the issue is not really the right way of looking at it: we should document the problems that have been documented rather than skipping some of them because too many words have already been allocated to other problems arising in the same incident. To the extent that the wording in that highlighted area discusses issues relevant to the bigger picture of problematic journal management (rather than accidentally letting a single bad paper get through), those issues need to stay. To the extent that the incidental details of who had exactly what conflict of interest and what was stated to supposedly resolve it can be omitted while still making sense of the big picture, they should go. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course we should mention it, we should just not use this many words and make this many direct quotes. Don't mention WP:BLUDGEON and "replying to every single little point" when the entirety of my reply was on this single point. I'm putting up an RfC, because it's clear we have no chance of reaching a consensus and are skirting the line dividing acceptable and unacceptable personal attacks with every reply. Banedon (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol? so David Eppstein did what I wanted to do and addressed the most egregious of the WP:DUE problem with the page . Is Headbomb going to revert now? Banedon (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That entirely depends on if David Eppstein cut or reframed the section, which he seems not to have done. I haven't read new vs old in details, but he put some actual thoughts in the edits and seems to have keep all relevant/important details and quotes. Likely it's something that, at worse, needs adustement rather than reversal. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it is worthy of ridicule that I might want to improve the article? WP:BATTLEGROUND much? I am happy for this part of the article to be more focused and less distracted by detail. What I do not want is for it to be stripped away, or cut in a way that removes important aspects of the controversies, as you have repeatedly proposed. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's just funny. I started this section proposing to do X to improve the article. You (and Headbomb) repeatedly argue that the article is mostly fine, and say you will revert any changes. Then you proceed to do exactly what I wanted to do while continuing to argue that it isn't actually what I wanted to do. It's very funny. One can actually make an argument for closing the RfC now, since the issue is already addressed. I suppose I'll see if Headbomb actually reverts your edit before moving to close the RfC, since after all he said "I'll revert any trimming or reframing of the controversies", and you just trimmed 2772 bytes of text from that very section. Banedon (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between tightening text and removing substance that seems to have eluded you. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You still seem to be laboring under the assumption that I was in favor of removing substance instead of tightening text. Banedon (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

can you confirm the statement The National Publication Committee of Norway stated that they shared Fosso's and Nøland's concerns is correct? The source article is attributed to "Anne Kristine Børresen, Vidar Røeggen and Gunnar Sivertsen, the working committee of the National Publications Committee". Did they speak on behalf of this National Publication Committee of Norway directly in that article or was it their personal opinion as individual members? The authors are the head, secretary and advisor of the NPC but it seems there are 9 members overall (see here the full member list https://npi.nsd.no/organisering/npu?id=1109) so I'm not sure we can say it is an official position of the entire organisation without an official statement. It may be more accurate to report their names and individual titles. The Google translation of the article states We recognize ourselves in the description and share the concern. from Vi kjenner oss igjen i beskrivelsen og deler bekymringen.. "Oss" apparently means us or ourselves. So unless this is a wrong translation they seem to be giving their personal opinion and not the official NPC position. So our article would be incorrect. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is just more MDPI-style hairsplitting. No, that's not a reasonable interpretation at all, and I can say with confidence that any Norwegian who read that article read it as a statement on behalf of the committee by its leadership, and that "our" in this context refers to the committee, not the authors in any private capacity. The term arbeidsutvalg or "working committee" in Norwegian refers to the leadership (aka presidium) of a larger body, the people who would typically speak on its behalf in day-to-day affairs. Your demand that all committee members must be involved in writing a response in a Norwegian newspaper for the statement to be "official" is simply ridiculous. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "MDPI-style hairsplitting". We need to WP:STICKTOSOURCE on Wikipedia. The source is not an official statement by the NPC. As you have confirmed, it is a statement by members of its leadership. So that is what we should report in the article. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 15:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Where is Plan X? Did it get delayed due to COVID-19? Kenji1987 (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

By the way the Norwegian Index can be updated. As of 2021, 172 journals received a 1 and 6 a 0 rating. Kenji1987 (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The executive board of the national publication committee of Norway wrote today that level X for dubious journals/publishers is under development and will be operational from the autumn of this year. They also linked its creation specifically to the expressions of concern regarding MDPI. See
 * ("We are introducing level X for dubious journals (...) We receive an increasing number of expressions of concern from researchers regarding publication channels we have already approved, several of which are published by the publisher MDPI. (...) The committee has decided to introduce a new level X for channels operating in this "gray zone" (...) The idea of ​​level X is to allow questionable journals or publishers to be the subject of public discussion and feedback. (...) Our hope is that level X status will trigger activity in the research community in the form of comments on the website that can give us a better basis for a final decision. (...) The technical solution for level X is now under development and will be completed just over the summer, so that level X can be used in the autumn.")
 * And which also mentions Chinese publisher MDPI and how the committee receives numerous expressions of concern.
 * The intention of this new level X, as described by the committee, is in fact not that different from the intention of Beall's list of potential, possible, or probable predatory journals/publishers, so it could be seen as a kind of Beall's list with official backing and direct funding implications. The Norwegian index is the first, largest and most important of its kind and is not only used in Norway; Sweden uses the Norwegian index as well, as do many South African universities, and universities in many other countries, and it's the model of similar indices in Denmark and other countries; the Danish index is just a tweaked version of the Norwegian index. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Norwegian criticisms
I wonder whether we need to include every single thing any Norwegian ever has said about MDPI? It dissorts the page in my opinion. It seems in Norway academics are quarreling about the legitimacy of MDPI, and one particular user is now spilling it over to the English wiki of MDPI. I leave it here for you all to discuss. Kenji1987 (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd favor tagging with and expanding the section title, unless the criticism really is unique to Nordic countries, in which case I think the current length is OK but the section should not expand much more, if at all. Banedon (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is true that Norwegian academics actively evaluate and discuss MDPI – as far as I can tell more than others (as least as far as public debate goes), probably because Norway is an international leader in this area, i.e. the evaluation of academic journals and presses and the building of a comprehensive government-owned database of publication channels worldwide. I'm not aware of any quarrel because I've not really seen any positive assessments of MDPI from academics. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Many sentences in the section indicate the comments are in a personal capacity, though. I'm also surprised you've not seen positive assessments of MDPI from academics because there are many, e.g. sources cited in and, just usually less vocal. It's very much an international topic. Banedon (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of the comments by academics were in an individual capacity, which is usually true for all forms of science and scholarship, and which was also true for Beall's criticisms of MDPI. However there is also some institutional weight behind some of the criticism, for example when the world's most comprehensive database of academic journals and presses announced a new level for dubious publishers/journals and linked it specifically to expressions of concern regarding MDPI. It seems to me that the academics who have defended MDPI are usually ones with some form of conflict of interest because they are editors of MDPI journals or otherwise involved with MDPI. In fact Beall has criticized Murray-Rust for exactly that. I was in fact referring to the allegation that there is a "quarrel" between Norwegian academics over MDPI when I said I've not seen any Norwegian academics publicly defend MDPI and thus not seen any such quarrel. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If we accept comments by academics in an individual capacity, then things like this would be worth including. Beall is different because he was a specialist in OA. The named scientists in the section are not. I still favor a globalize tag. Also I have not seen any quarrel involving Norwegian academics either so that is kind of moot; and the conflict of interest argument seems like an unsolvable catch-22: if one has edited a MDPI journal before then one has a COI, but if one hasn't, then one doesn't have firsthand knowledge. Banedon (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The quarrel is mentioned in above mentioned own source. I dont know any university making use of the "worlds most comprehensive database". Italy's own database (ANVUR) has labelled MDPI's Sustainability as a class A journal, highest rating possible. But I feel little adding this. What is also important to mention is that the Norwegian scientists wiki pages are either created or edited by Bjaerebek. Kenji1987 (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did make a small edit ​to Simen Andreas Ådnøy Ellingsen's article when I included his assessment of MDPI here. There must be something sinister going on, surely – according to MDPI, at least. No doubt it will be included in their "Response to MDPI Wikipedia Article" in due time. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Lol they have a response article? Nothing sinister here, but its interesting and important to point out. When will you add that the CEO supports Trump? In the Norwegian version its in the lead.Kenji1987 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page of the English Wikipedia article about MDPI. When you have learned Norwegian, I'm happy to have a conversation with you about the Norwegian article, in Norwegian, on the Norwegian Wikipedia project. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the problem. Kenji1987 (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I have never heard of Anders Skyrud Danielsen and Lars Mølgaard Saxhaug, nor any of the Norwegian sources you cite. Most of us can't assess (nor do we care, I care just as much for Norway as I do for Ecuador, Papua New Guinea, or Sri Lanka, but you don't see me dig into their academic discussions on MDPI) whether the things you add here really improve the quality of the article. Kenji1987 (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Given your absolute hatred for anything remotely critical of MDPI, I can't say I particularly care who you have heard or not heard of in your life. WP:IRS does not mean "Sources and scholars Kenji1987 has personally heard of before". Norwegian sources are just as fine to use as American ones, British ones, French ones, German ones, etc... &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your insights! Kenji1987 (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Instead of discussing obscure scholars debating about MDPI. This source:

https://paolocrosetto.wordpress.com/2021/04/12/is-mdpi-a-predatory-publisher/ is really the best analysis out there. I am probably not able to add this, but anyone else. Feel free to do so. Kenji1987 (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason to believe that this source rises above our usual prohibition against blog sources? Crosetto appears to be an economist, with no special expertise in bibliometrics or academic publishing beyond (like all academics) as a participant, so I don't think the "established subject-matter expert" escape clause of WP:SPS applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we'd really have to stretch the "established subject-matter expert" escape clause to allow that here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)