Talk:Academic journal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Academic Journals (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.
WikiProject Sociology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Confusing reviews and book reviews[edit]

The following paragraph under a discussion of review articles seems confused, is it a mix of statements regarding review articles and book reviews?

Unlike original research articles, book reviews tend to be solicited submissions, sometimes planned years in advance. Book review authors are paid a few hundred dollars for reviews, because of this, the standard definitions of open access do not require review articles to be open access, though many are so. They are typically relied upon by students beginning a study in a given field, or for current awareness of those already in the field.

--Vlehdonv (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

American or world-wide?[edit]

Under "Scholarly articles", why does it say "American academia"? Why not world-wide?

because other systems differ somewhat, this has been clarified.DGG 01:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

not complete[edit]

This article is still not complete--links are here to several more-specific pages that have not yet been written--they will be written over the next few days. DGG 01:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just done a start for List of academic journals. DGG 03:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

letter ranks[edit]

Can you give the exact place on their website where the list is located?

  • And I would think this must be in a few subjects only pertinent to their interest, please specify
    • And, it is stated throughout the article that impact factors are not a measure of prestige, so I have changed the wording a little.

DGG 18:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

References[edit]

Isn't it ironic that this article doesn't have academic references?--BMF81 12:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is :) --WikiSlasher 03:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

example[edit]

The example is probably necessary, because it is in fact not always clear that any but the major journals are important. History seems a particularly obious example to use. DGG 07:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Journalcovers.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Journalcovers.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"List of the journal locators"[edit]

I have reverted for the umpteenth time an edit by an anon IP who adds a section about journal locators. It is almost totally irrelevant to this article. This editor makes troll-like edits to academic and in particular journal-related articles, either to insert this section or to aggressively challenge trivial facts, usually by adding {{fact}} tags. His dynamic IP address is 222.64.xxx.xxx, which resolves to Shanghai, China. andy (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Now also operating as 124.78.xxx.xxx - still Shanghai. andy (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Refereed vs non-refereed journals[edit]

This article needs some discussion of the difference between "refereed" and "non-refereed" journals (some journals have both refereed and non-refereed articles). This makes a difference in the kind of review they receive. Non-refereed journals are reviewed by an editor or editorial board for quality, but do not go through the process of multiple, and typically blind, peer-review characteristic of a refereed journal. That also qualifies the statement made in this article that academic journals are peer-reviewed, by definition. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact. Starting with Section 1.2 of the MLA Style Manual, which can be viewed here: [1] (use the "look inside" link). Some more books on academic publishing that explicitly discuss non-refereed journals: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I think you're defining "academic journal" quite narrowly in such a way that a priori excludes non-refereed journals from the category of "academic journal". As you can plainly see, not everybody who is writing on the topic of academic journals shares your definition. (I'll note here that nobody is saying that non-refereed journals are considered as prestigious as refereed ones, and several of the sources I've cited even warn scientific authors to avoid them.)
I will also add that you yourself are defending a definition of "academic journal" that is itself not based on any kind of citation whatsoever, and that the article in general lacks citations and has been flagged for it. Its pretty clear that how this article defines and describes academic journals is not written in stone and, in fact, could used some rewriting with reference to outside sources. Peter G Werner (talk) 08:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I have asked User:DGG for his opinion (he's a retired university librarian). One thing I note about the references you give above (and the way the discussion on DGG's talk page is going) is that this seems mainly (exclusively?) to concern the humanities (and perhaps the social sciences). Nevertheless, none of these sources gives a concrete example and I don't know of any example in the sciences. As for the current article, you're absolutely correct that it is (far) less than ideal. However, I've lacked time to overhaul it and barring that, I reverted your additions as unsourced because adding more unsourced assertions is not really going to make it better... --Crusio (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

I am concerned about this recent edit. One thing is that several of the sources are suspect (I have removed the most obvious nonreliable sources and tagged most of the others. Another is that most of what is claimed there is wrong. Let me go through this point by point. 1/ "The typical academic journal has very low distribution and thus provides authors with very limited exposure". Seems reasonable at first sight, bt which scientist still searches for articles by looking at tables of contents? Nowadays we have databases and an article that appeared in the Nauru Journal of Obscure Data will be indexed at a minimum in Google Scholar and be easy to find. Any journal more notable, will also be listed in indexes like PubMed, Web of Science, or others. 2/ "It can take up to two years before an academic journal reviews an article for publication". This is not supported by the sources cited. At best, one of which says that it can take years to publish a scholarly article. It's a PowerPoint presentation and it is not clear whether "several years" includes, for example, the time to carry out the research being reported. In any case, in most fields, a journal that takes more than, say, six weeks to review a paper will soon find itself out of business. In the social sciences and humanities, things may sometimes go slower, but two years seems over he top. 3/ "In recent years, rather than seek publication in academic journals, many researchers have opted to publish on the Internet". One wonders how these "many researchers" deal with promotion and tenure committees... Not really sourced either.

The editor who has added these remarks is very strident about them ("well-known truth"), so before reverting this addition completely, I'd like to hear the opinion of other editors here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I support Rendy Kitty's views in this matter, and I have decided to review these references. The first reference is a power point slide which can be downloaded from the linked reference (#2) [8]. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2013 (Signature and time stamp belatedly added by User:Steve Quinn on 24 October 2013).

Power point slide[edit]

First of all, page three of this PP refers to monographs and not academic journals. It also says these monographs have limited distribution. However, what exactly is meant by "limited distribution"? Also, "limited distribution" compared to what?
Page three also states the distribution of these monographs "is steadily diminishing". This appears to be an unsupported statement. From my view monographs have been proliferating. Just take a look at the Springer website [9], for example, and choose various disciplines [10]. Additionally, take a look at Wiley-Blackwell and see how many books have been published [11] around the last five years, or ten years. Also, "Wiley-Blackwell publishes nearly 1,500 peer-reviewed journals and 1,500+ new books annually in print and online, as well as databases, major reference works and laboratory protocols."
In any case, my view or the view of the recent edit can be considered only opinion. I am not really presenting anything that shows either view is statistically sound. Neither is the recent edit (so far). I think this shows that distribution of these monographs is not steadily diminishing.
Page three also states the unsubstantiated logical conclusion that pay walls and membership limit the readership-audience. A reliable source or two is really needed to back this up. I think this statement is an over generalization. For one thing, academic libraries at colleges and universities are probably going to be able to have the needed materials available. How limited or how available I cannot say; but this helps to specify or define the argument.
Then the power point goes on to say and show that SUIC academic papers and other related materials are available online. This is not unique. For example, MIT has the same service available [12] and I can access scholarly works that have been refereed and otherwise vetted, including thesis and scientific articles, even though I am not an MIT alumni, faculty, or student. U-Penn has a similar service available known as Scholarly Commons [13].
At the same time, this source now counters the recent edit's opening statement, "The typical academic journal has very low distribution and thus provides authors with very limited exposure." If anything, this power point shows scholarly works are becoming more available as time goes on through access points such as SUIC. MIT and U-Penn portals can be added to this mix, as well as other universities. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
More and more, as time passes, authors of journal articles and other scholarly works are now posting their work on the University site, which he or she is affiliated. Hence, both distribution and exposure appear to be increasing. This is also supported by the graph on page 11.
Finally, it is not clear that posting only on the arxiv.org site is accepted as a reliable and citable source. It is true that some articles, which have been independently posted there, have received substantial citations. But, I doubt this is the norm.
Maybe someday it will become commonplace. But at this time, arxiv.org is a self-published repository. So, it is a great place to download an author's self-published version that is also in a prestigious peer reviewed publication. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Australian news article[edit]

The second reference appears to be cherry picking by presenting an article in an Australian newspaper that discusses the faults of pay wall publishers. If anything this article supports the view that limited access has been and still changing. According to the article, this change is happening because the internet, Google search, and Google Scholar make articles much more widely available than in the days before the internet. Furthermore, some institutions are changing their policy resulting in broader availability. Hence, the article states that the National Institutes of Health has decided "that all medical research it funds has to be made publicly available within 12months". Also, this article was published in 2009. The push and publicity within the last four years are a catalyst for increasing accessibility, four years later. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

UC Berkley[edit]

This is more of the same. First the faults of pay wall publishing are noted. In this case, one person may have started some kind of insurgency. There is agreement that accessibility is more so and can be more so thanks to the world wide web. But, this does not support the statement that academic journals have low distribution and "very limited" exposure. In fact this article states that "Amsterdam-based Elsevier publishes and distributes over 2,000 academic journals, and its business is based on charging fees to access, read, and share academic articles. Gowers argued that Elsevier’s access fees are “so far above the average that it seems quite extraordinary that they can get away with it.'"
This is one academic publisher producing 2,000 academic journals and "they can get away with it". I am not seeing low distribution and "very limited" exposure.

Recent edit synthesis[edit]

The recent edit appears to be a synthesis or perhaps just plain original research based on an article and university web sites disseminating a view that supports the open access movement. That's fine. But, this is about the control pay wall publishers have, and parts of the open access movement; which is covered in this article. There is no bridge between these sources and low distribution of journals and "very limited" exposure. This is about alternate publishing strategies. These alternate publishing strategies appear to be taking place in parallel with pay wall publishing. Also, as I stated earlier, since 2009 the publicity and push behind such movements is causing changes. In 2012, this UC Berkeley article shows one of the results. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, a source is needed to say "typical journal". This cannot be inferred from this set of articles because that might be construed as synthesis.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I am not seeing anything in these sources that says what a "typical journal" is. The first sentence of the recent edit appears to be promoting a point of view, not actually supported by the sources. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Spinger OA[edit]

Even Sprnger adds peer reviewed OA journals [14],

[15], [16].

So, what is the "typical academic journal" that "has very low distribution and thus provides authors with very limited exposure"? These are unsubstantiated claims in this most recent edit. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy[edit]

All three sentences of this most recent do not accurately reflect what the references say. And, sorry to say, but -- in fact, I don't think these sentences accurately reflect any sources that exist. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverted[edit]

I have reverted the recent edits and restored the last stable version, per the above detailed reasoning of Steve Quinn. Please do not restore this material without first obtaining a consensus here. --Randykitty (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

  • The editor restored the material so I've removed it again per this discussion. I've warned the editor about warring. andy (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Difference[edit]

What is the diffrence between Academic journal and scientific journal ? For me no difference and why do we speak about book review in an article about academic journal ? For me the title of this article has to be changed into academic press and not academic journal. Snipre (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

  • A scientific journal is a journal publishing work in the "hard" sciences: chemistry, physics, biology, etc. Academic journals also includes journals from the social sciences and humanities. In the latter two fields (especially the last one), book reviews are an important part of the written academic production. Even many journals in the sciences publish book reviews. So I don't think that we need to change the title or remove the book reviews. --Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • in concur with Randykitty, academic journals generally cover any sort of field in which academics publish scholarly papers. Hard sciences have book reviews as well. for instance, Mathematical reviews and Notices of the American Mathematical Society both regularly publish book reviews. --Mark viking (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok for book review. But do you do a difference in English between hard sciences and human sciences ? Snipre (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
To understand the difference between academic and scientific journals, you need to understand the difference between academia and science. A history journal (e.g. The American Historical Review) is an academic journal, but it is not a scientific journal. Likewise for a journal relating to musical theory (e.g. Journal of Music Theory). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
For me we can have a scientific approach in all human sciences: the tools and the subjects are different but the methods are the same. Doing a difference between a article about historical subject and another about sex behaviour of bees is just an old way of thinking. All articles have the same approach: define a subject or a problem related to the subject, define a methodology to study the subject, apply the methodology and discuss the results. That is a scientific approach and this can be applied in music, history or painting.
Ok, but still we have the problem of relation: academia article includes scientific article or scientific article is just a particular class of academia article ? Right now, scientific article is considered as part of academia arcticle but in that case how can we describe other academia articles which are not scientific article. And if you are asking why I take care of that problem the reason is just the classification of these subjects in Wikidata. So I need a good definition of academia article and scientific article in order to classify them correctly and if necessary to correct at the same time the corresponding articles in wikipedia. Snipre (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a quirk of English to limit the use of the word "science" to the "hard" sciences. In many other languages, including French (I assume that's a language your more familiar with given your user name history), social sciences and humanities are also called "science". So, yes, scientific journal is a subclass of academic journals. Perhaps it would be helpful to have a look at our categorization scheme (see Category:Academic journals). --Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)