Jump to content

Talk:International Archives of Medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content deletion[edit]

An IP has been repeatedly removing sourced content about a sham paper being published in this journal w/o any peer review, based on a facebook post that the paper was "published by mistake" and that the "manuscript was finally rejected, although it went online for some hours." The facebook post is obviously neither an independent nor a reliable source. If any secondary source covers this denial we can of course add it to the article, but I don't see any reason for deleting the content in either case. Abecedare (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The supposed "disclaimer" in Facebook is not usable, because we cannot make a valid association between that FB group and the organization. However, if they publish something in their website we can certainly add it to balance the paragraph in question. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2015. We are the publisher of the journal. Please, contact us at info@imed.pub Thank you[edit]

There is a sentence that is not true. I am the publisher of the journal, please, contact me (info@imed.pub) I want to explain about this. Please, remove that sentence until you have heard my explanations. That sentence would damage the reputation of the journal. Please, listen to me before you make a decision, otherwise it would be unfair. Thank you!85.54.6.81 (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done You simply pasted the article and asked us to do what we already told you is not possible, because the material is sourced. Issues in Wikipedia are handled in Wikipedia, not via email. My suggestion to you at this point would be to publish a clarification in your website (not a Facebook group), and then we will include that for balance. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia only repeats what other reliable sources say about the topics we cover. It's not uncommon for someone to come here and say "hey, that source is wrong" and that's fine, but the source is what it is. I understand you don't like it, but that's not reason enough to simply suppress it. There's nothing to explain to us, since we're just repeating what the source says - if they are wrong then you need to be talking to them and get them to retract or recant their story. Alternatively, as I already said, we'll be happy to include a clarification by you, assuming it's done on your website and not a Facebook group. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for explaining. Please, read this http://www.publishopenaccess.com/journals/list-of-journals/disclaimer/ Please, also check Beall's list of predators journals. We are not or have never been listed there, so please correct that sentence. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.54.6.81 (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done I just had a look at that post. I strongly recommend that your company hires someone who knows something about academic publishing and can write acceptable English. What you posted, I fear, is so unprofessional that it completely vindicates the fact that Beall put your company on his list (the journal is indeed not on his list, as you claim above and on your website, but your whole company is on his list). I don't see any reason to change anything in the article, including your weird "explanation". --Randykitty (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • he also wrote a sentence in the page of the journal in Wikipedia You seriously need to get yourself an actual PR person. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher has posted a disclaimer on the dispute article, it should be included in the entrance http://www.publishopenaccess.com/journals/list-of-journals/disclaimer/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curatorofscience (talk • contribs) 06:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done I've added select quotes of their disclaimer. I think we should at least give them a chance to respond to the reports, no matter how poorly it makes them look with their nonsensical, broken English. But seriously, go hire a decent PR person. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have shortened and updated the sentences with Retraction Watch's article on the subject. Feel free to tweak further. Abecedare (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2015[edit]

We, the publishing house of the journal, have published a disclaimer on the article cited in the entrance. Please, add something like "The publisher says that this manuscript has never been accepted for publication". http://www.publishopenaccess.com/journals/list-of-journals/disclaimers/

Thank you. 85.54.6.81 (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done §FreeRangeFrogcroak 07:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2015[edit]

I am sorry for the previous request, I´ve just realized the disclaimer has been cited. That's all we wanted. Thank you 85.54.6.81 (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done §FreeRangeFrogcroak 07:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2015[edit]

Cite 3 is not valid for supporting the affiliations, please, remove it. Affiliation is correct, but the cite is not related with this. 85.54.6.81 (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: I'm not sure what you mean by "affiliations", the citation to the article supports the claim that your journal accepted a bogus paper. It will not be removed. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 07:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I was referring to the affiliation of editor and affiliation of CEO, in first paragraph, not to the following paragraph. Reference 3 is supporting the affiliations and this is not a valid source for that. Please, remove it from there. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.54.6.81 (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2015[edit]

I would like to request changing the writing of "In 2015, as part of a sting operation, science journalist John Bohannon submitted an intentionally deceptive study..." to "In 2015, science journalist John Bohannon claims that he have submitted an intentionally deceptive study..."

Given there is a disagreement about this point, presenting the facts in Mr Bohannon's words as if it were the "official version" is unfair. It would be better to write "Mr Bohannon says.....", "The publisher says..." Thank you 85.54.6.81 (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Nobody sems to contest, not even you, that Bohannon submitted a manuscript to your journal. Writing that he "claims" to have done so suggest that this might actually not be the case. --Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, we agree he submitted a manuscript, but not an "intentionally deceptive study" as it reads. Then, reading that "John Bohannon submitted an intentionally deceptive study" and that "The article was accepted without peer review by the journal's CEO,Carlos Vasquez, who called the manuscript "outstanding" and published without any change for a fee of €600.[3]" are sentences accepting the version of Mr Bohannon only, who is also the author of Reference 3. Wikipedia would be accepting as valid just one point of view, supported by a reference written by the same author. Wikipedia should provide an independent writing where the different versions are shown as such. Please, if you still want to let a paragraph about this controversy just present the different points of view, sources, date of sources or any other objective data and let readers take out their own conclusions without prejudgments. Otherwise, please consider removing the whole paragraph as there are different points of view and different contradictory sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.54.6.81 (talk • contribs)

Not done: WP follows the sources, not opinions. In the present case, I am afraid that the sources support Bohannon's version of events, not yours. Hence, WP reflects that. Read WP:NPOV. "Neutral" doesn't mean giving equal weight to different viewpoints. --Randykitty (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if citing the Bohannon's io9 article is an issue, we can append citations to independent sources such as NPR and New York Magazine to support the same content. Typically we try to avoid citing multiple sources when one would do, but I am fine with the alternate approach if others prefer it. Abecedare (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you have already taken a position and do not want to move it. OK, I can do nothing about that. Just imagine for a second your conclusions are wrong; wouldn´t it be better WP exposed points of view as such? The weight of viewpoints should come from how solid the references supporting viewpoints are, not from a biased writing. Anyway, I do not expect you change a single comma, I can see you have made your choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.54.6.81 (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Don't see how "The journal editors later said that the article hadn't been accepted and was posted on the journal website only "for some hours", while Bohannon produced previous correspondence from the editors that said otherwise." is biased at all - says very neutrally that the journal said it didn't happen and Bohannon said it did. Cannolis (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, be fair. This you have just said here it is not what is now available in WP. We would be happy if you started that paragraph with "In 2015, science journalist John Bohannon says/claims that he submitted... (whatever)" but now it is written as if it were a fact and it is not. He claims that, but this is not true. You are just showing his position, making his words the "official" words of Wikipedia. Be fair and change it to "John Bohannon says..." the same way you wrote "the journal editors later said...". Why do you use reported speech for us and not for him? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.54.6.81 (talk • contribs)

  • The thing is, Bohannon's story is supported by evidence and has been checked by others. Your story about the article being online for only a few hours is demonstrably false. End of story. Please stop coming back here and wasting everybody's time unless you have new evidence to present. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Archives_of_Medicine&oldid=1200418396"