Talk:Biomatrix systems theory

This article is infringing on IP rights and the authors are not entitled to this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.93.229.14 (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

This article has been flagged as WP:NOR since it does not rely a set of wide scientific publications but rather from only one group from the same University. For instance, the main publication cited (REF #1: "Dostal, Elisabeth (2005)") dates from 2005 and reports only 19 citations on Google Scholar as of 29 April 2013 (mainly own citations from the same University). This page is under WP:PROD.

Ledjazz (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment Ledjazz. However, the term "original research", as described at WP:NOR, is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. The policy is, in my understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines, aimed at ensuring that editors use reliable sources and do not put forward their opinions, beliefs or experiences.

Since 1979, about 70 peer reviewed research articles have been published on various aspects of Biomatrix systems theory (also referred to as Biomatrix theory) and its application. Some of these come up if you look for Biomatrix theory or Biomatrix systems theory on Google Scholar.

The main publication you are objecting to, Biomatrix: A Systems Approach to Organisational and Societal Change, has been a textbook for the systems thinking course at the Institute for Futures Research at the University of Stellenbosch for many years. It was also a prescribed reading at MBA courses at the University of Stellenbosch Business School, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Johannesburg University. The [http://www.amazon.com/Biomatrix-Systems-Approach-Organisational-Societal/dp/1919980083/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367398351&sr=1-3&keywords=biomatrix first edition of the book] was published by an imprint of African Sun Media, African Sun Press, which specializes in academic and research publications. So the main publication fulfills several of the Wikipedia recommendations for reliable sources: it is an academic, scientific publication. It is a university level textbook, published by a respected publishing house.

I hope the above clarifies that the article on Biomatrix systems theory is by no means original research.

It would be very appreciated if you removed this comment from other places where it was posted. Thank you for that.

Hrom21 (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not OR, but all the sourcing is primary. To maintain the text it needs secondary sources. ----Snowded ^TALK 00:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all material that made evaluative claims - those would need a third party source of some type. Description using primary sources is OK ----Snowded ^TALK 21:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]