Talk:Taylor & Francis/Archive 1

• I notice that the T&F Group is.
• However, T&F publish.
• Is there a mistake--or do I not know British grammar?

Yours, etc., Ludvikus 23:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does the link to William Francis go a punk band called Aiden? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.32.220.154 (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

 

Image:Logo 01.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Any reason to not move this to Taylor & Francis? It seems to be the form used by the company. Nurg (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed the move makes sense, so have moved it.--cjllw ʘ TALK 09:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.crcpress.com/

--222.64.215.26 (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Relevant source to be included https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9858 Fintech01 (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to open a debate to end "edit war" and build consensus on this question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientificrigor12 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Per user: Monopoly31121993(2) recent edit: I think this is generally good and well written interesting content. I just don't think it's really a Taylor & Francis controversy? It's not like their journals are accused of lax/bad peer review or anything, and it is the author's responsibility to verify that all authors contributed to the manuscript. I'm not really sure what a publisher can do to prevent paper mills from putting forth legitimate research and then letting others ride their coattails for cash. For sure it's unethical, I just think there must be a better Wiki page for this than Taylor & Francis' page? If the same general section has been added to other publishers (Springer Nature, Wiley, Oxford University Press, etc...), I would also ask user: Monopoly31121993(2) (pending discussion) to make sure to clean up other Wiki pages to ensure this content is put in the right place. Crawdaunt (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I think introduction should be improved. "is well known for it's controversial practices" I think that is well known as one of the main academic publishers. Controversial practices should be mentioned, but in other paragraphs (as in case of Elsevier or MDPI). "Taylor & Francis Group is an international company originating in England that publishes books and academic journals, and is well known for it's controversial practices, and high costs for access to research articles or expedited publishing. It is a division of Informa plc, a United Kingdom–based publisher and conference company.[6]" Karlaz1 (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Karlaz1: I work in marketing for Taylor and Francis (T&F) and have disclosed a conflict of interest. The cited source does not appear to support the "known for its controversial practices..." sentence. The source merely states that "some of its biomedical journals" offer expedited peer review for a $7,000 fee and an angry tweet about the capitalistic nature of it "blew up." T&F publishes about 2,400 journals and offers expedited peer review in only 46 of them where public health or other matters often create urgency.

It's also worth noting the cited article is from a column series called "Fixing Capitalism" that is focused on criticizing capitalism, rather than neutral reporting. Wikipedia's own definition of columns is that they are usually opinion rather than fact-based reporting. I don't think this author's opinions are of any special significance to warrant inclusion and T&F is merely mentioned as an example of what the author is complaining about. AnneGablesGreen (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Truth be told I don't know T&F for their 'controversial practices' though that is just my subjective opinion. I am a post-doctoral fellow with no ties to any journal/publisher re: COI. I know the 'expedited review for a fee' blowup.

Most of the other issues in the article I had never heard of (except the 'conceptual penis paper'). That's just to say I can't comment on the genuine notoriety of those issues, but certainly to put the 'known for controversial practices' part or any details in intro is too much IMO. As a Drosophila researcher, I probably know T&F most as the group managing the long-running journal "Fly", which has a positive reputation, and publishes the occasional noteworthy methods article. Crawdaunt (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, agree with that. The original statement was worse for TF, so I tried to improve it, but was not sure if I should remove it completely. Now it's better. Thank you. Karlaz1 (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

There was a series of hoaxes by the same people Grievance studies affair. One of the hoaxes is described in the article. I have found retraction of the second hoax from an another Taylor & Francis journal. If you want more sources and the link to the original article, it's a matter of minutes, you do not need my help. I am sorry but I do not understand your revert. Xx236 (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

" not an article from Cogent Social Sciences, and also insufficient evidence provided that this retraction is noteworthy re: WP:DUE. To be considered controversial, articles should have drawn sufficient attention that one can cite some credible 3rd party source commenting on the retraction. Otherwise we would be adding all retractions ever to every publisher's Wiki page."

Please read Grievance studies affair.

Xx236 (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Looked this up after deleting edit. Seems good, and found a NYT article mentioning that article amongst the series of hoaxes. But the former edit had none of that context. It just said "An another article was retracted [ref: retraction statement]." Feel free to re-add but ensure there is context for the edit. Perhaps editing the paragraph to focus more on introducing what the Grievance studies affair is, and also a ref to a source like the NYT article I found where the article in question is explicitly mentioned? Article I found is here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/arts/academic-journals-hoax.html

--Crawdaunt (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  The redirect The Journal of Legal History has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § The Journal of Legal History until a consensus is reached. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  The redirect International Journal of Electronics has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § International Journal of Electronics until a consensus is reached. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  The redirect Journal of Multicultural Discourses has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § Journal of Multicultural Discourses until a consensus is reached. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  The redirect Administrative Theory & Praxis has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § Administrative Theory & Praxis until a consensus is reached. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  The redirect Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 9 § Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences until a consensus is reached. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  The redirect Immigrants and Minorities has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 9 § Immigrants and Minorities until a consensus is reached. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  The redirect Journal of Legal History has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 9 § Journal of Legal History until a consensus is reached. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  The redirect The Pacific Review has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 9 § The Pacific Review until a consensus is reached. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@MaryMO (AR) from what I can see, these are mostly good edits. Thanks! I did revert the one addition of this SDG Five Wheel thing since I'm not sure the note on the one journal is really warranted, given the entire Five Wheel concept seems quite niche... Initiatives like CarbonNeutral(R) are also a bit suspect per WP:DUE. I left these for now as it's totally fair to highlight a commitment to environmental practices, but the level of detail to say CarbonNeutral(R) etc... CarbonNeutral(R) is just one of many companies and I have no sense for whether their green practices are any better than any other (many of which are criticized for 'inventing' carbon credit rebates, etc...). It's also unclear what really came out of this commitment beyond lip service. So I worry this is also WP:UNDUE. -- not saying it's a bad commitment, but just doesn't warrant much space on the T&F page.

In general, good spirit, but in an effort to keep the page focused on things specifically pertinent to T&F, I might reduce the level of detail in edits to avoid blocks of text that are about say... CarbonNeutral or the Five Wheel concept, rather than being about T&F. And if the initiative is so niche that it needs a tangent for explanation, it probably doesn't qualify for dedicated sentences/paragraphs on the page per WP:UNDUE.

Cheers

--Crawdaunt (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback; it can be tricky finding the right level of info to add, especially when you write about something that is interesting to you :-) MaryMO (AR) (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)