Skip to main content
SOCRATES (SU CATALOG) | DATABASES | E-JOURNALS | SULAIR HOME | SU HOME

Nova and Wikipedia

As an administrator at Wikipedia (User name DGG) have been attempting to deal with the material on this publisher at Wikipedia, and my opinions there can be seen on the appropriate talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nova_Publishers&action=edit

The purpose of Wikipedia is to present sourced encyclopedic information fairly, and excessive praise of a product unsupported by objective evidence is considered unencyclopedic. So is implied praise of a product based on selective and unrepresentative statistics. Similarly, using an article discussing the inadequacies of a particular few titles to impugn a publishers reputation is consider unencyclopedic also.

What is representative statistics, is that apparently not a single one of their titles in any subject is included in Journal Citation Reports, either the science or the social sciences edition.

I have my own opinion based on many years of collecting materials in chemistry and biology for Princeton, and I can say here what I can not appropriately say at Wikipedia, that neither I nor my successors have ever purchased a journal of theirs in these or related subjects. I, at least, have never even been asked by any member of the faculty to do so.

I am told that their reputation in the social sciences is somewhat higher.

David Goodman
previously, Biological Science Bibliographer, Princeton University Library

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.