Talk:Mikhail Blagosklonny

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mikhail Blagosklonny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160420235706/https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/04/19/oncotargets-peer-review-is-highly-questionable/ to https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/04/19/oncotargets-peer-review-is-highly-questionable/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161202192038/https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/ to https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/12/06/mikhail-blagosklonnys-journal-aging-a-review/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring by IP
Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring  E Eng  22:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This is WP:NOT3RR. I have been trying to remove a use of a self-published blog on this biography of a living person.40.134.67.50 (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Give it a rest.  E Eng  23:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

RS on BLP page
Can you Zaereth and Nomoskedasticity please take a look at this issue compared to wikipedia policy - I have prepared a thorough analysis:

GENERAL POLICY OVERVIEW

Wikipedia requires the use of high-quality sources for all citations to Biographies of Living Persons (BLP).

Sources must comply with US law, Wikipedia’s policy on BLPs, and Wikipedia’s content policies—neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. The burden of proof is on editors who wish to retain disputed material.'''


 * Sources must be high-quality.
 * Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately without waiting for discussion.
 * BLPs are to be written conservatively, respecting the subject’s privacy.
 * The tone should be dispassionate, using reliable secondary sources.
 * Articles must be balanced.
 * “Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.”
 * Material should not be included if the only sourcing is tabloid journalism.
 * Self-published sources are to be avoided unless written or published by the subject of the article.
 * Avoid gossip. (“Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.”)
 * For public figures, if there are not multiple reliable third-party sources documenting an allegation or incident, it must be left out.
 * For persons who are relatively unknown, “exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.”
 * Information that may negatively affect a person’s reputation “should be treated with special care.”

APPLICATION OF POLICY TO FACTS in analysis of Beall’s List as a source on the BLP Page: Beall’s List is not a reliable source for a BLP for multiple reasons. *Citations on this BLP page pecifically refers to a blog post from an anonymous source Even among Wikipedia’s own editors, the inclusion of Beall’s List is contentious.
 * It is a self-published source
 * Wikipedia’s guidance states: “Never use self-published sources as sources about any living people, except for claims by the author about himself or herself. This holds even if the third-party author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.” Thus, all citations to Beall’s List in the Blagosklonny entry must be eliminated.
 * It does not present a neutral point of view.
 * Beall’s List is given undue weight. His list represents his opinion, one that is the view of a small minority. Per Wikipedia policy, generally “the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a ‘see also’ to an article about those specific views.”
 * Beall’s List goes beyond being just a biased source. His views are extremist and actively promote an anti-Open Access agenda.
 * Beall wrote an article in 2013 calling the open-access movement “anti-corporatist, oppressive and negative movement, one that uses young researchers and researchers from developing countries as pawns to artificially force the make-believe gold and green open-access models to work.”
 * He also writes, “OA advocates want to make collective everything and eliminate private business, except for small businesses owned by the disadvantaged.”
 * He contends, “But a close analysis of the discourse of the OA advocates reveals that the real goal of the open access movement is to kill off the for-profit publishers and make scholarly publishing a cooperative and socialistic enterprise. It's a negative movement.”
 * The article is full of biased, misleading and incorrect information about OA publishing. An author with these views cannot be a credible source for what is and is not predatory publishing. http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514
 * It is not verifiable
 * Beall’s List is so controversial that the author of it removed it from the Internet without explanation almost a year ago.
 * The only current citations are to archived versions that are no longer reviewed, edited or updated in any way.
 * Just as outdated textbooks lose credibility, archived copies of this outdated online publication should not be considered a current, credible source.
 * Whether a listed journal can be considered predatory is impossible to verify because, by definition, the list includes “potential, possible, or probable” predatory journals with no comprehensible distinction between which are merely “potential”/”possible” and which are “probable,” and what specific criteria was applied to each specific listed journal.
 * Noticeboard 216: A large number of well-respected researchers protested the list.
 * Noticeboard 197: Inclusion on Beall’s List is solely a matter of Beall’s judgment.
 * Noticeboard 261: The source is a self-published blog.
 * Noticeboard 205: The list itself is controversial, overinclusive, and not updated to reflect if a journal no longer meets Beall’s criteria for being including on the list.
 * Further thoughts found - on a BLP Noticeboard, there is a discussion about linking to Beall’s List for the article on former researcher Douglas D. Taylor.
 * Regarding Beall’s List on the Taylor BLP page, one editor says, “The Beall's list thing is tricker (sic) - it is a blog but it's very highly regarded by academics, and is pretty much the authoritative source on such matters. I think that should stay in personally.” Another replies that Beall’s site is not a personal blog, to which an editor says, “It IS a personal blog, the home page of that website shows that as such, further there is no editorial oversight, no staff, it's the postings of one person on a wordpress site. It's a blog.”
 * PRECEDENT: Taylor’s current article does not mention or link to Beall’s List.

In general
 * It amounts to guilt by association
 * It is contentious
 * Beall also makes accusations about Oncotarget’s review process. These are inappropriate to include in Blagosklonny’s article because both items reflects negatively on his reputation unjustifiably.
 * It is gossip, akin to tabloid journalism
 * As discussed above, there is no editorial oversight to eliminate Beall’s biased personal opinion as the basis of inclusion on his list
 * There are 'not' multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegations.
 * The only source material for this information is Beall’s List itself.

MakinaterJones (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is at least the second place you've posted this ''[revised to read:] huge unreadable walls of text like this  and no one knows why.  E  Eng  05:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * E Eng  no this is not the same, there are several drastic differences...I guess you have not read either well engouh to see the difference? As I said on the other analysis -  please point out places where you have questions, I would be happy to help you follow.
 * MakinaterJones (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've revised my comment to make clear that you haven't posted the same unreadable wall of text in multiple places, but rather have posted multiple different unreadable walls of text in multiple places.  E  Eng  11:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's always a pleasure to read interpretations of policy from SPAs with an agenda. However, the tactics which forced Beall's list of the internet won't work here. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly.
 * If you Johnuniq or anyone else has a concern - please stop the accusations and be prepared to point out behaviours which are contrary to Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR,WP:RS,WP:NPOV and the 3RR rule. See also: WP:AOHA and WP:ASPERSIONS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Accusing_others_of_tendentious_editing
 * MakinaterJones (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed it. It is outside the consensus view of Wikipedia editors with long experience.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nomoskedasticity, can you please cite consensus where this is a highly reliable source for a BLP page? I cited precedent (consensus) where this source was found to NOT be highly reliable and was NOT allowed on another BLP page...
 * MakinaterJones (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Sea lioning.  E Eng  11:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 11:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * E Eng  and maybe Roxy, Zalophus californianus.


 * Please take a look at this link - E  Eng  seems to be stuck between ad hominem and responding to tone, can you make an effort to at least get to the contradiction level??? I would enjoy actually getting to the refutation point if at all possible...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Randykitty#/media/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg


 * MakinaterJones (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Stacey, stop wasting our time. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Retraction Watch has added information regarding the subject of our article. They aren't in any way affiliated with Jeffrey Beall.  It'd be nice if some of us reviewed the Retraction Watch article to determine how much weight to give their reporting on Mikhail Blagoskonny and his activities, and reports of his actual tenure at Roswell Park Cancer Institute: "'A representative of Roswell Park Cancer Institute, where Blagosklonny was based, told us he hasn’t held a full-time position there for more than one year. She did not provide any details of his departure'." --loupgarous (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's usable. The Roswell web page on him (link) now lists him as "adjunct faculty"; this is consistent with the assertion in the Retraction Watch piece.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! We need to clean up the Roswell Park reference in the article, first thing.  I'm on it.  --loupgarous (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Retraction Watch article information belongs in the section "Editorial activities", where it would lend detail to an important issue in publication ethics. We ought to address the delisting of Oncotarget by Clarivant and MEDLINE.  The Retraction Watch article lends depth and perspective to the "Editorial Activities" section and isn't WP:UNDUE there. --loupgarous (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)