#MDPI publication: "User Preferences for Cartographic Presentation in Tourist Information Search Across Geographic Scales"
The research examines the link between the type of tourist information that is searched for and the graphical level of abstraction, as well as geographic scale.
Conclusion: a single type of map that could be useful doesn't exist and different map styles are necessary, depending on the situation.
I'm glad there is a study to demonstrate that. 🤣
If you're unsure what to map in #OpenStreetMap for #accessibility, this #MDPI article may help you: "Identifying Key Environmental Factors Influencing Wheelchair Navigation"
„Nach einer kurzen Vorstellungsrunde führte Herr Roth in die Präsentation des Verlags ein, der durchaus polarisiere und für viele ein Kuriosum sei. Vor fast 30 Jahren als Außenseiter außerhalb des klassischen Subskriptionssystems tradierter Verlage angetreten, werde MDPI mit zunehmendem Erfolg trotz hoher Nachfrage von einem Teil der Forschenden auch misstrauisch begegnet. Ein Beispiel sei der deutschsprachige Wikipedia-Eintrag zu #MDPI, dessen Diskussionsverlauf tatsächlich den Eindruck erwecken kann, dass er stark auf Kritik fokussiert und weniger auf Aspekte, die eine neutralere Beurteilung erlauben. Auch sei MDPI auf einer anonym betriebenen Webseite, die sich als seriöses Informationsportal ausgab, jedoch kriminelle Machenschaften verfolgte, als #Raubverlag gelistet gewesen.“
Der schweizerische Verlag MDPI mit seinen knapp 500 Open-Access-Zeitschriften ist Gegenstand kontroverser Diskussionen. Hinsichtlich seiner Praktiken zur Qualitätssicherung wird er von Forschenden sehr unterschiedlich bewertet. Ein Blick auf verschiedene Qualitätsaspekte zeigt dagegen, dass MDPI sich oftmals gar nicht so sehr von anderen Verlagen unterscheidet. Um direkt mit MDPI in den Dialog zu gehen und kritische […]
Abstract. Scientists are increasingly overwhelmed by the volume of articles being published. The total number of articles indexed in Scopus and Web of Science has grown exponentially in recent years; in 2022 the article total was ∼47% higher than in 2016, which has outpaced the limited growth—if any—in the number of practicing scientists. Thus, publication workload per scientist has increased dramatically. We define this problem as “the strain on scientific publishing.” To analyze this strain, we present five data-driven metrics showing publisher growth, processing times, and citation behaviors. We draw these data from web scrapes, and from publishers through their websites or upon request. Specific groups have disproportionately grown in their articles published per year, contributing to this strain. Some publishers enabled this growth by hosting “special issues” with reduced turnaround times. Given pressures on researchers to “publish or perish” to compete for funding, this strain was likely amplified by these offers to publish more articles. We also observed widespread year-over-year inflation of journal impact factors coinciding with this strain, which risks confusing quality signals. Such exponential growth cannot be sustained. The metrics we define here should enable this evolving conversation to reach actionable solutions to address the strain on scientific publishing.
#Peer_review is one of the key stones of trust in #SchollComm. This blogpost by a researcher about here experience being a reviewer for #MDPI is interesting for those considering publishing, reading or reviewing for such journals
https://deevybee.blogspot.com/2024/08/guest-post-my-experience-as-reviewer.html
I recently met somebody actually working for #MDPI and before figuring that out, I was tricked by their partner into insult #MDPIgarbage.
Long story short, I consoled them that at least they weren't working for #Elsevier.
But they seemed really nice and extremely unhappy to be stuck with a terrible employer due to economic circumstances.
DoudouOSM
Mark A. Hanson
Markus Osterhoff
César Pallares 
Thorbjörn Sievert