is it not excessive to have this table of their relatively non-notable imprints with weak sourcing? im in favor of removal or at least trimming/reformatting Sr1jj (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- It's excessive to have anything remain in any article if it's without adequate sourcing or at least a warning to readers that the material is sourced poorly, if at all. That aside, no, it's not excessive. I'm amazed at the amount of material stripped in the space of two months late this year from this July '25 version (of Materialscientist's). For example, July's
- OmniScriptum is designated as non-academic by the Norwegian Scientific Index,[1] and its subsidiary Lambert Academic Publishing has been described as a predatory vanity press which does "not apply the basic standards of academic publishing such as peer-review, editorial or proof-reading processes."[2]
- has become
- OmniScriptum is listed as non-academic by the Norwegian Scientific Index,[3][4]
- whereas it could instead be something like
- Both Omniscriptum (as Verlag Dr. Müller) and its subsidiary Lambert Academic Publishing are designated as failing to qualify as academic by the Norwegian Scientific Index.[5][6][a] Lambert Academic Publishing has also been described as the "most dominating" among "predatory publishers that seek out authors of new theses", a vanity press which does "not apply the basic standards of academic publishing such as peer-review, editorial or proof-reading processes".[10]
- -- Hoary (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging Sr1jj, -- Hoary (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
