Talk:Nova Science Publishers

Nova's ranking on the different sub-indicators in the 57 publishers comparative study published in Bibliotheksdienst

The 2017 study published by Arno Tausch in Bibliotheksdienst (Die Buchpublikationen der Nobelpreis-Ökonomen und die führenden Buchverlage der Disziplin. Eine bibliometrische Analyse (The book publications of the Nobel-Prize economists and the leading book publishers of the discipline. A bibliometric analysis)), Bibliotheksdienst, March 2017: 339 – 374, which is also available as a pre-publication working paper "Tausch, Arno, Die Buchpublikationen der Nobelpreis-Ökonomen und die führenden Buchverlage der Disziplin. Eine bibliometrische Analyse (The Book Publications of the Nobel-Prize Economists and the Leading Book Publishers of the Discipline. A Bibliometric Analysis) (October 15, 2015). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2674502" implies the following assessment of Nova's comparative performance among the 57 global publishers with available data:

Quantity Indicator - number of books and book chapters in the Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index top 10,53%

Citations of books and book chapters in the Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index top 17,54%

Swedish LIBRIS 50th best book library outreach top 17,54%

Items in World Bank/IMF JOLIS library catalogue Washington (books only) top 24,56%

Sense Quality Indicator for multivariate analysis top 47,37%

Harvard HOLLIS ratio of books checked out per total holdings (books only) top 56,14%

Harvard Library number of titles (books only) top 61,40%

standard deviation citations books and book chapters top 61,40%

average citations - books and book chapters top 63,16%

Items in ECLAS catalogue Brussels top 63,16%

Japanese NACSIS 200th best book library outreach (books only) top 63,16%

Items in the IndCat (India) Union catalog top 71,93%

number of references about the company in newspapers - questia top 73,68%

Swedish LIBRIS top performing book library outreach top 73,68%

number of references about the company in books - questia top 77,19%

Japanese NACSIS top top performing book library outreach (books only) top 78,95%

number of references about the company in magazines - questia top 78,95%

number of references about the company in scholarly journals - questia top 78,95%

average citations - books in the Thomson Reuters book citation index top 84,21%

John de Norrona (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Tausch is hardly a neutral source on this matter. Despite that, Nova performs rather badly in this study again. It's in the top 10.53% for quantity, but for average citations it's in the "top 84%" (which actually translates as the bottom 16%). I'm not in favor of including this stuff in the article. --Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it is time to take published book publisher studies in leading peer reviewed journals more seriously. The Tausch article precisely shows that on the combined UNDP Human Development Index type of Index, combining the different performance criteria, Nova Science Publishers ranks somewhere in the middle. The earlier Tausch article in the JoSP in Toronto compared 21 leading publishers; Nova ranked 17th. As I tried to show in the article on rankings of book publishers, citation rates are important but are not everything. Writing from the other shore of the Bosporus, let me please state here that especially authors from developing countries and Eastern Europe will be interested in working with what the Sense and the Educational University in Hong Kong explicitly call "decent international publishers". No question, however that Nova and other type C publishers should work very hard to improve especially their journal publishing performance. The ratio of Scopus indexed journals per total journal production is a good indicator for this. So what we need is a detached, rational debate about the pros and cons of given publishers, but not a generalized publisher bashing. Bibliometer 1492 (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Why Were My Edits Reverted?

Hello. I recently joined Wikipedia and did some edits on the Nova Science Publishers page. I had heard about them before and saw the entry had biased POV, punctuation, and structure problems, which I worked on from March 6 to 9.

I tried to make the entry neutral- and nonpartisan-sounding like good encyclopedias do. I did not make any fundamental changes to content. So I am quite confused why Cordless Larry reverted all my edits on March 9 and claims "COI edits" in the Revision History.

I have posted this message here, so we can get some help from other Wikipedia editors. -- Stepintoreading (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

A combination of your username, the fact that this is the only article that you have edited, and your attempts to soften the coverage of criticism of Nova led me to suspect that you might have a conflict of interest. We have had problems with COI editors of this article before, so perhaps I was being overly cautious, but I would appreciate the views of other editors on your changes. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

REPLY

Wow, what a horrible suspicious mind you have. My username is after the Sesame Street/Random House children's books. (I guess you are "cordless" and don't have kids.) I saw some heated forum talk on Nova Science Publishers in the past at another website, and after I joined Wikipedia earlier this month, Nova was the first entry I thought to type in.

The POV did not sound like an encyclopedia article at all but was really sensationalist sounding, so I made some surface edits -- not content edits -- to help out. Wikipedia was sending me all these encouraging prompt messages to keep on editing. That was really exciting and motivated me so much, so I did some capitalization, grammar, punctuation, and sentence-order edits. It's all there in the article History page.

I came to Wikipedia to do a good thing. Now, because of your horrible suspicious mind, you have made everyone here think I am an agent for Nova. Had I known better of the likes of you, I would never have joined this website. Thanks for the warm welcome, "cordless." -- Stepintoreading (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

As I wrote above, perhaps I was being overly cautious, but you shouldn't take offence at being reverted. It's a standard part of how we reach consensus about article content (see WP:BRD). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Further Criticism

They also engage in unsolicited mailing to advertise their services to academic authors based on their previous journal publications (source: my inbox ;). No idea if that's deemed relevant or how to cite this source but leaving this here for further reference. AmenophisIII (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Logo PNG.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Logo PNG.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement in criticism presented as fact and is arguably derogatory or prejudicial

"It (Nova Science Publishers) is considered a vanity press."

The statement was constructed as if there is a consensus on that being so or was proven. Was quite surprised to see this. It then used Beall's Vanity Press List as a reference, which appears to give no evidence above opinion (WP:NPOV). Furthermore, on Wikipedia itself, Beall's List is under criticism for accuracy, no longer updated, and has other issues.

If appears appropriate to remove the statement (until further debate) or that it should be rewritten to reflect that it is an unsubstantiated accusation or opinion. This is placed in talk so that experienced or knowledgeable editors on such can weigh in on this. Wukuendo (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It is contested? Otherwise we should WP:ASSERT. And, do other sources consider this question? Bon courage (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

"The list's 82% accuracy rate in the Who's Afraid of Peer Review? sting operation led Phil Davis to state that "Beall is falsely accusing nearly one in five as being a 'potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open access publisher' on appearances alone." -- from Wikipedia's own article on Beall's List.

The link to Beall's Vanity List (which is used as reference) gives no evidence, thus appears to be an unsubstantiated accusation from a no longer valid nor updated list. It appears very inappropriate and prejudicial to not list the status of the list and that it is a opinion or accusation. In fact, allowing such a statement might even be considered defamation.Wukuendo (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You'd better read WP:NLT. This has been discussed over the years (check the archives) and what we have is fine. You edit would look like whitewashing. Bon courage (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not threatening legal action, please don't miscategorize my statements, and I'm giving a description as to what it looks like is being done and questioning the neutrality surround it. I'm not whitewashing either, rather the opposite, which is wanting the actual facts and evidence to match statements made WP:EVIDENCE. Not against there being criticism, but questioning the validity of evidence to support statements made.

Strong claims and statements presented as facts should have evidence to support that is what they are (WP:EXCEPTIONAL), versus questionable accusations (WP:IMPARTIAL). If what is being presented are opinions or is disputable, then they should at least be presented as such.Wukuendo (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, see WP:ASSERT. I keep asking: is this at all contested by any RS? How would you re-word what is said? Bon courage (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

"How would you re-word what is said?"

Would probably put something like, "On Beall's List, which is no longer updated, they were accused of being vanity press."

I agree with the direction in which the reworded statement is going. In this way it is specifically attributing the opinion to Beall. Would word it as an accusation, because further evidence and other sources to support such an opinion is not provided by the reference. Lastly, it should probably be mentioned that the list is no longer updated or old, as those accused can't be removed if found innocent or upon new information.

"is this at all contested by any RS?"

Wikipedia's own article on Beall's List shows it was continuously contested as a source: 1) Beall is falsely accusing nearly one in five 2) Why Beall's List Died 3) Why Beall’s blacklist of predatory journals died.

Think it is more of the opposite situation, if using Beall as a reference (which is providing no evidence to the claim made), it appears appropriate and neutral to at least categorize it as an old accusation and not a statement of fact.Wukuendo (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

"no longer updated"... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Wukuendo Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and your thoughts do not "cancel out" what we say. Bon courage (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The article states the site is not being updated, ...most recent entries in its ChangeLog are from December 8, 2021. Which is also confirmed by going to the site. But even more troubling than that, who has put up or was updating the site is an anonymous person. This makes the site's use as a reliable source, on top of unsubstantiated accusations, look more problematic.

The anonymous person is clearly stating they are not Jeffrey Beall, but was using his material on the self-published site. This then pushes the situation into ethical boundaries or questionable agendas. So to avoid all that, seems like the right thing would be to remove or reword the statement into something more neutral.

The links that I gave go to references outside of Wikipedia. And, I'm not sure of who is the "we". Sounds like a group. Anyway, have stated the case and brought light to the issue as best as I could.Wukuendo (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the publisher contests it. https://novapublishers.com/faqs/?pg=3 says:

"Is there any fee to publish?

There is no fee to publish with us. However, if your manuscript has color figures and/or the manuscript requires English editing, you might be subject to a fee." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there's anything inaccurate in the article. There are multiple sources depicting it as a vanity press and others depicting other issues with peer-review, etc. Overall, a reputation for low quality control it seems. KoA (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The link used as a reference does not prove that Nova Science Publishers is vanity press. Because something is posted (WP:EVIDENCE) on an unupdated self-published website by an anonymous author does not constitute proof of claim. If there is actual evidence (not hearsay) from reliable sources, then it should be linked to the claim as well.

As mentioned by WhatamIdoing, the publisher appears to be contradicting or countering such a claim. Consequently, seems to give even more reason to write in a balanced and neutral tone (WP:WEIGHT), to not give the appearance of taking sides. If there is no other evidence of the claim, outside of Beall's opinion, then it should arguably be stated as his opinion or as an accusation versus "is classified as".Wukuendo (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Beall's list is only one of the sources in the section discussing vanity press or other issues with the publisher. No sources have been provided saying that Nova contests the characterizations either nor would that necessarily be something we include if it's from a non-independent source.

I did a little searching, and this journal article had an interesting profile on the publisher related to hidden fees to get an unlocked pdf of your manuscript (Beall also cites the paper for other things). Looks like the dollar amounts have gone up since then though. KoA (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks like things are proceeding backwards, where there is an expectation for Nova to refute unproven accusations or to allow straying into opinionative original research WP:NOR.

"The publisher was accused of vanity press on Beall's List.", something like that would seem to be the more encyclopedic path to create a neutral or accurate statement favoring neither side of the argument WP:WEIGHT.Wukuendo (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:GEVAL. NPOV is not "favoring neither side of the argument". Even if it was, right now sources describe the publisher as such as there's no real opposition to that in sources (i.e., WP:WEIGHT).

Attribution is already given that the publisher is listed as a vanity press on Beall's list without loaded language, WP:WEASEL words, etc. and just simply states that fact that it's on the list. Technically we don't even need to attribute to Beall here given the other sources, but we're already approaching it with an abundance of caution by including the attribution Bon Courage added anyways. Plenty has been done here to address any potential issues. KoA (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Wait what? They'll 'publish' your stuff but without a fee neither you nor nor anybody can see it? Bon courage (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The way vanity presses like this work is described in the sources a bit, but the model is either you pay the expensive open access fee, or they charge an extremely high amount for anyone trying to buy access the book/article that likely wasn't peeer-reviewed. The restricted pdf thing is new to me, but it looks like it's being described as a sort of "super" paywall to potential readers price-wise while also paywalling the authors from access to their publication if they try to print, share, etc. outside their online viewer.

For the time being, I don't think there's much that needs to be added for content, though it does look like there are a couple options out there if this was going to be expanded. KoA (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like negative or prejudicial statements are being made that contradict information (FAQ), testimonials, and business rating (BBB of A+) of Nova's website and elsewhere. Opinions are being touted that are not supported by the link given, court documents, or actual evidence (WP:NOR). Not understanding going down such an opinionated path versus agreeing on crafting a more neutral or less misinterpretable statement; "X was accused of Y by Z". Strong accusations made against parties in question, including the opinions of editors on the subject, should be clearly supported by facts (WP:EXCEPTIONAL).

A link or statement of an accusation, including from self-published third parties (WP:SELFPUB), doesn't turn it into a fact or is proof. Further expansion on accusations, can cause questions of impartiality (WP:IMPARTIAL), which is why the subject was brought up.Wukuendo (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how FAQs, testimonials or business ratings affect judgments about whether a publisher is a vanity press or not. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)