Talk:Publons

Open Access Low‑importance

Publons is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Open AccessWikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task forceTemplate:WikiProject Open AccessOpen access

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Open Access to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Creative Commons licensing (to replace Creative Commons license); Creative Commons Attribution License (currently a redirect), reproducible research (currently a redirect), supplementary material. Scholarly Open Access (currently a redirect)
Cleanup : Access2Research
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stub-Class Open access articles.
Other : add {{WikiProject Open Access}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess;
- Check media files uploaded by the Open Access Media Importer for missing or incomplete categorization or lack of descriptions, or put the files into suitable Wikipedia articles. See also recent uploads of open-access files more generally.

Disputed claim

In the "Reception" section of the article, the following claim was made (I quote the full text from the Editing view):

"Publons initially reached out to academics through unsolicited bulk email to build awareness of the free service. This was cited by email service providers for being violation of acceptable use policies.^[1] Publons retired unsolicited emails in 2016 and has since focused on growing its userbase by enabling reviewers to add verified records of their peer review contributions as they are performed.^{[citation needed]}"

In an edit just applied to the article, I changed "...initially reached out to..." to "...reaches out to..." and deleted the final sentence, because Publons still sends unsolicited emails. I have received several since 2016, most recently this morning (February 8, 2018).

I take it that my way of handling this is in accord with Wikipedia's policies: in the case of an accuracy dispute, the recommendation is to "correct" the content right away if possible (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute). In this case, correction of the article involved removal of the demonstrably false claim (I can easily provide screen captures as evidence if need be, but I was not sure whether they would be appropriate to post here).

I am a novice at editing Wikipedia articles and I am happy to be corrected if I've handled this inappropriately--also, I apologize for the inelegant formatting of this post.

Blorkpuffington (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "ScientificSpam DNSBL on Twitter". Twitter. Retrieved 2016-02-24.

Business Model?

I added a passage on Publon's business model from Publons. It is fairly vague and I think it would be good to expand on this, especially from independent sources. Haven't been able to find anything yet though.Dan Eisenberg (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MDPI

They work together with MDPI so --- unreliable fly-by-nighters. Extreme caution advised.137.205.101.81 (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse: they collaborate with OMICS Publishing Group and other predatory publishers. For many of these journals, they uncritically display promotional descriptions provided by said publishers. It's too bad that Clarivate is not more careful and integrated their ResearcherID, which was a useful service, with Publons. I know of people that have requested that their Publons/ResearcherID account be deleted because they don't want to deal with an entity that promotes predatory journals. If somebody knows a reliable source for this, this should be added to the article. --Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "ScientificSpam DNSBL on Twitter". Twitter. Retrieved 2016-02-24.

[1]