PRO-SCIENCE
These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence-based through credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased, and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias but adhere to scientific principles. See all Pro-Science sources.
- Overall, we rate the Clinics and Practice Journal Pro-Science and Mostly Factual for reporting due to being published by a company that has failed fact checks in other journals.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: PRO-SCIENCE
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
Country: Switzerland
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: EXCELLENT
Media Type: Journal
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
History
The Clinics and Practice Journal is published by MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute), formerly Molecular Diversity Preservation International, an open-access journal publisher based in Basel, Switzerland. Clinics and Practice is an international, scientific, peer-reviewed, open access journal on clinical medicine, published bimonthly online by MDPI. MDPI publishes over 400 journals.
Read our profile on Swiss Media and Government.
Funded by / Ownership
The publisher of the Clinics and Practice Journal is MDPI AG, which Shu-Kun Lin owns. Here is the list of the Management Team. According to “MDPI Open Access Information and Policy.” MDPI articles and all its journals are open access where authors pay a one-time Article Processing Charge (APC) to cover the costs of peer review administration and management; here is “General Information on MDPI’s Article Processing Charges (APC).”
Analysis / Bias
Clinics and Practice Journal covers the study of Neuroscience. Studies are published via open access, such as this: Inquiry of the Metabolic Traits in Relationship with Daily Magnesium Intake: Focus on Type 2 Diabetic Population. Like all others reviewed, this study is Pro-Science, well-researched and low-biased.
While the Clinics and Practice Journal has not failed a fact-check, its publisher has faced criticism as an open-access predatory journal. Read our full review on MDPI.
Failed Fact Checks
- None for the Clinics and Practice Journal; however, other MDPI journals have failed fact checks.
Overall, we rate the Clinics and Practice Journal Pro-Science and Mostly Factual for reporting due to being published by a company that has failed fact checks in other journals. (M. Huitsing 07/09/2024)
Source: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/clinpract
Last Updated on July 9, 2024 by Media Bias Fact Check
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
or
Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources