Talk:Nova Science Publishers/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Neutrality concerns

I am concerned about the neutrality of this article and edits I've done to try and address this have been reverted/modified by Randykitty (talk · contribs):

• Calling this publisher an academic publisher, with a wikilink to Academic publishing implies total normality. But the source used actually says: "a widely known though controversial and ‘unconventional’ academic publisher". The categorization shouldn't be cherry-picked. BTW, this source looks distinctly iffy anyway: "Frank Truth" as an author name indeed! I propose having no categorization and not using this source.
• The Bade material (marginally sourced as it is) really needs to be attributed so readers can see where this opinion is coming from. I don't see any reason for keeping this non-specific; we should follow the guidance in WP:INTEXT. I propose restoring the attribution.
• As mentioned above, using a primary source to mention a citation index is undue, and risks giving a false balance. I propose removing this.

Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• I am concerned about the neutrality of this article, too. I found an article in a respectable journal that calls this an "academic publisher", as requested. It walks like a duck (publishes academic journals), it quacks like a duck (they themselves and others call it an academic publisher), it is a duck (an academic publisher). It's not my problem that you don't like the name of this author (who, by the way, is very critical of Nova). I really don't understand why it is problematic to call this an academic publisher. That is just a description of the activities of this company, no endorsement, nothing laudatory, not implying anything, just a neutral description of what they do. The criticism follows and makes clear how they do what they do. As for the long sentence with Bade that I removed, we are not doing this for other sources either. Should we also add "Arno Tausch, an Austrian political scientist... (etc)"? As for the database, I have replied on that above. --Randykitty (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Frank Truth is obviously a made up name and the "respectable journal" is just a left-wing website which is not peer reviewed (nothing wrong with that, but let's not pretend it's RS for categorizing publishing houses). You still want to use it?
• Let me make sure I understand your objection to attributing Bade. You are saying either everything has to be attributed, or nothing; and that we can't just attribute Bade. Is that right?
• On the database, you haven't explained why we need to take the exceptional step of using a primary source to imply something. Sounds non-neutral to me. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• I shall just make a few comments for the moment: the only reliable source that a journal is included in an index is the list of sources covered by that index as published on the index's web site. Everything else is not secondary--it's second hand, merely copied from that, and it is better to go back to the authentic source. This is a totally correct use of primary data, just as a census figure should be cited ffrom the published census. (I've used Ulrich's for a quick check sometimes, but it too is usually out of date a little & not definitive) If it is desired to see how many of a publisher's works, or how many articles from a journal, are in an index, again a search of that index is the only reliable source, since anything else will be derived and out of date. The sort of primary source that is not acceptable is a journal's statement that it is covered by an index, or a similar publisher's statement--this may be out of date, and I have known a few cases of false or misleading statements. But an index has no reason or possibility of lying. (The only question, as I just hinted, is whether the coverage is selective or complete. Some indexes so indicate.)
• I know most about science publishing--Nova is considered low quality in biology. That implies nothing about any other subject. It;s nonetheless a genuine academic publisher. Trying to avoid calling it such is twisting words outside their usual meaning.
• There is a misleading statement in the article, that it sells reprinted public domain material and book chapters as books. It has done so in some cases in the past; I would need to check if it is still doing so. But it was never the case that most of its publications were of this nature.
• There's another misleading statement--about its fees. They are no higher than most of the high quality science open access publishers. Many librarians, including myself, are of the opinion that these fess are in general much too high for the value being added. I cannot immediately find publication fees for Open Access articles in Nova journals-- the only figure in the literature is FT's figure of $450, which by current standards is very low -- some charge ten times that. DGG ( talk ) 10:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding the issues about using an index mentioned in section above this, it would certainly be possible to have a secondary source about indexes (in a trade publication company profile, say: "In 2011 Foo Publishing achieved the distinction of have its titles included in Bar's prestiguous index of journals"). What we seem to have trying to get out here is: "Some of the books published by Nova appear in the TR index (so affirming it is a reputable publisher as a whole)". Which seems odd.
• If there are misleading statements they should come out. Bade is self-published but is given some validation since he is a librarian with expertise and is cited in one reasonably okay source. However, what's here at the moment is a mild version of what his stated complaint was (at least in 2007). At a minimum it should be attributed and dated.
• Is Tausch an independent source? or is an axe being ground here? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Some comments:

• JCEPS seems to be peer-reviewed, at least that's what's stated in their homepage: "The Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS) is a peer-reviewed international scholarly journal published by The Institute for Education Policy Studies (IEPS)."
• I came across the "Frank Truth" source while looking for sources for this article and I dismissed it as I considered its reliability questionable. Please see page 80 where this publisher is discussed. The sources quoted are all Nova's site itself and even a blog is mentioned at the end. This is a tricky situation. We have two sources where this publisher is not referred to as "academic" and we have this one where it is. Perhaps requesting advice at WP:RSN would be a good idea?
• I agree that the statement by Bade should perhaps by attributed as per WP:INTEXT.
• I also believe, for the same reason as above, that the "evaluation of twenty-one international social-science book" in the 2nd paragraph should be attributed to Arno Tausch. This author has most of his books published by Nova, so there's a clear conflict of interest going on here and we should not obscure this.

Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

For historical perspective, and since Alexbrn asked, Arno Tausch (also known as Arno.tausch, though the account appears to have been deleted) is a major axe-grinder. If you look on the archives of this talk page and elsewhere, you will see that he is prone to long rants with little useful content. Tausch is a partisan in favor of Nova because he has published with them and wants to protect his reputation. The article by Tausch that is currently cited in this article appeared after Arno.tausch failed to gain consensus in a discussion on this talk page. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Currently, the critical section of the article makes it clear that the judgments are not those of Wikipedia, but does not name the specific people making the criticisms. I advocate continuing this approach, the former per WP:NPOV and the latter per WP:UNDUE. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

In light of the information about Tausch, I think both his material and Bade's need to be removed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Tausch may be questionable, but David W. Bade is rock-solid here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

"Rock-solid" would be in a peer-reviewed source and preferably recent (for a non-historical claim); Bade's piece is neither of those things. Removing the journal article and leaving in what is effectively self-published material would be odd. One for RS/N maybe? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Self-published material is perfectly acceptable, as long as it comes from established experts on the topic, which Bade most definitely is. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB says not. Using Bade for a critical judgement of a third-party (without the validation from the peer-reviewed source, which now appears dodgy) is a policy violation. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

From WP:SPS, and I quote, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Bade is claiming (in effect) that Nova is acting deceptively. Using a self-published source for that strikes me as incautious. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As Dougweller pointed out below, the Bade article is hosted on the website of Stanford University Libraries. Therefore, even though it is not in a traditional peer-reviewed print medium, it is under some editorial control and thus is not self-published. This has been extensively discussed previously on this talk page, and the consensus was to approve the article as a reliable source without reservations. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

General thank you

I fear I stirred the pot by noting that I had seen criticisms of Nova Publishers off-wiki (as I was looking up a source suggested for another article on Wikipedia). I appreciate the work of several editors here in finding more detailed sources about the publisher-as-such, and in discussing the scope of some of the vocabulary that will be used in the article. Thanks for your contributions to the project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

"Academic publisher"

There is nothing whatsoever that is remotely controversial about labeling Nova as an academic publisher. Our own Wikipedia article writes:

Academic publishing describes the subfield of publishing which distributes academic research and scholarship.

We can then ask ourselves the following questions:

• Does Nova publish academic research and scholarship?

The answer is yes. So Nova is an academic publisher. "Academic" describes what they publish. The quality of what they publish is a completely different question. If you want to call that into question, write something like "bla bla bla... Nova has been criticized for predatory practices / having low peer review standards / focusing on volume rather than quality / ... " or some other variant, but that needs to be supported with reliable sources. Which may make them "a low-quality academic publisher", but an academic publisher nonetheless.

So let's focus on writing the article, rather than try to redefine or remove words because you think they imply more than they do. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I think we do need reliable sources to state that this is in fact an "academic publisher" just like we do with any fact in any article in WP. Right now the only source that refers to it as "academic" is one of questionable reputability (the JCEPS "Frank Truth" source) which also describes it as an "unconventional" publisher. If we use that source to back "academic" then it also is enough to back "unconventional" (which you just removed) The only two clearly reliable sources presented here regarding this issue are the ones I presented above and none of them call this an "academic publisher", just a "publisher". I see no reason as to why we should not stick to the wording in these sources and if we want to use the JCEPS article to source "academic" then it can also be used to back "unconventional" and the "high costs" fact (which you just commented out) Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You can disagree if you want, but that does not make you right. Nova publishes articles of academia (mostly sciences and social sciences), therefore they are academic. As for the high cost, a 450$ figure is extremely low. For example, take the Physical Review journals, which have fees of 1700/2700$ per article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and you can disagree with me which does not make you right. That's why we are required to base our edits on WP:RS and currently the only reliable sources we have do not call this an "academic publisher", inspite of what you and I would call it. As for the "high cost" I would leave that out since the source is pretty vague on this, mostly listing prices to end with "These charges to authors are quite high, compared with any cost-free online journals." which I don't think it's enough to source that they have been "criticized" for it. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the onus is on Gaba_p and Alexbrn to demonstrate that the term "academic publisher" has a definition that is not met by Nova. As has already been pointed out, it is a genre, not an honorific. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit simplistic to say the word "academic" carries no value (just ask an academic). This doesn't really matter though I will note that Nova appears to have both fiction and general education imprints. My thought was that since the term "academic publisher" appeared to be the source of contention, why not call Nova something neutral and uncontentious? like a "publishing company" - which is good enough for Elsevier but not, it seems, here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That would work. I see my comments on ANI were not necessary. But I will note that Bade's piece was not place on the Stanford website by himself, but by a curator there, so not self-published. I don't think we can call this an academic publishing company and maintain NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Alexbrn and Dougweller, "publishing company" has no implications and is supported by sources. I note that Headbomb just modified the Elsevier article to have it say "academic" publishing company. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I am an academic. I work for a university and do scientific research for a living. From his statements, I gather than Randykitty has a similar story. Since you bring this up, Alexbrn, I think the problem here may be that you and Gaba_p are too much inclined to see "science" as something holy and sacrosanct, as a fount of knowledge that should be taken as authoritative simply because it is "science." Rather, I see "science" as a method of searching for knowledge; sometimes it is done well and sometimes it is not, but it is "science" nonetheless. Similarly, "academic" is a genre. "General education" would fit under that genre. I agree that fiction would not, but if Nova publishes fiction (of which I have not seen evidence), I believe it is such a small portion of their portfolio that it is still reasonable to label their output as "academic" in genre. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely with BlueMoonlet. "Academic" is not an honorific, it's a description. Suppose Nova's catalog would exclusively list comics, would anybody object to calling this a "comics publisher"? Same here. They publish (admittedly often rather crappy) academic books and journals. Elsevier used to be a less-specialized publisher. They published not only academic journals, but also Elsevier (magazine) (after the merger with Reed moved to that branch of the conglomerate), popular books (including novels), etc. At that time, it would have been incorrect to call them an "academic" publisher, because they did much more. Nowadays, far as I know, they have sold the non-academic activities or moved them to other divisions of the Reed-Elsevier concern, so that "Elsevier" sensu stricto has indeed become an "academic" publisher. So adding or removing "academic" is not a value judgment (which we should not make), but a description, which I think lies within the discretion of editors to phrase, without needing a source for that. Look at it this way, if somebody would have good reason to include the phrase "Jack Nicholson is an American man" in some article, would we really insist on a reliable source stating that he is, indeed, a man and not a woman? --Randykitty (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's possibly worth pointing out in this discussion (though not in the article itself) that they are *not* on Beall's list of predatory academic publishers. So not are they (obviously) an academic publisher, but (despite their documented misbehavior) they are a lot better than some of the ones out there. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That has been my point all along. It's a legitimate publisher, but not a good one. They have misbehaved in the past (I'm referring to the re-publishing stuff), as far as I know, this has stopped. The quality of their books and journals is still low. Their OA fees are in line with the rest of the industry, but not lower or even very low as Headbomb and DGG stated above: the $450 figure is per page, not per article (which would indeed be very cheap). For a long, 10 page article they are expensive, for a short communication of 4 pages, they are cheap, for the "mean article" of 7 or 8 pages, they are in the same ball park as other publishers. --Randykitty (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

JCEPS, as far as they can be relied upon, says "It has an open-access option for its digitized journals, but charges authors US$450 per paper for this arrangement." [2] Not really sure where you get that 450$ per page. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I got that figure by reading too fast... Sjeez! Sorry about that, you're absolutely right, it's per paper as you said, not per page as I thought. So their fee is indeed very low (probably among the lowest anywhere). --Randykitty (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Well it's clear at this point that although there are dissenting voices about whether to call this "academic" there is clearly no consensus to take it out, so unless somebody else has new arguments I guess this is the end of this issue. Cheers everyone. Gaba ^(talk) 21:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

University of the South Pacific and Nova Science

A University of the South Pacific Library (USP) staff member, Ms. Lara Phillips, has claimed that Nova's books "do not go through a standard academic peer review process despite their academic focus."<ref name=Phillips>{{cite web |last=Phillips |first=Lara |date=17 September 2013 |title=A list of Print-on-demand publishers and self-publishing "Vanity presses" for librarians and faculty |url=http://usp.ac.fj.libguides.com/pod |publisher=[[University of the South Pacific]] |accessdate=2013-11-17 }}</ref> In December 2012, however, the USP President and Vice-Chancellor Professor Rajesh Chandra awarded Fiji National University’s new Professor in Economics, T K Jayaraman, the Vice Chancellor’s annual prize for excellence in research for Professor Jayaraman’s study on a single currency in the region, published in 2012 as a book by Nova Science Publishers, New York (From Fiji National University Newsletter, Dec 21, 3(51), 2012, page 5, available at [3] The opinions, expressed by Ms. Phillips, certainly do not represent the official opinions of the USP nor the opinions of the head of its Library, since Nova Science published none the less than 142 titles from authors of that University (see: [4], including three books by the Dean of the Faculty of Business and Economics of the University of the South Pacific, Professor Biman Prasad (see: [5]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz weber (talk • contribs) 11:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Franz weber, you need reliable sources to back your edits and currently you have none. Please give WP:OR and WP:SYN a read. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• And I'd like to add, per WP:TALK, that talk pages are for discussing changes/improvements to the article, not for posting OR/SYNTH that cannot be presented in the article. --Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Users Gaba and Randykitty say that there are no sources for my contention that USP President and Vice-Chancellor Professor Rajesh Chandra i.e. Ms. Phillips University President and Vice Chancellor, awarded Fiji National University’s new Professor in Economics, T K Jayaraman, the Vice Chancellor’s annual prize for excellence in research for Professor Jayaraman’s study on a single currency in the region, published in 2012 as a book by Nova Science Publishers, New York (From Fiji National University Newsletter, Dec 21, 3(51), 2012, page 5 and that Nova Science published none the less than 142 titles from authors of that University including three books by the Dean of the Faculty of Business and Economics of the University of the South Pacific, Professor Biman Prasad. But my entry above mentions all the websites on which these contentions are based: the Fiji National University Newsletter, Dec 21, 3(51), 2012, page 5, is available from [6]; and the the list of the 142 titles from authors of that University in the publications programme of Nova Science is to be seen at [7]; including three books by the Dean of the Faculty of Business and Economics of the University of the South Pacific, Professor Biman Prasad see: [8]. So what shouldn't be true can't be true or what? Readers of the Phillips article will note that meanwhile the wording is different (as of November 25, 9:33 Central European time]. On thoughts how to really come forward in the evaluation of international publishers, see my entry on the SENSE publisher ranking below

The SENSE Publisher Ranking and Nova Science

The Dutch Research Consortium SENSE [9] makes the first international effort at a credible international publisher ranking. The scientific mission of the SENSE Research School is to promote an integrated understanding of environmental change in terms of the mechanisms that cause it and the consequences that result from it. To fulfil this mission, the combined programmes of research and education within SENSE are aimed at the development and further improvement of scientific concepts and methods that are required for an effective disciplinary and multidisciplinary understanding of environmental change. Research and education in SENSE are dedicated to developing high quality scientific results which may be applied to practically and critically inform environmental policy perspectives. The SENSE Research School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment is a joint venture of the environmental research institutes of ten Dutch universities:

List of universities

{{{2}}}

The SENSE Research School has developed and approved its own ranking of scientific book publishers – based on a list used by the research school CERES, which has been adjusted for SENSE in close consultation with the SENSE community.

I refereed book publications:

• A: Refereed book publications published by the world top of publishers
• B: Refereed book publications published by the world’s semi-top of publishers
• C: Refereed book publications published by other publishers

II non-refereed book publications

• D: published for an academic public (professional publications)
• E: mainly published for a non-academic (general) public

What they call C-publishers (decent international publishers and excellent national publishers) – 1 credit per book chapter starting with Aalborg University Press and ending with Zed Books includes - on page 4 of 17 Nova Science Publications (Source: [10] ). It would be an absolute distorsion of the SENSE classification system to call category C in a derogatory fashion "lowest class" since the 2010 ranking makes the 5 categories clear - and defines them. C-publishers (decent international publishers and excellent national publishers) – 1 credit per book chapter comprises, apart from Nova Science Publishers, also such well-known book publishing companies in the social sciences as

List of publishers

{{{2}}}

Colleagues Gaba and Randykitty, let alone all the other passionate Nova-Sience critics on this page, will perhaps now say that this is no source, and "to the hell" with a consortium of a dozen Dutch Universities, and that their blog sources are more credible than serious evaluations of publisher quality, but perhaps to their chagrin and to the delight of hundreds of serious scholars who published their works with Nova the SENSE website [11] also carries their latest EXCEL Table with their evaluation of international publisher quality in 2011, with Nova Science Publishers in Hauppauge NY again being ranked among the "decent international publishers and excellent national publishers" (The WASS-SENSE book publishers ranking list 2011, downloadable from [12]). Perhaps no source, then? Kind regards, User Weber — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz weber (talk • contribs) 09:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

C-publisher

Hello,

I was directed to this talkpage by someone called "Vrac."

I was refereed to this page and was told that there are some neutrality issues going on in Wikipedia for this publisher. There is a sentence calling NOVA a C-publisher - the lowest possible ranking. Can someone please point out where it says this?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelAdamSmith (talk • contribs) 21:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello @MichaelAdamSmith:, first a housekeeping note, we usually respond on these talk pages at the bottom so that people can follow the conversation from top to bottom. I have moved your comment to the bottom and created a new section to separate it from other topics. Second a procedural note: in disputes over the content of articles, we discuss them on the talk pages rather than reverting to force changes. The WP:BRD document describes this process. The default state of the article is maintained (meaning before any changes were introduced) until users reach a consensus on what changes to make (or not make). Others will likely want to comment on the changes being made, so this process gives everyone a chance to have their say. Please do not continue to revert to keep your recent changes. I will comment on the C-publisher issue in a moment. Vrac (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Vrac, it seems like there will never be any consensus on this issue. There was an article posted where NOVA is listed as a "C-Publisher." It was recently deleted by a user. Can you please repost the article. Waiting for your comments on this issue. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.232.12 (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Also Vrac, if the "the default state of the article is maintained (meaning before any changes were introduced)," - the default state of the article was not what has been on there for weeks. So why do the comments that were made allowed to reappear? I have no problem on any page if the default (neutral) page about a company is maintained - but it is not in this case. Does Wikipedia have a lawyer that can be contacted? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.232.12 (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to come up to speed on what the issues are, Nova Science Publishers is referred to as a "C-publisher" in this document: http://www.cityu.edu.hk/scm/pbpr_roa/ranking_sense.pdf. So it looks like the statement in the WP article is factually correct but doesn't cite SENSE with a footnote. I'll look to see when and if that was removed. Vrac (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The statement is properly cited in a footnote but MichaelAdamSmith is removing it with his edits. Who are you 24.184.232.12? Are you MichaelAdamSmith without logging in? What exactly is your issue with this statement and citation? Vrac (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The article was absolutely not removed by MichaelAdamSmith. I have been watching these posts. It was removed by someone else. The article should stay in. To be fair, if you are going to state that "C is the lowest ranking possible", then it should be stated that C publishers are decent international publishers and excellent national publishers, as stated in the article.

"Insufficient indication of the nature of the content." - Insufficient? The Publisher indicates in every book where the public domain material was from. Double-check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmyJournals (talk • contribs) 23:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong about MichaelAdamSmith not removing the SENSE article. He removed it a bunch of times, the links to a few of the revision histories are: here and here. Including the "decent international publishers and excellent national publishers" is fair. I haven't looked yet at the history if that has been a disputed inclusion in the past. Is that what this is all about? It hasn't done much good with your colleagues but I am compelled to notify you anyways that Wikipedia has a conflict of interest policy that you should read. There is also a policy on what we call sock and meat puppetry that may be relevant. Not respecting these policies, along edit warring (reverting or forcing changes without achieving WP:CONSENSUS, may result in the loss of editing privileges.

I haven't looked at your other issue yet. BTW the "not neutral" accusation is highly ironic. Vrac (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2015

Nova Science Publishers in bibliometrical rankings

In the published international literature on the subject, there are several comparisons where authors rank Nova’s standing in comparison to other publishing companies. The Dutch science consortium SENSE used five categories to classify the standing of publishing companies, ranging from A: Refereed book publications published by the world top of publishers; B: Refereed book publications published by the world’s semi-top of publishers; C: Refereed book publications published by other publishers, D: non-refereed book publications published for an academic public (professional publications) and E: mainly published for a non-academic (general) public, and classifies Nova Science in their C-category, which they call in their report (page 2) as “C-publishers (decent international publishers and excellent national publishers)”.

Their report for the period 2011 reiterates Nova’s classification as a C-publisher.

The Bibliometric Indicators for Publishers team from the University of Granada in Spain evaluates the standing of book publishers on the basis of the Thomson-Reuters book citation index data, which are evaluated systematically by the team for a number of years now. Their work mentions Nova Science among the top 3 international publishers in several fields. One of the team’s most recent research papers, again based on a systematic evaluation of the Thomson-Reuters compares in their Table 7.20 the most productive publishers according to both document types (books and book chapters) in the Book Citation Index for the time period 2009-2013. The result is that Nova Science is ranked below the leaders Springer, Palgrave Macmillan, Routledge, Cambridge University Press and Elsevier as number six, ahead of many other well-known global book publishing companies. Nova’s average citation rate in the index is 0.25, shortly below Palgrave Macmillan (0.30), but on an equal footing with Wiley-Blackwell and several other of the major twenty global book publishing companies. The Granada team also makes available regular updates on their findings, freely available on the Internet, at their website: http://bipublishers.es/data/view_field_and_disciplinelist.php?order=col8&ordertype=DESC

In an evaluation of twenty-one international social-science book publishers that attempted to determine the market penetration of publishers on international markets and the mentioning of their books in international science index systems such as Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, Nova Science Publishers ranked 17th out of 21 publishers.

Criticism

Library professionals have warned that Nova's books "do not go through a standard academic peer review process despite their academic focus." Nova has also been criticized for republishing old public domain book chapters and freely-accessible government reports, while providing insufficient indication of the nature of the content, making them seem as though they are new standalone journal articles or monographs.

Librarian Jeffrey Beall, maintainer of Beall's list of Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers has written that Nova Science Publishers is "not a predatory publisher, but it is a bottom-tier one".

References

Al Andaluz Toledano (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 05:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this now correct?

I enter here this answer sign, can I then edit the page?

|ans=Al Andaluz Toledano (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The proposed changes were already formatted, and now they are a chaos. The entire second half of the article must be changed I feel as I proposed, to make it compatible with latest results in bibliometry achieved by the University of Granada in Spain.

Also, the SENSE results from the SENSE consortium in the Netherlands are presented in a very biased way. Sense says that Nova are a decent publishers, not that they are in a lowest category. We in Wikipedia must keep our standards and put back emotions. If someone does not like the company, why not write an article in a major peer-reviewed journal of Library science, bibliometry or what have you? But such articles don't exist. What has happened though is that passionate Nova critics say things for which there is no evidence in either PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS or in the INTERNATIONAL QUALITY PRESS. Quoting from the social media is not enough.

I left though the last part of the article as it is; althoug I fundamentally disagree with the formulations in the light of the mentioned evidence, I think there would be an edit earthquake if I were to change it. Inshallah.Al Andaluz Toledano (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

requested opinion

Al Andaluz Toledano asked me for my opinion.

Analyzing the article by Garcia, she showed that Nova was the 4th largest in terms of books published, & 5th in terms of book chapters published; for some reason she combined the two into a figure for books+book chapters, which makes no sense to me, and the result is 5th.

In terms of raw numbers of citation to the items, she counted 14th out of 20th for the books, 2nd for the chapters, and 10th for the irrational (books+chapters). The much more important figure is citations/item, and Nova is lowest of the 20 for books, next to lowest for chapters, and 16th for the combination. The standard deviation is in all cases low, showing that few books deviate much from the average.

She then finds the only field where Nova is significant even in numbers of books is the social sciences. Citation figures do not necessarily show importance for books as a whole from a publisher any more than do they for journals, but they are a rough guide. The detailed figures for citations/book for individual fields are not in this paper; they are likely to e important because the social sciences on the average have a lower citation density than the sciences.

Taking this into account in the interpretation, the paper shows what I have always personally thought, that Nova is a very low quality book publisher in the sciences, and a fairly low quality publisher in the social sciences. Impressionistically, having looked at many social science titles in various fields over many years, though not as a specialist, I would say they mainly publish adequate (or at least moderately adequate) but unexciting work that a better publisher would not bother with. They are useful when they're the only book on a subject. My colleagues who look only at the sciences conclude it's poor quality overall, while I would say it is a little better than that in the social sciences, perhaps low-to-medium.

The number of books, which is the figure Al Andaluz Toledano is using, is not a sensible indicator, but merely the first step in deriving useful indicators. Largest does not mean best. In the academic world, large does not even mean good. Academic studies rely on quality, not quantity. The Garcia study can not validly be interpreted in the manner suggested--to do so would be mis-using a partial result. Just as qualitative studies can be misinterpreted by cherry-picking quotations, quantitative studies can be misinterpreted by focussing on a number used in the calculations but which is not significant.

My understanding of the C category in SENSE is that a "decent national publisher" means a publisher only valuable for those in need of information on a locally important topic. Good science is international, though some topics will inherently be of only more local interest. The results of the two studies are compatible.

Overall, the WP article is in my opinion correct in its evaluation, though it would be possible to be a little more precise. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

average citation rankings

I think DGG has come with a more balanced and sensible approach to this passionately debated matter than many other contributions on this talk page. Taking the latest Granada study - available on Researchgate in a pre-publication version, Nicolas Robinson Garcia lists hundreds of Thomson Reuters Book Citation data, and also the average citation rates a book publisher achieves. I quote his contribution in my proposal. If you put his data in an afternoon's work into an EXCEL table and rank the publishers - or at least the 150 most prolific ones - via the EXCEL programme, it comes out that

World Health Organization

Anderson Publishing

Geological Society UK

Catena Verlag

Kluwer Academic Publishers

Princeton University Press

American Fisheries Society

University of Alberta

Royal Society of Chemistry

American Geophysical Union

SIAM

are the companies with the highest average citation rate. The publishers with an average citation rate of 0,20 to 0,30 are:

Rodopi

Channel View Publications

Policy Press (University of Bristol)

Fordham University Press

Ios Press

NSTA Press -National Science

American Institute of Aeronautics

Trans Tech Publications

University of Chicago Press

Northeastern University Press

Nova Science Publishers

Wiley-Blackwell

Chandos

Utah State University Press

InTech

Information Age Publishing

University of Washington Press

Central European University Press

University of New Hampshire Press

Palgrave Macmillan

William Andrew

Wilfrid Laurier University Press

Baywood Publishing

Edward Elgar

Nova's average citation rate (the indicator best resembling the Impact Factor of scholarly journals) is 0.25; it exactly shares this with Wiley-Blackwell; Chandos; Utah State University Press; InTech. A very famous publisher, like Palgrave Macmillan, achieves 0,29; while Nova's average citation rate is ahead of publishers like University of Chicago Press, Fordham University Press, et cetera. Your contribution, dear DGG, could lead to a more balanced debate here on the pages of Wikipedia talk. Thank you.Al Andaluz Toledano (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for you continual discussion in this matter Al Andaluz Toledano. However, the edit semi-protected request is now moot since you should be autoconfirmed and you should be able to edit the article yourself. Therefore, I am changing the request to answered. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

C-Publisher once again

A kind and final remark on user's DGG comments on my earlier posting. No, sorry, SENSE does NOT talk about decent national publishers, they clearly state the C-category as "C-publishers (decent international publishers and excellent national publishers) – 1 credit per book chapter". A publication for an A-publisher receives 4 credits et cetera. You might still argue that the Dutch colleague place four times a higher value on a publication with say, Yale University Press than with Nova, but it is simply misinterpreting their classification as saying that this is something "lowest", or that people who publish with a C company do this because they couldn't place the article or book somewhere else. Looking at the C-Publisher category in their ranking, one finds such names as Amsterdam University Press; Arizona University Press; Berg Publishers; Charles Scribner's Sons; Civilizacao Brasileira; Dar es Salaam University Press; Dutch University Press; Edinburgh University Press; Flacso; Garland Publishers Inc.; Greenwood Press, London; Indiana University Press; L'Harmattan; Leiden University Press; Leske & Budrich; Lexington Books; Lit Verlag; Marcel Dekker; NIAS Press; Nijmegen University Press; Norton Publishing; Ohio State University Press; Peter Lang; Presse de l'Université de Quebec; Roskilde University Press; Rozenberg Publishers Amsterdam; Siglo XXI Editores; Stockholm University Press; Suhrkamp Verlag; Transaction Publishers; University of Cape town Press, SA; University of Copenhagen Press; University of Massachusets Press; University of Ottawa Press; University of Washington Press; Wageningen Academic Publishers; Zed Books. Would your arguments mean that Wikipedia would now have to state in each case that SENSE considers them as " it is the lowest rating possible among the "refereed book publications" ranking"? Many people on the "talk page" of the Nova Science publishers article might not like the verdict reached by SENSE - which is after all a consortium of outstanding environmental research groups from eleven Dutch universities and institutes. SENSE was formally accredited by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) for the period 1997–2001 and was subsequently re-accredited in 2002 and 2008 and ever since. Wikipedia always has followed a policy of credible sources; if there is a published criticism of the company in a leading scholarly journal or in the international media, of course we should and must mention it of course. Regards Al Andaluz Toledano (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems correct to apply a consistent wording in the page about these other publishers too. fgnievinski (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Al Andaluz Toledano and DGG: This is in response to a post on my talk page regarding this discussion. My changing the edit semi-protected request to answered was not an endorsement of your side. It was an acknowledgment of the fact that you are now autoconfirmed and can edit the page yourself. Editing on behalf of another person (as with the edit semi-protected requests) should only be done when the person cannot edit the page themselves. Once they gain permission to do so the request is closed as a matter of procedure. This matter is now a content dispute and should continue to be discussed between involved editors. As such, I have notified DGG of this continuing conversation. --Stabila711 (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You are right--I had somewhat misremembered the purpose of SENSE. Looking at the documentation at http://www.sense.nl/organisation/documentation, it's even less relevant than I thought. It is not a general rating scheme for publications, but a rating scheme for publications to the extent relevant to the Dutch Research School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment-- that is, in one particular (but fairly wide) subject area. The latest (but 5-year old) list online at http://www.sense.nl/gfx_content/documents/ABCDE-indeling%20Scientific%20Publishers%20SENSE_approved_May_2009.pdf says "For book publishers there is no internationally accepted system of ranking. Therefore, the SENSE Research School has developed and approved its own ranking of scientific book publishers" (the list, furthermore, is based upon the list from the Wageningen School of Social Sciences--and will therefore have very heavy social sciences orientation; it will certainly ignore the humanities, and have a considerable deemphasis on most central parts of the physical and medical sciences.) This explains some remarkable omissions: the most important book publisher for molecular biology (Coid Spring Harbor Press) and for psychology (American Psychological Association) are not included.

This explains the seemingly very confused listing of publishers in the different categories--it bears only a partial connection to their overall quality. Indeed, a list of publishers lumped together as "C" clearly indicates the uselessness of the rating scheme in general. Using those I'm familiar with to show the diversity: Scribner is a famous literary and general publisher of the highest quality, not primarily an academic publisher ; L'Harmittan is a high quality general publisher whose academic works a a minor part of the business; Edinburgh is very good but quite specialized is some niches traditional to Scottish universities; Transaction is quite left-wing for a US publisher, & what one thinks of their books depends on one;s politics; Peter Lang specializes in academic European work on old-fashined topics; Dekker is third rate by any standard, though with one or two good journals; Greenwood is 4th rate throughout. There is no point trying to have a combined category for excellent non-academic publishers with an academic sideline; very good local publishers, & mediocre international ones. The rating category does make a little more sense in the field covered: not much of Scribners of L'Harmittan or Edinburgh will be relevant; Transaction is very specialized; Lang is mostly non-relevant.

Now, as it happens there is a good published explanation of the Dutch system in a column from Chronicle of Higher Education, most accessible as a separate blog: The Dutch Academic Job Market for Americans and Other English Speakers " Outside the big names (Harvard, Yale, Stanford), American university presses are not as well-known, and not necessarily as desirable as, for instance, placing a volume with one of the Dutch academic presses (Amsterdam University Press, Brill) or with Routledge, Palgrave, or Praeger."

The clearest summary remains: Nova ranks is mediocre at best; the very low citation figure for its works shows the mediocrity. There are many cases at WP where the situation is ambiguous and I could construct an argument in either direction. This is not one of them.

In any case, I consider such rating schemes as close to nonsense, except for special purposes. Their basic intent is to serve a bureaucracy that needs to award positions and grants without the capability of desire for actual evaluation. The intention may be good: to try to make for objectivity, by avoiding the subjectivity of personal and academic networking and assumed reputation. But research quality must be evaluated by the use of intelligence. (In this respect, the situation is like our own practice at WP for Reliable Sources, while there are some deceptively simple summaries, each source needs to be evaluated on its own individual merits in the particular situation)

I'll be glad to continue to discuss publishers, but this publish has already had more all the attention than the matter justifies. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Not accepting revisions by user headbomb

The revisions quoted extensively from evidence in established peer reviewed journals.

If you find better evidence, produce it. To talk about a conflict of interests here is ridiculous. Read the Granada studies and visit their website. Wilipedia authorities should decide on the matter. Al andaluz toledano from i phoneAl Andaluz Toledano (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This article has a history of misbehavior by editors with conflicts of interest. You appeared only 2 weeks after the last sock puppetry episode; I mention this to give you an idea of why there may be some skepticism about motives. Vrac (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I should answer that - reading carefully enough my proposal - I say in all clarity "The result ranked Nova among the top global book publishing companies according to their output (rank 6 out of 100), and a lower medium average citation rate (0.25; rank 58 out of 100)." I think this sentence summarizes both sides of the heated arguments here on this page in a civilized, polite and acceptable manner, supported by solid peer-reviewed and published evidence. Emotions alone are certainly not sufficient to write a good Wikipedia article, and remember as well that my proposal also integrated the earlier criticism section on a 1:1 basis, without any changes. I am sorry to contradict Wikipedia editor DGG in a friendly way in an important minor detail: SENSE talks about "decent INTERNATIONAL" publishers. Whether we like it or not, the SENSE Consortium has a right to be represented here with what they say on a 1:1 basis as well. Sense, after all, IS a major consortium of very respected Dutch scholarship, and what they say has ALSO a weight. One cannot overrule their judgement by simply misrepresenting it. Decent is not lowest. Al Andaluz Toledano (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Reputation,D-Publisher WASS-SENSE ranking

The Wiki article doesn't give a good representation of Nova Science Publishers. The much about how bad there representation is and not about the good things about Nova Science Publishers. While Nova Science Publishers misbehaved writing the wiki article, they shouldn't be punished with an overly negative page. Nova Science Publishers may not always publish quality scientific books but Nova Science Publishers also has some positives. Below I discuss some addition to the page to make it less negative about "Nova Science Publishers" and give the page a better perspective of Nova Science Publishers.

Special Types of Books While there isn't much information about what other types of book they publish. Nova Science Publishers publishes some unique books compared to high-ranked scientific publishers. As an example: the book Algebra for Athletes 2nd Edition might not be a scientific book, it might be interesting for athletes.

I think there should be more emphasis on the type of books they publish. Nova Science Publishers gives an opportunity for publishing special types of books that cannot be published at renowned scientific publishers. The description "academic publisher of books, encyclopedias, handbooks, e-books and journals" of Nova Science Publishers by Nova Science Publishers is therefore not complete. It might be valuable to add a extra description. The best description I can think off is: "Science based books", "non-academic learning books", "professional publications"[13]. Hopefully people can give a better description. There is one problem however there isn't a source that they publish these "types" of books. except for "professional publication". Hopefully Nova Science Publishers can confirm they publish these types of books.

Conclusion The emphasis of the article is too much about the reputation of Nova Science Publishers and not about the interesting and sometimes unusual type of books that can't be published at renowed sciencetific publishers. I think the article should also be more about the types of books they publish.

D-publisher not C-publisher There has been a lot of discussion about the C-publisher status on the talk page. According to the 2011 WASS-SENSE book publisher ranking list, the book publisher Nova Science Publishers is considered a a D-publisher [14] . D-publsher. "D-publishers (professional publications published by major international organisations and good national publishers) – no SENSE publication credits" That isn't particularly good but also not extremely bad. The addition of D-publisher to the wiki article might therefore give a more realistic and more comprehensive view about the scientific quality of the books. This is also important to make the page more balanced between negative and positive.

Authors The article is very negative about the reputation of the Nova Science Publishers. Not all the books they publish are written by pseudo-scientists and non-scientist. Some are indeed written by real scientists. The book "24 Hour Heart Rate Variability Analysis (HRV) in Childhood: Prognostic Significance, Risk Factors and Clinical Applications" is written by Reiner Buchhorn. Reiner Buchhorn has many cited publication about this subject. Unless Nova Science Publishing used some dirty trick so they can add his name to the book.

It should be noted on the page that while Nova Science Publishers doesn't have a great reputation that some books are published by reputable scientist. This addition makes the page less negative and give a better perspecive on Nova Science Publishers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonnom (talk • contribs) 20:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Lach of objectivity by librarians of WIKIPEDIA

There is a lot of discussion, rankings where Nova is placed as a reputable publisher, anyway, WIKIPEDIA and its librarians are launched to a campaign against this publisher, I do not why, but some interests lie behind because this article is far from being real. I do not know if Nova is on top leader publishers, but in Terrorism and Medidice it is a distinguished press many of my colleagues opt for making their outcome public. We have think twice the influence of Wikipedia and their librarians, many of them anonymous hackers who had any field of experience on the themes they often edit, in the real knowledge production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.138.184.125 (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

N. Robinson Garcia et al (2014), in a full analysis, situates Nova 6th position as one of the most prolific publishers. They analyze only book included in BOOK CITATION IMPACT (not all production). Per their outcome, from 2009-2013 Nova published 1336 books and 14391 book chapters. The average citation impact coeficient is 0.25 (summing not only books but book chapters). This study ponder a tigh selection of 126 from more than 300 indexed in Web of Science. Though partial, these results contemplates more than 40 disciplines, in three different topics: OUTPUT of total production, Impact or Citation Impact of publications, and Publisher profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.104.232.132 (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

References

• That source is not admissible. Arxiv has only rudimentary editorial control, so it is not a reliable source. Please stop adding it to the article. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The Global Ranking of the Publishing Industry 2015. this paper cited as Tausch, Arno (2015): Die Buchpublikationen der Nobelpreis-Ökonomen und die führenden Buchverlage der Disziplin. Eine bibliometrische Analyse, shows Nova has an index of 0.097 in reputation and citation impact similar to well established publishers as CABI 0.197, Edingburgh University Press (0.119), and Duke University Press (0.191), and upper than University of New Mexico Press (0.067), Anthem press (0.045), Nottingham University Press (0.083) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.104.232.132 (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Source

Re the "The Content of Journals Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc." source by David Bade, the current url does not give access to the full article, but it is also here [15] with the author's permission. I don't know how to add this extra url into the reference, if someone else would like to it could be useful. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ranking

the article is better written, but this parapgraph is not correct

In a 2011 report of twenty-one international social-science book publishers that determined penetration on international markets and mention of books in international science index systems such as Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, Nova Science Publishers ranked 17th out of 21.[7]

Reviewing the original source I found the following, This paper lists the 20 top publishers and its penetration in the global Market. In this list, not only Nova is possitioned jointly to Routledge (16 position) but also above of other well reputed publishers as Palgrave. To be included in this list is a great achievement while the article of Wikipedia points to Nova as a lowest ranked publisher This is not true. Read the original paper!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.230.75.4 (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think you need to re-check yourself. Table 5 lists 21 publishers (not 20) and only 4 of them have a lower score than Nova on the "final non-parametric index", which ranks them 17th out of 21. This is what the source says, so this is what we report. Nowhere is it mentioned that being included already is a "great achievement", nor all the other things that you say. Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Last paragraph of article is not based on a reliable source but rather opinion

"Nova has been criticized for not always evaluating authors through the academic peer review process[8] and for republishing, at high prices, old public domain book chapters and freely-accessible government reports as if they were new.[8][9] These criticisms prompted librarian Jeffrey Beall to write that in his opinion Nova Science Publishers was at the "bottom-tier" of publishers.[10]"

Source #8 is based on a PDF which is not a reliable source, anyone can type up a PDF. Jeffry Beall's comments (#10) are based on that PDF which makes his comments mere opinion and not fact. I kindly ask that someone review this and remove these opinions since Wikipedia is based on factual information. Thank youPrplns (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Reviewed, and that PDF is fine and acceptable. Sources are not dismissed because they are available in a particular format. And the opinions of Jeffrey Beall are more than fine per WP:SPS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not see how Jeffrey Bealle is an established expert. His degrees are in Spanish and Library Science, he is not involved in the field of publishing. He is outspoken with his opinion regarding publishers, but being outspoken does not make him an expert. He has never been associated with Nova Science Publishers and has no firsthand knowledge of their practices. To call them "Bottom Tier" by mere opinion is defamation. I kindly ask that you reconsider allowing the term "Bottom Tier" to be used for an established and respected publisher. Thank you.Prplns (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Someone with a degree in Library Science isn't an expert on publishing?? C'mon, be serious... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

And published both in specialist journals on library science and prestigious general journals like Nature. Yep, can't be a respected expert... Please don't waste our time here. --Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

...and since quite a lot of the bibliometric literature is published in Spanish, his degree in Spanish would appear to make him even more aptly qualified to expound on this subject! Famous_dog (c) 15:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Some proposed changes, additional sections

Notable authors

• Barbara Bennett Peterson
• Vladimir Burkov
• Sir Roy Yorke Calne
• Dr. Shiv Chopra
• Miroslav Dordevic
• Stephen Z Fadem
• Dr. Donald E Greydanus
• Maximiliano Korstanje
• Yamaguchi Masayoshi
• Dr. Joav Merrick
• Michael N Nagler
• Bamidele A Ojo
• Trilochan Pradhan
• Rajagopal
• Andrew Targowski

Awards

“Food and Brain Health” The 2015 Gourmand World Cookbook Awards has honored Food and Brain Health as the 3rd best in the world under the category D09- Nutrition and Institutions.

“Tropical Fruits – From Cultivation to Consumption and Health Benefits: Guava and Mango,” “Red Wine Consumption and Health” nominated for The 2016 Gourmand World Cookbook Awards. Category: Best Drinks and Health Book. Winners to be announced May 28, 2017. “Psychology of Trust” The IEA Richard M. Wolf Memorial Award, 2012, Kerry J. Kennedy, Magdalena Mo Ching Mok, and Michael Ying Wah Wong (Ed. by B.R. Curtis, 2011, New York: Nova Science Publishers

BULGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, the 2013 Academician Emil Djakov Annual Award, Prof. Dr. Sc. Savcho Tinchev, "Ion modified high-Tc-Josephson junctions and SQUIDs", Published in Superconductivity: Theory, Materials and Applications 2012 (Nova Science Publishers Inc)

President of the Publishing House “Nova Science Publishers” (USA), Ms. Nadya Gotsiridze-Columbus was conferred an Honorary Degree of Doctor Honoris Causa of the Georgian Technical University in recognition of her contribution to the international popularization of scientific-technological achievements of Georgian Technical University and long-term and productive Cooperation.

Notable books

“Mathematics And Mathematical Logic: New Research,” featured in, “The Best Writing on Mathematics 2011.”

“Logic of Analog and Digital Machines,” featured in, “The Best Writing on Mathematics 2011.”

“Essentials of Chronic Kidney Disease.” It is a book for nephrologists taking care of patients with chronic kidney disease.As reviewed by Tom F. Parker. Dr. Parker’s credentials may be found here:

Prplns (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. This area is outside my field of experience, however, you should review WP:NOTDIR. Unless really notable, generic lists are not welcome. You may wish to integrate the most notable awards into the history section (which has yet to be created?). Oh, and some of the references are really off (especially the 2 letters that you have posted as notes). I also looked over an article for another publisher, and it doesn't seem to contain stuff like notable writers. Request declined. Regards, VB00 (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, let me add some comments to the rather succinct message above. Most of what you have listed above looks like stuff that would look great on Nova's own website. However, WP is not the place for that. We don't add lists of notable authors, unless there are reliable sources independent of the publisher that document the importance of a particular author for the publisher. (After all, the article is about the publisher, not the author). The same goes for "notable books". If you have good sources that discuss the importance of one of those books for the publisher, then that can be included. Reviews and such posted on a publisher's website are never acceptable sources, because they are inherently biased (no publisher is ever going to publish a review on their website concluding that some book was "the worst I've ever seen"... :-). As for the awards, those Gourmand World Cookbook Awards strike me as decidedly mediocre. I had a look at that article and I am not even sure that this meets our inclusion criteria. There's more to be said (please also read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), but I'll leave it at this. So in the end, I come to the same conclusion as VB00: those additions do not seem to be encyclopedic and are more promotional than is desirable for an encyclopedia. Let me add two remarks. First, I appreciate your disclosure of a COI. Too many people here edit with undeclared COIs and it makes it very difficult to keep articles neutral and balanced. Second, I do not envy you your job. As you can see from the discussions on this page, there have been many attempts to make this article on your employer more positive. All have failed. The problem is that once something is sourced to a reliable source, it is very difficult to remove it. To make the article more positive, what you need is not mediocre awards for cookbooks (not even the main interest of Nova, as far as I can see), but serious coverage of the company in reliable sources that tells the reader good things about Nova. The older, critical, stuff would still remain, but would be "neutralized" by the more recent praise. Unfortunately, what I see from Nova, it will be a while before such praise will be forthcoming... Hope I didn't discourage you too much. --Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Hi, Not discouraged at all. When criticism is constructive it is always welcome. I am finding the whole editing process on Wikipedia to be fascinating and look forward to learning more and editing other articles. However, this is my challenge at hand so I do have one question if you would be so kind as to answer? VBOO stated that general lists are not welcome. On Harper Collins' page their Notable Books section is a list. On Leafwood Publishers, their Notable Authors is the same exact format as I listed above. On Austin Macauley Publishers page they do not even have a Notable Books section. It just states "Published Books" and has a list. Viking Press also, is just a list of Notable Authors. So with all due respect, it begs me to ask the question, do those pages need to be edited to remove all of their content or was my request unfairly reviewed? When I submitted my request I received a message that there was a backlog of 150 requests ahead of me yet within hours I had been denied every section and word submitted. Clearly you're very interested in this page. So if you truly want to offer constructive criticism and believe me when I say I am open to it, kindly explain why their lists are acceptable and mine are not. This will only help me to grow as a member of this community so I may carry this knowledge forward to other articles.Prplns (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

the problem with the list is that the authors are mostly not notable. As a first step -- no blue link, no notability... I'd also say that you are headed right where you were going when you first started. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, So then the links that are in fact blue on my list do count as notable and therefore some of them can be added?Prplns (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Possibly. But it's better if they are notable for the books they have had published by Nova. That seems like more of a stretch. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I have a better understanding now, thank you. It still feels as though I was unfairly denied everything submitted when Austin Macauley doesn't even have a Notable Books section, just a list of Published Books. If you are stating that there is a possibility that that some of my blue linked books could be used then I'm wondering if a closer look needs to be taken at what I am trying to have added. Not everything may be accepted but does that mean everything has to be denied flat across the board? I also feel that the Gourmand World Cookbook awards are not mediocre and that statement was a matter of personal opinion. Past winners include Chef Mario Batali and Chef Marcus Samuelsson. That being said, I do appreciate your time and guidance, thank you.Prplns (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Prplns: Just thought that I'd comment on a section of your concerns above ("When I submitted my request, I received a message that there was a backlog of 150 requests ahead of me, yet within hours I had been denied every section and word submitted. Clearly you're very interested in this page."). The backlog message actually seems to be broken, if you go to Template:Request_edit/Instructions, you'll see that there are only 60 requests. It is backlogged, but not in the sense that nobody has seen them - it's just that some of the requests are much harder to review and implement, and, with Wikipedia being voluntary-based, nobody is willing to spend hours verifying info and looking at the various WP policies that might come into play. So, all the requests have been looked at, nobody just felt confident enough to implement/deny some edits. Now, you might not believe me, but I've never heard of Nova Science Publishers (nor any other publishers that you've listed above) before. Regards, VB00 (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@VB00: Thank you, I appreciate the explanation. If you have heard of Nova and the other publishing houses or not though, there is still the point that they have lists on their Wikipedia pages. One of them is merely books published, not even notable. You can go to their pages and see this for yourself. So my original question to Randykitty still remains unanswered. Do those pages need to be edited to remove all of their content or was my request unfairly reviewed? Not everything may be accepted but does that mean everything has to be denied flat across the board? You may not find the fact the certain books were nominated for awards to be given out later this year as acceptable but the fact remains that one of them did win last year. And as I have also stated, with past winners including Chef Mario Batali and Chef Marcus Samuelsson, “mediocre” is a matter of personal opinion and I beg to differ on that point. I do have some authors with blue links. I am not trying to make more work for the good editors of Wikipedia. If you would like me to filter out what you have deemed unacceptable and resubmit I will gladly do that if you kindly advise to do so. Thank you.Prplns (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Those articles need to be edited. With the millions of articles that we have, it is unavoidable that not all are up to par. Have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (aka WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS...). And my judgment of "mediocre" for those awards is based upon the lack of good sources about them. --Randykitty (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Last line of article has no reference

As a COI editor, I would like to request that the last line of the article be removed,"These criticisms prompted librarian Jeffrey Beall to write that in his opinion Nova Science Publishers was at the "bottom-tier" of publishers."[10] as there is no reference for this statement when you click on the link, "Watch Out for Publishers with "Nova" in Their Name" because it has been removed. Thank youPrplns (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Archive url is now provided. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Requesting to have information added regarding donation to Books2Africa

"Nova Science Publishers donated 92 pallets of books to Books2Africa in December of 2016. This donation of over 92,000 books was distributed to institutions in Africa especially those in developing regions and communities." Prplns (talk)

Prplns, I have declined this request. The proposed edit is simply promotional. Books2Africa is a very small charity. The reference is simply a press release, and there is no independent coverage of this event which makes it worthy of inclusion. This is material appropriate for the publisher's website, not here. Voceditenore (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I was told above my request should be well sourced and a positive statement. Clearly what one editor considers positive another considers promotional. While I have read the Wiki Essays on "what's good for one page isn't good for another," I am still astounded at what is acceptable on the other publishing house pages and this one is under such scrutiny. Thank you for your time and consideration. Prplns (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The statement was sourced to a press release which is not independent of Nova Science or the small charity that was the recipient of the books. Not one independent published source has taken notice of this donation. Not every "positive" statement merits inclusion. This is an encyclopedia, not a PR outlet. We publish what reliable independent sources have written about the subject, not what the subject has written about themselves. Voceditenore (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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)