Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Quoting Wikipedia guidelines:

''Stay objective: Talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a place to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material.

Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for issues relating to verification, such as asking for help finding sources, discussing conflicts or inconsistencies among sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference supporting a statement is often better than arguing against it.

Do not bite the newcomers: If someone does something against custom, assume it was an unwitting mistake; gently point out their mistake (referencing relevant policies and guidelines) and suggest a better approach. '' I am a paid advisor to Cambridge Scholars Publishing. The newly-created page on Wikipedia was brought to my attention by an upset staff member. I registered, tried to edit the page by taking out unverified and incorrect sources, and the edit was overturned. My edit was classified as 'whitewashing' although the original page was clearly placed maliciously. This seems unfair.

This is indeed my first direct experience of the Wikipedia 'community'. I am, to be frank, disappointed. Cambridge Scholars do not charge for publication. They publish academic books, some of them from the developing world, many of which would not see the light of day at OUP, CUP or NYUP. What am I doing this afternoon? Talking to a PhD researcher investigating the experience of African scholars trying to get their work published. Why? Because there are structural inequalities which exclude many such scholars, unless they pay. They get a shot at publishing with CSP, and they don't have to pay. CSP pay their UK taxes, and employ people in one of the locations in the UK with the highest levels of social deprivation. Does that make them heroes? Not at all. But it doesn't make them villains, either.

It appears that legally contentious terms like 'predatory publisher' can be posted without verification, but removal of such terms creates a flurry. That's not right, and doesn't make any kind of knowledge commons. It's just part of social media babble. If anyone would like to provide evidence of CSP's 'predatory' nature, please do so, and I will unequivocally withdraw objections. Indeed, I wouldn't work with them.

The reviewer quotes are selective. It appears there were profing errors, which is unfortunate. The reviewer also said:

''That being said, some positive notes must be mentioned. As a Western academic in TESOL/Applied Linguistics, I firmly believe that there is the need to create more spaces for voices from under- and unrepresented context. As it stands, we know far too much about ESL learners at Western universities; and we know far too little about non-traditional learners in global contexts. This book does an excellent job of creating just that kind of space. ''

If I were creating a positive picture, I might pick that quote. Creating a negative picture involves selecting a different quote.

David Kaye's Flaky Academic Journals blogspot does indeed say that 'the journals do not look stellar'. It also features a front-page 'addendum in defense'. And, as stated, although CSP did indeed half-heartedly try to publish a few (poor quality) journals, they do so no longer. And they were not predatory.

As I said, I'm disappointed by this experience. I was trying in good faith to repair unpleasant and hurtful comments, and I have not been made to feel welcome, or included.

Notfamousanymore (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)