Talk:Nature Portfolio

Interview with Timo Hannay, director of web publishing for Nature Publishing Group

I've just added an external link to an interview with Timo Hannay, director of web publishing for Nature Publishing Group. It's very interesting, and contains a lot of information about Nature's on-line services, which someone might want to summarise in the article. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 23:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category?

The category for their journals currently is: "Nature journals" this seems unclear and ambiguous, it should be either "Nature Publishing Group journals" or "NPG journals" any comments about which is preferred?DGG (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Npg logo.gif

Image:Npg logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs improvement

As it stands this article is a thinly-veiled rant about open access publishing. There are a lot more details that could be added, along the lines of what we see on other publishing articles. Yes, OA is important but it should not be front and center in an article on NPG, IMHO. No I don't work there, there is no cabal, etc. --PaulWicks (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this a typical Wikipedia article about a company, i.e. either a rant (in this case) or a piece of spam (in many other). It looks like there has been virtually no improvement to this article in 5 years. Speaks something of Wikipedia's business model. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see ranting, this is one is nothing compared to Elsevier and the different connected pages that all re-hash multiple time the same outdated stuff... --Randykitty (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list came from List of medical journals and did not purport to be complete but was better than nothing, and anyone can add to it. The Journals section had borne a "please expand" template for 2 years so it seems a bit hasty to delete the list after just a few minutes, leaving an arbitrary mention of one set that was rebranded (this, for sure, is WP:UNDUE). But by all means, let's discuss here. All the journals in the list are notable and publishing them is the primary purpose of the organisation. What's more the table occupied less space than the section on pricing policy. That is hardly undue. Implying that no publishing group article may include a list of any size of its notable publications is clearly exclusionism run amok. I'm happy to make the question one of degree: what n is the cutoff for unwieldy? And can we usefully inform readers of their (most) notable works without diverting them to a list or category? How about, we list up to 20 notable journals, prioritising by impact factor or some other criterion if necessary? Then we signpost the category for a complete list? Dubbin^{u | t | c} 16:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of journals

Dubbin has added an eclectic list of journals to the article. There are several problems with that. As said, the list is eclectic, containing only 20 journals. (What selection criteria were used? It doesn't even include the eponymous Nature itself...) Our corresponding category has 73 entries (and, in fact, NPG publishes many more journals). Including a list of more than 73 journals in this article seems unnecessary (that's what we have categories for - linked under "see also"). It also seems unwieldy and undue. --Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I already edited the article to reflect this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list came from List of medical journals and did not purport to be complete but was better than nothing, and anyone can add to it. The Journals section had borne a "please expand" template for 2 years so it seems a bit hasty to delete the list after just a few minutes, leaving an arbitrary mention of one set that was rebranded (this, for sure, is WP:UNDUE). But by all means, let's discuss here and hurrah to all the editors suddenly taking an interest in this apparently neglected page. All the journals in the list are notable and publishing them is the primary purpose of the organisation. What's more the table occupied about as much space as the section on pricing policy. That is hardly undue. Implying that no publishing group article may include a list of any size of its notable publications is clearly exclusionism run amok. I'm happy to make the question one of degree: what n is the cutoff for unwieldy? And can we usefully inform readers of their (most) notable works without diverting them to a list or category? How about, we list up to 20 notable journals, prioritising by impact factor or some other criterion if necessary? Then we signpost the category for a complete list? Dubbin^{u | t | c} 16:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the update I've made is adequate. The full list is available on the NPG website, and we point to our own category so readers can get all the articles we have. I'm not again having a dedicated article List of Nature Publishing Group academic journals however, similar to our existing ones. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you do, or you would not have made it. But that is not the same as WP:CONSENSUS or a proper discussion. We would do well to consider the articles on non-academic publishers, like HarperCollins, where it is understood that an encyclopedia article on a publishing house ought to contain some discussion of what notable publications that publisher has published. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 17:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There! That's the magical word: "discussion"! Discussing notable publications provides encyclopedic content. Bare lists of titles, not so much. That's the problem with almost all of our lists of journals (whether by publisher or subject or whatever): whereas a good list article provides information that a category cannot give, most if not all of our list articles are just categories in text form. Including such a directory-style listing in an article is just filler, not encyclopedic content. And WP:CYCLE tells you to make bold edits, but if they are reverted, you take it to the talk page and obtain consensus. It's not BOLD, REVERT, REVERT AGAIN, TALK PAGE. At this point, your bold edit certainly is not meeting consensus. --Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page I mentioned has a bulleted list. Did you look at it? I'd be equally happy with a section that discusses NPG's major publications and their importance to scientific publishing as opposed to a plain list. I just don't think it should fail to mention them by name entirely. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 17:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article move

Randykitty recently moved this article without discussion, but that's the current name of the company even if they haven't updated some of the content of the website since the Springer takeover. If you look at recent press releases you will see they are firmly using "Nature Research" as their corporate identity as a subsidiary of the holding company Springer Nature; any reference to Macmillan is out of date.Le Deluge (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nature Research is a series of research journals [1] and related services, no different than Nature Reviews being their series of review journals. The company is the Nature Publishing Group [2]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're looking at an outdated webpage from before the merger. Compare with the corporate stuff at eg Steven Inchcoombe's section here, "From 2007 to 2013, he led the Nature Publishing Group (NPG)...Following the creation of Springer Nature in May 2015 he was appointed Managing Director of its Nature Research Group". NPG became Nature Research Group - you can't be a Managing Director of "a series of research journals", it's a company.Le Deluge (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it this way, if the Nature Publishing Group rebranded itself Nature Research, they would have been a press release, and their website would have been updated. And yes, you can be managing director for a subdivision responsible for the publication of a series of research journal. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Their website has been updated - inasmuch as the "About section" is now headlined "About Nature Research"! Compare with 18 months ago before the merger, it was headlined "About NPG". Having had some dealings with them it doesn't surprise me that they just haven't got round to it, but if you look on www.springernature.com I doubt you'll find any references to NPG, only Nature Research. Yes, they do distinguish between Nature Research journals and Nature Review journals, but Nature Research is also the overarching name for (most of) the former NPG. The short version of Inchcoombe's title changed from "Managing Director and President of Nature Publishing Group" on 1 March 2016 to "Managing Director, Nature Research Group" on 10 March 2016 so it looks like that's when the change happened, just without fanfare. Perhaps you'd like to contact their press office directly? Le Deluge (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is pretty clear that the company name is still NPG at this moment? Perhaps they have/will change it, but we have to follow the sources. At this point, like Headbomb says, it looks like "Nature Research" is just a subdivision of NPG. --Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the recent sources (like the website of the new holding company and recent press releases) use Nature Research. I've given evidence of changes to the About section of their website going from NPG to Nature Research. The actual company Nature Publishing Group Ltd was shut down on 16 June 2015 as part of the post-Springer reorganisation, although it may have been used informally after that. Le Deluge (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the company's website: "Nature Publishing Group (NPG) is a publisher...". Note the prominently displayed "NPG" logo just above. Whatever the legal status may be, the company still presents itself to the world as NPG. If and when they change this will be the moment to move this article, but we are obviously not there yet. --Randykitty (talk) 11:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When this is decided, can someone remove the tag on Category:Nature Research academic journals. Also consider redirect pages (and maybe a hatnote) to help orient users who may use the name not chosen. ThanksDig Deeper (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have moved that back to Category:Nature Publishing Group academic journals. – Fayenatic London 16:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nature Publishing Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]