Talk:Article processing charge: Difference between revisions
Samuel Wiki (talk | contribs) Assessment (Start): banner shell, Academic Journals, Open, Open Access (Rater) |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Academic Journals}}, {{WikiProject Open}}, {{WikiProject Open Access}}. Tag: |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1= |
||
{{WikiProject Academic Journals |
{{WikiProject Academic Journals}} |
||
{{WikiProject Open |
{{WikiProject Open}} |
||
{{WikiProject Open Access |
{{WikiProject Open Access|importance=Mid}} |
||
}} |
}} |
||
Latest revision as of 14:22, 9 February 2024
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
18 U.S.C. §1734 statement
[edit] | This section is missing information about historical 18 U.S.C. §1734 statement, somewhat analyzed by Kent Anderson. (July 2022) |
Moving this to the Talk page because I find it difficult to understand the context. This section of the article address Criticisms of APCs, not the history of how articles were payed for. I suppose the criticism that could be gathered from Kent's blog post (not a reliable source in my opinion) is that APC-supported articles run the risk of being unreliable, biased studies because industry could pay for them. But industry pays for so many things long before the article lands in a journal. I would argue that a historical discussion of 18 U.S.C. §1734 would belong in an entry on the history of journal publishing and "page fees" from the print journal era. This is not directly relevant to the rise of APCs. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)