Talk:Tetracera sarmentosa

You need to demonstrate the rationale, not merely assert
I have twice reverted an edit removing a reference to an article. First of all the edit merely removed the reference, not the statement that was being referenced. If the reference is no good, then the statement is no good. Secondly the article removed has been cited at least 40 times, according to Google Scholar. Articles that cite the paper include works in Pharmacological Research (Elsevier), Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling (Elsevier), Natural Product Research (Taylor and Francis) among others. The research appears to be regarded as meritable. While predatory journals are not a good thing, the editor concerned does not demonstrate that the journal referred to is predatory, merely choosing to assert "unreliable", and "predatory journal". Why unreliable, demonstrate this. Is it a predatory journal, where is the reference. Mere assertion without any backup just looks like dissatisfaction. Brunswicknic (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * the website of the Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry says: "The journal considers review and research articles which include: Pharmacognosy, Phytochemistry, Ayurveda, Phytochemical, Natural Chemistry, Agricultural Science, Biotechnology, Biochemistry, Unani Medicine and Siddha Medicine." The mixture of pseudoscience and science is the first alert. Then look at Instructions to Author and see that they charge for submissions. It's also on a list of possibly predatory journals: . All this does not, of course, mean that every paper in the journal is suspect, but it does advise caution in using its papers as sources. It should certainly be avoided for critical areas, such as medical claims. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks PC this is more like it, a source and so on. While I am against journals that are not peer-reviewing &c., the charging of authors is something that even the most prestigious journals do, and so that alone is insufficient. While I may disagree with the basis of Ayurveda, Unani and Siddha medicine, they are part of the area's traditional medicines, and I am not opposed to the academic study of such. I note that the website uses the term "possible predatory". From my perspective I am seeing a justified attack on bullshit journals, but am also aware of a backlash against journals published in Majority World countries, against Majority World academics who lack the resources, the money, to meet the extreme standards of an entrenched academic publishing industry. I love peer-reviewed journals, first-class publications, but they are not necessarily angelic. Finally I think the statement "extracts have potential medical effects" is a quite slight medical claim. We know that plants can have bioactive substances and that some of these have proved efficacious. It is not un-scientific to report that there is some research. Please note that I report ethno-medicinal use because this aspect of culture is often deeply imbedded in cultural worldviews and reflect basic elements of a culture, as well as exposing the enormous variation/disagreement/arbitrariness of "alternative" medical practice. While some ethnopharmacology may actually be efficacious, I do not recommend any one with access to bio/Western-medicine to not use it. In other words, I support scientific medicine, I do not believe in the general basis and efficacy of "alternative" medicine (beyond the amazing placebo effect), but reporting on the ethnomedicinal uses of plants, and research into potentially useful substances is not attacking biomedicine, nor supporting exploitative/dangerous alternative practices. I think that is enough of a rave for now. Thank you  and  for your work on making WP a better place, I hope you and yours are well. Brunswicknic (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that we should always report sourced ethnobotanical uses, including in traditional medicine, and this journal would be acceptable to me for such a report. The difficulty comes in writing up such uses without in any way implying efficacy, which would require a WP:MEDRS-compliant source. I think statements like P is used in the treatment of D or P is used against D are problematic. Something like P is used in traditional medicine in cases of D is my usual preference. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not disagree with such careful wording, though I think the phrasing here of "by such&such people" is enough to imply the localised and traditional nature of use. Oh, and I have added a coda to the sentence. I must admit the ethnomedicinal aspects of ethnobotany are my least favourite part of the field, I'd rather know about the edible, tool-making, even calendar qualities of plants, but the money is in ethnopharmacology, and the majority of currently reported plant uses are ethno-medicinal. Brunswicknic (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "All this does not, of course, mean that every paper in the journal is suspect". Actually, that's exactly what it does. It's a predatory journal dedicated to quackery. We should not be citing unreliable sources. There are two references for the statement, the Uddin does not have these issues. Cite Uddin, not the predatory source. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, you're right. My wording isn't correct: every article in a predatory journal is "suspect". So I should have said "All this does not, of course, mean that every paper in the journal is unusable as a reference ". The papers in this journal are unusable as sources of medical information, but are likely to be reliable as to ethnobotanical uses. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "The species has a number of leaf extracts that have potential medical effects, though there is no evidence that the plant is effective against any disease." is a medical claim. And even as an ethnobotanical source, it's still garbage, since predatory journal will publish anything. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed re your first point. Re the second, you are over-generalizing. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * agree w/ Headbomb--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)