Talk:Nova Science Publishers

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nova's ranking on the different sub-indicators in the 57 publishers comparative study published in Bibliotheksdienst 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Why Were My Edits Reverted? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Further Criticism 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion