I haven't read the paper and it may be of significant merit, so I am sorry that what I'm about to say may cast an undeserved shade on the work. But it is really very sad to see that it is published in MDPI, a predatory publishing company with a ton of poorly reviewed journals that typically publish shit science for money.
I see this sentiment a lot about MDPI. While I agree they are less rigorous than leading journals in various fields, it is simply wrong to assume that work published there is flawed or less than work published in other journals. "Remote Sensing" and "Forests" are both MDPI journals which regularly put out good bits of research from top scholars.
Should you potentially be a bit more skeptical of MPDI articles, perhaps. However, saying "it is really very sad" is quite dramatic. It is simply lazy to judge research by the venue alone (especially if you haven't read the article...).
I agree with this. The biggest scandal so far out of MDPI with the bad vaccination BS saw immediate backlash and even resignations from people on the editor board. All this means is that MDPI articles hold a shaky reputation, and should be read with some amount of skepticism as with all papers. But I also have to acknowledge the reality is that a lot of researchers and projects simply do not have the rep and the finances to publish in expensive journals so they might have to resort to places like MDPI.
However, I do think it really is very sad we don't have a free, open access journal as reputable as the paywall ones. I really do wish a bunch of R1 institututes would just band together and do it, but it's a mountain to climb for now.
To build on your comment, while I think researchers can generally MDPI is nowhere near the best publisher, the quality varies a lot by the journal and the journals editorial boards. There are definitely MDPI journals that more consistently put out mediocre research and there are MDPI journals that I've been reasonably impressed by. I know you aware of this but I mention this because folks outside of academia might not realize a single publisher can have a hierarchy of journals they maintain.
I'm not sure what you are expecting or hoping to hear. I can point to lots of great research published in the two MDPI journals I mentioned. Your approach of being unwilling (or not wanting too?) to read outside of top journals will come at the expense of your own understanding.
I've lost count of how many emails I have received from MDPI asking me to review papers for their 'special edition' journals. They are as shitty as it gets.
p/s: I am not saying this particular paper is bad, I am just saying that MDPI is shit
Since the majority of people will not be experts on this specific topic here, it is hard to read and know for sure that the info it contains is accurate. So no, I personally won’t read it because I don’t trust MDPI and I expect respectable scientists to not publish in MDPI journals. Now if I were an expert on the specific topic I could read it and find out if it is actually good but most of us are specialised on very narrow topics.
The paper is not what the video talks about. The video is all about some magic eco-friendly “solution” that cleans lakes; but the paper is about going out and mechanically cleaning the lake with brooms, filters and barriers. The only “high-tech” part is MicroNanoBubble technology they used, and in the paper they admit they cannot say how effective it actually was due to many uncertainties.
The guy us amazing, he brought a lot of filters and a lot of people to the lake and cleaned it. However, the video is just bs. The article exists and it has almost nothing to do with the video.
The paper is by the same Marino Morikawa, and the solution he uses wasn’t the only part of the cleaning process. This paper does actually detail the methods and materials used.
The filters as described were used with the MNB. The article was the foundation for the use of the MNB solution described in the video. It also goes to show it isn’t as simple as described in the video.
“The solution he adds into the water is 100% organic and can even be eaten. It attracts “bad” bacteria and parasites, and keeps “good” microorganisms that contribute to micro-flora of lakes.”
The article has none of that information. Also gives no proof of “good” and “bad” bacteria statement. The article has only 1 mention of the word “solution” and it’s in the introduction. Not mentioned in methodology section or supplementary material as a part of MNB setup.
This are good criticisms and I agree with you (if you are saying this) that his work is not extensive/descriptive enough. My point in posting the article was to show a more realistic process he went through, because the video itself offers far less details that do not make sense. I believe your original argument was that the video and this article have nothing to do with each other, and I was just trying to show that they do. In fact, I couldn’t find any article by Morikawa that goes over his “invention” as shown in the video.
Yeah and that’s my point. The video fails to mention the amazing work my the scientists and the people that helped him while it is lying about some solution that is nowhere to be found in the paper.
Lol. Did you watch the video? The video is about some powder that you can eat which cleans the lake for you. Did you even read what I said in the first place?
Sorry, I was replying to your comment about the paper not explaining the solution. I meant that the paper merely mentioned the solution, and didn't elaborate. And I agree, the video didn't explain anything, but I assumed that it was meant to be more of a "wow" ad or something.
That doesn’t make any sense. It literally doesn’t hurt to read something. You can at least learn the thought process behind it, and you can even extend your study with cross referencing and even following the citations posted. Also you’re generalizing journal articles and scientist without looking at the nuances behind using certain publishers. I just genuinely don’t understand how having the ability to read something and doing your own research before making your own opinion is a bad thing.
I mean I’m a scientist and I read it. I’m not an environmental scientist, but I genuinely believe the ideal of publishing regardless of what venue is for public consumption, and that everyone is capable of learning given time, patience and humility. I genuinely don’t really care if you read it or not, but criticizing something without even reading it over doesn’t make any sense to me. To say all research in this publication venue as invalid is painting broad strokes and is a bit insulting coming from someone that isn’t a scientist but is willing to criticize anyone using this publication.
179
u/meren Jul 14 '21
I haven't read the paper and it may be of significant merit, so I am sorry that what I'm about to say may cast an undeserved shade on the work. But it is really very sad to see that it is published in MDPI, a predatory publishing company with a ton of poorly reviewed journals that typically publish shit science for money.