Talk:Douglas D. Taylor

SYNTH

The current article states:

"Taylor is on the editorial board of the Journal of Glycobiology of OMICS, Inc.,[5][6]"

This is supported by multiple primary sources directly from OMICS, who is on a list of scammy publications. I don't think we should trust a primary source from a corrupt journal. WP:BLPPRIMARY says to use "extreme caution" when using primary sources on a BLP. The primary source is not supplemented by a secondary one, nor is it self-published.

This is important for two reasons:

• Considering this publication is on a list of predatory journals, it's even more likely than usual that such information is false. In fact there have been similar cases where reliable sources discovered that a scam journal claimed to have prominent scientists on their board that weren't actually.
• There are more than 30 people identified as being on their editorial board. Just as an example, I am on a committee in a trade group, but I have literally only attended one or two meetings. It wouldn't warrant inclusion in my biography by a long shot. Having 30 members on the editorial board makes me seriously question the level of participation of each one, if such an editorial board even exists, and whether it's significant enough to belong in his biography.

CorporateM (Talk) 23:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It is true that such journals have been known to list people who are not on their board. This will need further checking. More generally, the importanceof being on an ed board can vary from journal to journals. In most cases we have not included this info in the wp article on a scientist. ``

This bio doesn't seem to add anything important. Further, some of the info may not be correct. Why are you are going to list only negative things. Why are few or no positive things are mentioned? Since it is so biased to negatives, this should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepout111 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Keepout111: Help us identify aspects that may not be correct, and we will work to fix them. Also, if there is additional noteworthy content about the subject (that can be reliably sourced), please feel free to bring that to our attention. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Taylor's disputed aspects of journal retraction

Taylor responded on Retraction Watch here and disputes various aspects of the journal retraction. I'll leave it up to other editors whether this should be mentioned. I'm especially unclear if it's reliable enough for us to know it's actually Taylor's words. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 05:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Stevietheman, please feel free to mention it. I can't find any reason why it shouldn't be mentioned. Retraction Watch is a notable blog that reports on retractions of scientific papers. Sources like this may be considered reliable especially when there are few of such sources. RW is one of the few blogs with good editorial oversight. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of contentious material per BLP

The unsourced implication that Taylor was "in bed with" OMICs (as Guy put it) was my main concern. When the part about the retraction appeared next to that it gave the impression that he was a sleazeball, but with it gone I think the weight is much more appropriate. I'm still not sure that Retraction Watch alone is reliable enough for a potentially libellous statement on a BLP, but I see that's already been discussed above and don't have any particular insight. So the current version looks good to me. Joe Roe (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, on further review, I came to agree with that part of the removal due to the lack of secondary, reliable sourcing, and it comes off as non-noteworthy anyway. I am confident per earlier review that the retraction happened, but as with any content. its WP:WEIGHT might be further considered. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think the question of weight is important. A retraction, especially if it concerns the word "falsified", is a big black mark for a scientist. But in a case like this, when there are multiple authors and the paper was only partially censured, it's not clear from the retraction alone whether Taylor specifically was actually accused of wrongdoing. And in the Retention Watch post he does in fact claim that it wasn't him but members of his lab that did the study and produced the figures. We do a good job of presenting it as is, though. Joe Roe (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)