User talk:2607:FEA8:28C0:21B:C1F2:98A0:2DDF:EFEE

Dubious notes by a Wikipedia expert who added "unreliable sourse" note after reference #6, 9, and 18 (excessive reliance on J. Beal's list)
The Wikipedia expert who reviewed the "Driving Phobia" article of Wikipedia annoted, next to reference 6 in text, in the paragraph of "Associated Conditions" that the reference 6 is on an unreliable source because that article was published by Sryahwa publisher. Obviously, the Wikipedia empowered expert has not read the article listed in the reference 6 or does not have the expertise to evaluate its accuracy. The Sryahwa Publisher is considered by this particular Wikipedia empowered expert (on the basis of Beal's unreliable internet list) as "predatory publisher" perhaps because some publications printed in that journal are indeed substandard. However, substandard articles have been also often printed by mainstream psychological and medical journals such as "The Clincal Neuropsychologist" (e.g., its articles on the SIMS test) or the APA journal "Assessment" (e.g., article on M-FAST meta-analysis by Detullio et al in 2019), etc. The Sryahwa Publisher does not cheat authors with respect to publication fees, publishes fast, and there are no false promises. The same is true about the annotations affixed by Wikipedia expert in the text to reference number 9 and also reference number 18: the annotation ("unreliable source") is a rather cavalier accusation of Sryahwa to be a predatory publisher and thus, is unfarly detracting from the value of the referenced article per se, and is not based on the scientific content of that article per se. Please, Wikipedia organisers, find a competent person in the area of scientific research on driving phobia to review the cavalier annotations such as to "unreliable source" at the references 6, 9, and 18. It also seems strange that a competent Wikipedia expert would add editorial notes such as: "This section is written like a research paper or scientific journal that may use overly technical terms or may not be written like an encyclopedic article. (June 2020) This section may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. (June 2020) 'This section may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. (June 2020)'" The topic of "Driving Phobia" is a scientific topic. Wikipedia articles on mathematical or statistical issues are also above the level of lay public, and are for a particular audience with specialized education as a prerequisite. I suggest that such "expert" notes critical of scientific style of the text should be deleted. The Wikipedia "expert" relies excessively on the controversial list of "predatory journals" prepared by the retired librarian Jeffrey Beal, who has now himself unpublished some of his internet postings about predatory journals. Of course, one person such as J. Beal, is hardly qualified to assess the scientific value of all journals in the world. Beal's great merit is in pointing out that some journals might be defrauding authors of their fees, or hoarding the copyright on published articles, etc., but it is the responsibility of each Wikipedia expert to evaluate the published articles and texts on their own scientific merit, rather than carelessly rely on an old Beal's list.

recent lists of "predatory journals" do not list Sryahwa Publishers (unlike the outdated Beal's list)
The Wikipedia empowered expert erroneously relied on J. Beal's outdated and inaccurate list of "predatory journals to classify Sryahwa Publisher as "predatory," but it should be noted that Sryahwa is not listed in this derogatory manner in more recent lists of predatory journals, see e.g. Research Gate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346060157_List_of_predatory_journals_and_publishers