Talk:Oncotarget

Threats of retraction

Some anonymous editor is repeatedly removing the claim that this journal's editor, Mikhail Blagosklonny, "threatened Beall's colleagues at the University of Colorado with retraction of their papers over Beall's listing of his journal", sourced to the same Retraction Watch link that we are also using in the resulting version of the article to source the journal's de-listing from MEDLINE. The anonymous editor claims that Retraction Watch is too unreliable to support such claims against a living person, but the consensus of the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 197#Retraction Watch (on unrelated cases) is that Retraction Watch is a reliable source for BLPs (and there are quite a few other BLPs with negative claims sourced to Retraction Watch). Can I please get a sense of other editors (1) whether this material is sufficiently relevant to include, and (2) whether this material is sufficiently well-sourced to include? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• No, unless we can get more sourcing. Neutral, given the new The Scientist source.[1]
  The biggest problem is that the proposed edit isn't actually supported by the source. Retractionwatch makes a rather damning series of statements that imply that Blagosklonny made a retaliatory threat, however if you read it very carefully it doesn't actually assert motivation or cause-and-effect. I suspect that they deliberately avoided tying it together into an actual allegation.
  As noted in the ReliableSourceNoticeboard discussion on Retraction Watch, Retractionwatch is not merely a "self-published blog". There is a significant foundation behind it, and reputable expert oversight. As noted in that discussion it is definitely reliable for retractions. And as noted in that discussion, there is case-by-case consideration when it reports surrounding information. In this case the information is pretty strongly goes against a living individual. Even if Retractionwatch had made the allegation directly, or even if the edit were fixed to match the source, we should keep a higher standard before echoing this sort of thing. Retraction watch is a Reliable-but-small source, reliable for it's purpose, we need more before reporting this feud involving individuals.
  For what it's worth, I'd be more than happy to see additional sources turn up. The situation looks sleezy based on the (inadequate) information we do have. Alsee (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Alsee: is this the more sourcing you're looking for? It's based on the Retraction Watch piece, but published in an independent and reliable source (The Scientist), and writes "Retraction Watch alleges that the editor-in-chief, Mikhail Blagosklonny, has threatened to retract the research papers of Beall’s colleagues after the journal had been added to Beall’s list." —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    • David Eppstein, it's a great source for Oncotarget being considered a predatory publication, chuckle. It certainly raises the profile of Retraction Watch's allegations, although the "he said he said he said" reporting is weaker than if The Scientist had been less indirect. I'll strike my "no" !vote for a "neutral", and see what other responses we get here. Alsee (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support w/ caveat - The Scientist article qualifies the statement by noting that they are "allegations". We should be sure to use similar language, and we should not make the statement in narrative voice. NickCT (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support w/ caveat - Support with the same caveat as Nick above--to be sure language is tweaked to properly qualify the nature of the allegations. Since this page is about the journal more than the specific editor, we might also think about not mentioning the editors name here and just noting that the journal editor was accused of this. Pengortm (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Beall's list

All evidence points to the fact that Beall's List is a WP:SPS and in violation of WP:BLPSPS. The source is written, edited and published by Jeffrey Beall. Kingofaces43 or Oshwah, please remove the material while the discussion continues or a better source is found. I will refrain from reverting, but the current version should not be up until consensus can be reached.40.134.67.50 (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

40.134.67.50 I have reverted the latest edit. Per BLPREQUESTRESTORE policy the content should not be restored until the RFC is resolved. Alsee (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Alsee - Thank you for doing that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE can we also err on the side of caution at Mikhail Blagosklonny, Michael Silbermann and K. K. Aggarwal. I am trying to refrain from making any further reverts myself. But they are all connected to the same Beall's List.40.134.67.50 (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Oshwah and Alsee 40.134.67.50 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I was in the middle of examining the Mikhail Blagosklonny situation when I got the ping. I am considering adding a cite to The Scientist for "predatory journal", and removing the the more more personal allegation pending result of the RFC. I'll take a look at what's happening at Michael Silbermann and K. K. Aggarwal as well. Alsee (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I added it as a second source for the MEDLINE delisting, but not yet for anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Beall's list has generally been considered reliable when discussed at RSN althought there are those who disagre. See[2] and [3]. Retractionwatch likewise.[4] If there are special concerns about using it here I suggest going to WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@DougWeller - please do bring it to the RSN and @David Gerard there are at least half a dozen editors I have found that do not accept it as a reliable source - in the spirt of eventualism - you are saying this is not open for discussion?

Here is some basic information you can/should be using:

Reliable Source Criteria - The following criteria are established guidelines for Wikipedia per WP: IRS (Wikipedia: Identifying Reliable Sources)

• Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Information must come from a verifiable source.
• The source must be in the form of previously published information.
• It must present a neutral point of view.
• Majority and significant minority views should be covered in an article.
• When there are disagreeing reliable sources, both sides should be presented, and the article should maintain a neutral point of view.
• There is a higher standard for articles about living persons.
• “Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.”

Good sources

• Reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
• Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form).
• Source directly supports proposition in article.
• University-level textbooks.
• Books published by respected publishing houses.
• Magazines.
• Journals.
• Mainstream newspapers.
• Academic and peer-reviewed publications.
• Sources usually not reliable.

Questionable sources

• Poor reputation for fact-checking, lack meaningful editorial oversight, have conflict of interest.
• Sources with extremist or promotional views.
• Sources that rely on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion.
• Self-published sources are largely not acceptable and self-published sources are not acceptable as third-party sources on living people, regardless of whether the author is an expert
• Exception: Self-published expert sources are reliable when from an established expert on the subject matter, “whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications”

Always bad sources

• Unpublished materials.
• Comments on blogs.
• Other Wikipedia articles or circular sources.

Now, lets apply it to the facts at hand:

Beall’s List does not meet Wikipedia’s own standards to be a reliable source:

• The source is not verifiable.
• The 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.
• The source lacks meaningful editorial oversight to eliminate Beall’s biased personal opinion as the basis of inclusion on his list
• The source relies on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion
• Beall’s list was always self-published (problematic in its own right, as discussed more below), but it is now even more unreliable because no one is managing, updating, or revising the content as circumstances may change.
• Exception: Self-published expert sources are reliable when from an established expert on the subject matter, “whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications”
• There is no indication Beall has experience publishing scientific journals or was recognized as an “expert” in scientific journals prior to the publication of his infamous list.
• Application of the “established expert” exception is based on circular logic – Beall was not considered an expert in anything until he started publishing his self-published list. The existence of his self-published list cannot be the sole credential of expertise to rely on the self-published list.
• 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.
• Beall’s List is a self-published source that does not meet the established expert exception

The source exhibits extremist, promotional and biased view about open access (“OA”) journals and actively promotes an anti-OA 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

Consider some published criticism of Beall and Beall’s List:

• “A big problem with this list is it was academically classist and biased towards journals in non-English speaking countries.” http://www.science20.com/hontas_farmer/bealls_list_and_what_we_need_to_replace_it-224844
• “Beall is falsely accusing nearly one in five as being a ‘potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open access publisher’ on appearances alone.” https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/10/04/open-access-sting-reveals-deception-missed-opportunities/
• “Unfortunately, as he has gained some degree of notoriety, it turns out he isn’t just trying to identify bad open access publishers – he is actively trying to discredit open access publishing in general. There were signs of this before, but any lingering doubt that Beall is a credible contributor to the discourse on science publishing was erased with an article he published last week. The piece is so ill-informed and angry that I can’t really describe it.” http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1500

Other reasons given by Wikipedia editors: Editors have discussed Beall’s List on Wikipedia’s Noticeboards on multiple occasions. Some discussions center on the reliability of the list.

• 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.

MakinaterJones (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

How do I call for independent disinterested admin review on this issue?

Talking about BLP on Academic Journal Page

Wiki guides us on this by stating that when talking about a person with BLP status we must use the highest quality sources, and if you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out

The burden is on the editor who adds or restores the contested material - I firmly believe no one has proven that these are high quality sources and there are not multiple third-party sources making the same claims.

Overall, all of these sources present little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines which are exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering and sensationalism attributing material to anonymous sources and using weasel words: (sign of poor source)

1. Both Retraction and Beall cite anonymous sources for their claims on this BLP subject this gives me a reasonable doubt as to their authenticity (sign of poor source)

2. Beall's List uses nothing but weasel words i.e. Possible, potential and probable. (sign of poor source)

3. The article from the Scientist contains multiple inaccuracies and it is apparent that the article involved no independent reporting. The writer has merely incorrectly paraphrased portions of a Retraction Watch article and placed an outsized reliance on a defunct website. Since it was published they have issued corrections on their article.

1 2 and 3 show that these sources are miles away from "high quality" sources needed for BLP references - if good sources at all, they are an excellent example of circular reporting and basically repeating gossip. Ivan Oransky, a founder of Retraction Watch is also the deputy editor of The Scientist and the coverage of Retraction Watchlist article was a poor attempt to create a third party source. Overall, the body of these three sources present little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers and are exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering or sensationalism.

Moreover, even if I agree with you that Beall, Retraction and Scientist are of the highest quality of sources, there are still not multiple third-party sources making the same claims.

1. Beall is claiming (from an anonymous source) that Oncotarget peer review is questionable and BLP subject is gaming the system - noone else has ever claimed that. (sign of poor source)

2. The Scientist is not making the same claim as Retraction - it was literally two different claims all together (albeit due to the fact of thee poor editorial quality of the Scientist article which is highlighted by the subsequent correction on the scientist article)

To momentarily step away from BLP policy - one of Wiki's five main pillars concludes that to remain neutral an editor must cited notable sources especially when controversial, and goes on to specifically say about BLP that we must remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (The Scientist) relies on self-published sources (Beall) or relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards (anonamoys sources in Retraction and Beall's post) - however, Wiki makes perfectly clear Never use self-published sources as sources of material about a living person

Putting comments like these from such bottom end sources in relation to people with BLP status is reckless

I will take it a step further to encourage the discussion around how these specific sources do not belong on Academic Journal pages in general (Except Retraction talking about retractions) due to the variety of issues that stand out n the above discussion regarding these sources.

I will be creating a Wiki account and continuing to monitor this issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.102.133 (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Beall is an RS, per the above - David Gerard (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)