Baishideng Publishing Group
academic journal publishing company
Baishideng Publishing Group (BPG; Chinese: 百世登出版集团) is a publisher of medical journals based in Pleasanton, California. It was established on January 15, 1993, and originally published only one journal: the Chinese-language Journal of New Digestology (renamed to the World Chinese Journal of Digestology in 1999; 世界华人消化杂志). Its second journal was the World Journal of Gastroenterology, originally launched in 1995 as the China National Journal of New Gastroenterology. As of 2017, the company published 43 journals, 42 in English and one in Chinese.
The company joined the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) in 2017. They are also a member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA). All 43 of BPG's journals are members of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Baishideng Publishing Group was listed on the 'original' Beall's List of potential predatory open access publishers. The publisher has persisted in being listed at a successor to Beall's List, Stop Predatory Journals. BPG was named in a 2019 cover story of The Walrus as a "junk publisher" alongside Scientific Research Publishing, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, and OMICS International.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Baishideng Publishing Group” is academic journal publishing company. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Baishideng, Publishing and Group, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “academic journal publishing company” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Contemporary correspondence, administrative files and participant testimony can test how later narratives organized the event or institution. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 16, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q54958933. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1993, 1999, 1995 and 2017.
Institutional narratives can privilege the records that survived while minimizing voices that were never formally collected. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.
- Event chronology
- Institutional context
- Locating named record creators
Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Baishideng Publishing Group”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Baishideng Publishing Group primary sources, Baishideng Publishing Group archive and Baishideng research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Baishideng Publishing Group”?
- Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
- Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Baishideng Publishing Group” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.