Talk:Journal of Medical Internet Research

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Anything that touches on scholarly publishing; he got their blessing. fgnievinski (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course. I quote from  https://en.wikipedia.org/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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: I'd support summarizing the second paragraph; say, one sentence for each Beall and Eysen. fgnievinski (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  done. also removed a sentence that sounded like an advertisement. Furorimpius (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: COI

message: :: Publisher  has a portfolio of 30 journals , including 3 journals in Medline , 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 () and was the first open access published the University of California made a open access deal with . It also one of the fastest growing companies in Canada  & . It remains misleading to have JMIR Publications redirect to the Journal of Medical Internet Research. Please disambiguate, similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_BMJ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMJ_(company) --108.168.47.136 (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to Disambiguate

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Publisher vs journal