Talk:Journal of Medical Internet Research

COI

I don't have a COI other than knowing the journal/publisher, having published there, and knowing first hand that the accusations Beall makes are absurd. Read the comments to Beall's blog post. It is the opinion of a single librarian who is a known anti-open access critic (to put it mildly) against 2,500 ehealth experts who have published in JMIR journals. Beall is not a "Reliable Source" in this instance and it is questionable if his poorly researched piece should even be cited here. If you insist to cite him (@Ranykitty), then at least provide a NPOV and balance his outburst with the critique on his piece that is emerging in the comments section to his blog post. As an aside, there should probably be a page about the publisher JMIR Publications which is separate from this journal. --173.33.254.137 (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Even if we believe that your only COI is "knowing the journal/publisher, having published there" (how naive do you think we are here?), that is enough. Having published there, the higher the prestige of the journal, the higher your prestige for having published there. Knowing something "first hand" is called original research here and not something that is admissible in an article. As for the comments on Beall's blog post: what Beall himself writes is reliable, but anybody can post anything they want in response, so those comments are not a reliable source. (And please note that they are clearly solicited: nobody will believe that all these sudden comments from people who have never commented on anything Beall has published before came there spontaneously). Regarding reliability: Beall is an accepted expert in his field, whether we like what he writes or not. His blog is professionally written and edited. For example, he will not retroactively change the content of his posts, but clearly indicate old and new text if something needs correction. The same cannot be said about Eysenbach. Just compare the original version of his rant about Beall's blog post with the current one. Gone are the wild accusations that Beall is editing this WP article and the rather amusing rant about Beall not having a PhD. Doesn't look very serious, publishing something and then surreptitiously changing the content once you notice that you have been embarrassing yourself... As an aside, there is absolutely no need for a separate article for the publisher. This is a minor publisher, publishing a single notable journal. Please get familiar with WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

A lot of users know the journal and the publisher - the Wikiproject Medicine has published in JMIR with respected wikipedians as coauthors, among them James Heilman, who was the president of Wikimedia Canada between 2010 and 2013, who was the president of Wiki Project Med Foundation, and who served for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, Does this make us too conflicted to comment on this matter on the talk page? You are confusing the COI disclosure above - when the user on the talk page disclosed that he has published in the journal - with "original research", which pertains to the article. I don't see any original research in the article, it is all quotes from the Beall "review" and the rebuttal of the publisher. What is the problem? And you may want to revisit Beall as "reliable source". Why would a single blogger or "expert" like Beall (expert in googling addresses of publishers and concluding that they are not a serious publisher if they are not located in a fancy office building) have more expertise than the commenters on his blog, who are actually subject experts? I read the comments on the Beall blog and saw the tweets and from the screenshots on http://www.jmir.org/content/beall and the tweets it should be clear that the community reaction is not "orchestrated" by the publisher. Instead, it is very obvious that Beall actually censored responses, stopped publishing more supportive comments or even responses by the publisher himself (see screenshots on http://www.jmir.org/content/beall). Is this the hallmark of a reliable source? No, because 1) Beall has extreme political views, see. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/16/parting-company-with-jeffrey-beall/, 2) he lacks editorial integrity by stopping to publish comments that do not support his views, 3) he lacks editorial integrity by refusing to publish the names of his "advisory board", 4) he has smeared several publishers that he later quietly had to remove from his list because he was plain and simply wrong or because his lawyers or "advisory board" (probably his superiors) told him so 5) he refuses to retract factually wrong statements (such as "16 journals that have a broad scope" while in reality they are niche journals). I do not see Beall as more reliable than the people commenting on his post. Eysen (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no substantial critique by Beall about this publisher other than that he dislikes the design (which is a subjective judgement), dislikes the fact that they are charging (because he doesn't believe in gold OA), and dislikes the "leading eHealth publisher" subtitle, but presumably he doesn't even know what eHealth exactly means. He is not an expert in digital health, so who is he to decide? And even if it were incorrect (although the publisher defends it well with data), it is a slogan used by many other publishers. His statement that this is a shameful practice is ridiculous. His statement about missing editorial boards of 4 journals is wrong, because the screenshots show that the publisher clearly discloses that they are identical with the JMIR editorial board, and there is nothing wrong with this. He cites that this is against OASPA or COPE rules, but this is nonsense and besides it is not up to him to decide. Beall is not a "reliable" source, he is a blogger with an agenda. --4.15.162.235 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Like it or not, Beall was quoted by Nature and Science and the NYT as an expert in the subject. fgnievinski (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

On what subject exactly? On design? On determining who the leading journal in eHealth is? Note that Beall is not accusing JMIR Publications of being a predatory publisher. He is whining about the design and the fact that the publisher is in a "dwelling" rather than an office building. The same can be said for PeerJ and many other emerging leading publishers in the knowledge age. He is out of touch with reality. 12.203.54.183 (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Anything that touches on scholarly publishing; he got their blessing. fgnievinski (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course. I quote from https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jeffrey_Beall: Beall has said that "The only truly successful model that I have seen is the traditional publishing model." He portrays open access publishing as an anti-corporatist movement whose advocates pursue the goal of "kill[ing] off the for-profit publishers and mak[ing] scholarly publishing a cooperative and socialistic enterprise". A man who argues like this can't be wrong, right? Beall has embarrased himself before, see http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/08/10/defending-regional-excellence-in-research-or-why-beall-is-wrong-about-scielo/, and this is just another example of where he is wrong. 12.203.54.183 (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

We cannot judge for ourselves, we can only quote the opinion of recognized experts published in well-established venues. fgnievinski (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You have to judge if a source is biased WP:BIAS: "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. ". There are no "facts" reported here, just an opinion. Beall has a history of smearing publishers which he later had to quietly remove from his blog. Reliable sources who have publicly commented on his blog entry include Aviv Shachak, who is a professor in health informatics. Nothing makes Beall more reliable than Prof Shachak or anybody else commenting on his blog 12.184.218.23 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You can only fight a reliable source with another reliable source of the same or greater caliber. We cannot quote a comment on a blog -- otherwise, anything goes. You need to find a book or journal article making your point. You can see what sources of criticism were acceptable in the Wikipedia article about Beall. I think there's something more in a 2014 book by CUP, "OA and the Humanities". fgnievinski (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The whole back-and-forth between Beall and Eysen is gossipy and not encyclopedia-worthy and should be removed. Furorimpius (talk) 07:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd support summarizing the second paragraph; say, one sentence for each Beall and Eysen. fgnievinski (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

done. also removed a sentence that sounded like an advertisement. Furorimpius (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Notability of publisher

I have a question - when is a publisher notable enough to be listed in Wikipedia? When is a journal notable enough? 24.43.29.2 (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - useful link. And what makes a publisher notable? Publising 1, 2, 3, how many notable journals? 12.130.117.30 (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting, Randykitty refers to JMIR Publications as "minor publisher", publishing only 1 notable journal, whereas Beall is complaining about "Large open-access publishers like JMIR Publications may be evolving into the type of publisher the open-access movement was organized to take down." - so which one is it, is it large or is it minor? Randykitty is contradicting himself when he refers to Beall as reliable source and then overriding Beall's characterization as "large open access publisher". There are 14 journals listed on the JMIR site - many are respected and well cited, and they all will have respectable impact factors, see e.g. http://mhealth.jmir.org/announcement/view/121. The Journal of Medical Internet Research is certainly not the only notable journal of this publisher, and JMIR has also created other notable projects such as WebCite or TrendMD. Beall has been wrong before and he will continue to be wrong and lose credibility with the publishing industry, see e.g. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/08/10/defending-regional-excellence-in-research-or-why-beall-is-wrong-about-scielo/ and comments 12.203.54.183 (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me - I fail to understand. What is your question? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the question was when is a publisher notable enough to be listed in Wikipedia. I guess the question was spurred by Randykitty saying that no separate Wikipedia entry for this "minor" publisher is justified because it only publishes one notable journal. Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). talks about when a journal is notable, but that doesn't fully resolve the question on whether a publisher page is neeeded or justified. 12.130.116.21 (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably publishers are covered by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The general rule is Wikipedia:Notability, then when these specialized rules are made, they are lists of exceptions that make it easier for certain topics to get articles. Specialized notability rules give more options, and never take anything away. In general, the WP:GNG on the WP:N covers everything. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I really think JMIR Publications should be a separate page. The Journal of Medical Internet Research is only one of at least 15 journals of this publisher, at least 10 of which are indexed in PubMed, and they are all notable and have their own ISSNs and editorial boards. JMIR Publications is also notable for a number of other innovations which I cannot add to this page because they go beyond this one journal, e.g. co-founding WebCite or TrendMD, an advertising network / article recommendation network used by hundreds of STM publishers. 209.119.135.233 (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

That's incorrect: if you search the NLM Catalog for JMIR Publication, you get 11 hits and only one says "currently indexed for [[MEDLINE]" JMIR itself). All the other "journals"only get into PubMed through PubMed Central, which is not selective enough (it actually contains a fair number of [[predatory publishing|predatory journals) to satisfy WP:NJournals. As far as I can see, none of them are notable at this moment. --Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing incorrect, the above says that over 10 journals are in PubMed, not Medline. So to go back to the notability question (when is a publisher notable?), Randykitty's position is that a publisher is only notable if at least 2 journals are in Medline? Then please delete wikipedia pages of "predatory" publishers such as OMICS, which doesn't even made it into PubMed / PubMedCentral, let alone Medline 173.33.254.137 (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

OMICS is highly notable because of the coverage they have gotten, even though all of that coverage is negative, given the very low quality of their products. (If I remember correctly, there is even coverage about them not being included in PubMed/PMC (but I may be mistaken, I didn't check). A publisher is notable if they meet WP:COMPANY or WP:GNG, whether the coverage is positive or negative. A publisher with just one notable product like the current one, almost never warrants a separate article, as any information available (bound to be not much) can be merged into the article on the single notable journal. --Randykitty (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, JMIR Publications has more than one notable product. For example, JMIR mHealth and uHealth is in SCIE as well (http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=D&ISSN=2291-5222), which according to Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) automatically makes that journal notable (it should actually have a separate page). As mentioned above, 10 other JMIR journals are in Pubmed Central and Pubmed (which is not as easy to get into as you think, see the OMICS case), and they are highly cited in other journals and in the press (400k hits on Google). You keep arguing with the number of notable products, which is not specified as criterion in WP:COMPANY or WP:GNG. So, can I challenge you again to specify exactly how many journals in Medline or SCIE a publisher needs to have, or how many Google hits to its' journals, or how many news articles, so that it is considered notable? 99.245.114.166 (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

If you have a one-trick horse, you don't create an article on the horse and an article on the trick. --Randykitty (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Do what you want, but for the record: You are creating confusion between the journal (Journal of Medical Internet Research) and the publisher (JMIR Publications). The publisher name should not redirect to this one journal, even if it is the flagship journal. That's like confusing The_BMJ with BMJ_(company). There is no "one trick". The publisher has 15 more journals than the Journal of Medical Internet Research, some for over 4 years now (in fact, more than 50% of what JMIR Publications publishes is not published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research), all of them except 2 have independent editorial boards, all of them have separate ISSNs and are indexed separately, and some of them will have separate impact factors in 2017. The publisher has been involved in other "non-journal' "products", e.g. cofounder of OASPA, founder of WebCite, cofounder of TrendMd. You are not answering the question posed above - how many "notable" products or services does it take to make a publisher notable? Ehealthprofessor (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Ehealthprofessor The answer to your question is 0. Wikipedia is a summary of what "reliable sources" have said on a topic. If there are no identified reliable sources on a topic, then there is nothing for Wikipedia to say about it. The work of a company is almost irrelevant, because Wikipedia does not recruit researchers or journalists to write original content. If you are looking for original research then this is not the place for publishing new ideas. Please watch that "notable" is a jargon term here with a particular meaning outside the scope of typical English usage. Roughly, "notable" here means "covered in reputable third party journalism". I think you are providing expert unpublished insight above, which is out of scope for what Wikipedia's quality control process can recognize. If you have published sources, then share them. Please do not expect any Wikipedia article to be better than any journalist's article which has already been written. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

According to your own guidelines which you cited above Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), a journal is notable if it is indexed in SCIE, and at least 2 JMIR journals meet this criterion. The reliable source is the Thomson Reuters journal masterlist TR Journals Masterlist. Secondly, OASPA is clearly notable, otherwise it wouldn't have a Wikipedia entry, and that Wikipedia entry mentions JMIR Publications as co-founder. WebCite is notable otherwise it wouldn't have a Wikipedia entry. TrendMD is mentioned on the [[1]] and in the press e.g. TechCrunch as well as on industry news e.g. Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP). There are over 30.000 hits on Google when searching for "JMIR Publications". I could cite many other third-party reliable sources but frankly I don't care enough about what you decide to do, all I am saying is that you are creating a confusion between the journal and the publisher. I am not a wikipedian and it is up to you to decide on whether and how this should be addressed. If you are so adamant of not creating a separate page for JMIR Publications, then perhaps the solution is to have a clear subheading on this page about the publisher itself? Ehealthprofessor (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Ehealthprofessor I acknowledge that I am reading what you are saying, and I acknowledge that I am directly dismissing it. Would you understand if I asked you to please acknowledge that you are dismissing the straightforward criteria with which I have presented you, and that you are devising your own new criteria for what should be in Wikipedia? There are established rules in Wikipedia that are intended to prevent anyone having to create specialized assessments for what does and does not belong in Wikipedia. I and others are willing to continue the conversation about making exceptions for special cases, but for that to happen, I would like to first confirm that you understand that normal objective assessment is supposed to be applied in this case, and that you understand that you are asking to avoid what is usual and instead do something extraordinary. I am unable to have a conversation about the extraordinary when I am not getting confirmation from you that you have understood the base rule of objective quality control in Wikipedia.

I appreciate the information you are sharing. I am not adamant about anything accept mutual acknowledgement of the objective rules. You are a Wikipedian. It is not up to me or anyone else to decide how this should be addressed. Wikipedia might be confusing, but it also is a reflection of the best available information that anyone has been able to identify, and the most popular reference source for everything that it covers. I want it to be right and you must care also. The usual way of starting an article or content addition is by considering a single sentence or fact and determining whether anyone can provide a suitable citation to back it up. I know that these things can be difficult to communicate by text. If you want to meet me by phone or video chat, then email me and I will send you my calendar to meet. Obviously we are both here because we both care and want to find a way to include all the information which can be included. There should not be anything subjective about this decision. I am not seeing what is routinely expected to be able to include information about the company.

You have provided good supporting evidence for making Wikipedia articles on products. I need the citations about the company itself. I fail to understand why first you would say this company has many products, and now you say that the company should have a subheading here in the article for only one of its many products. If the company merits its own page then it should have its own page. Give me what I need, please, or have a brief voice chat with me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to Disambiguate

Publisher [2] has a portfolio of 30 journals [3], including 3 journals in Medline [4], and I believe 5 journals with impact factor (in the range of 2.5-5). Publisher is cofounder of OASPA Open_Access_Scholarly_Publishers_Association ([5]) and was the first open access published the University of California made a open access deal with [6]. It also one of the fastest growing companies in Canada [7] & [8]. It remains misleading to have JMIR Publications redirect to the Journal of Medical Internet Research. Please disambiguate, similar to https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_BMJ and https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/BMJ_(company) --108.168.47.136 (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Publisher vs journal

The publisher is "JMIR Publications", one of his journals is the "Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR)". I find it confusing to cover both on one dictionary entry. Publisher and journal(s) should be on separate pages, like BMJ_(company) (publisher) and The BMJ (journal) The_BMJ. The current setup perpetuates confusion between the publisher and the journal (which is only one of its' journals). --88.217.180.0 (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I added some clarifications. Our usual process is to develop content where it is, and only if the overall article becomes too big, do we then WP:SPLIT. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

According to the latest JCR release, 4 out of the top 7 (Q1) health informatics journals are journals published by JMIR Publications, thus they are definitively notable (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_medical_and_health_informatics_journals). These are distinct journals and should have their own pages rather than being listed under the Journal of Medical Internet Research. It's like listing all journals published by BMJ Publishing under the entry of The BMJ (the journal), which does not make sense. Just my 5 cents...--96.22.39.34 (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)