Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Academic Journals
WikiProject Academic Journals
Main / Talk
Main / talk
Writing guide
Main / talk
Main / talk
Notability guidelines
Main / talk
Journals cited by Wikipedia
Main / talk / Exclusions

          This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Academic Journals (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Notice of related discussion[edit]

Editors here may be interested in a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Another_try_at_proposal_for_addition_for_identifying_possible_poor_journals.

International Journal of Business and Emerging Markets[edit]

Could other editors please look at International Journal of Business and Emerging Markets? I am not sure that the journal is notable. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 23:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Borderline at best. It's indexed in EconLit, which is not bad, but that is all. For me personally that is not enough. --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • As academic journals in business go, this one seems pretty decent. No embedded advertising, no article prep fees, low subscription cost, a globally distributed editorial board, and double-blind reviews. Held in many libraries and archived via CLOCKSS. I'd be happier if I saw some impact figures, though. Editor is here on viaf.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

2013 impact factors[edit]

The new impact factors are online (if you have access to the JCR, but publishers usually update their websites quite rapidly). Please also update any references when updating IFs: many articles have the IF not only in the infobox, but also in the text. The publication year needs to be changed to 2014, the title to "2013 JCR". Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


There's an article to be written here. I've started it, but it could be expanded to a much better article, and likely get a WP:DYK from it if we work fast enough. Not sure about how feasible it is to take to GA (or even FA status), but this one has more potential than a lot of things under the umbrella of WP:JOURNALS. Just dropping by to let you know I'm planning on working on this one (plus member journals) over the next few days. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Mega journal nominated for deletion[edit]

If you could please weigh in here. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Best practices for bad journals tied to good organizations[edit]

Many reputable organizations publish a journal of minor influence which do not meet even WP:NJOURNALS. How would anyone feel about them existing as categorized redirects to the organization's Wikipedia article?

Consider the Faculty Dental Journal of the Faculty of Dental Surgery. This organization is an influential authority on dental practices. This journal is their journal, and I presume it publishes excellent boring information which never will be critiqued in other third party sources and therefore will not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria.

Could the article on this journal persist as a redirect to the organization's article, but be categorized in Category:Dentistry journals? I presume that this journal is at least worth mentioning in that organization's article, and it probably could be listed in an article called "List of dentistry journals", but I agree it does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. However, it would be more useful to categorize it then mention it in odd places, yet categorization only happens for items with their own Wikipedia page. That page can be a redirect and still get the categorization.

Randykitty, any thoughts? You PROD'd the page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  • It could meet NJournals if it would get accepted in MEDLINE, for example, or the Science Citation Index Expanded. However, until such time as a journal is notable, I don't think there is anything against redirecting to the parent organization (and it could even be mentioned briefly in that article). Also, redirects can (and sometimes are) categorized, so that's not a problem either. I would not include it in a "list of xxx journals" until it is independently notable, though. Those lists are horrible spam magnets and it's quite a lot of work to keep them clean from, for example, direct links to predatory journals. So I routinely remove entries if there is no corresponding article. The need to check every redirect would make that a bit task harder. As a general note, I think we should only make such redirects for organizations in good standing. Consider OMICS Publications, quite a disreputable publisher. We don't want to have redirects for all of their journals, I think... --Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Redirecting and categorizing the redirect is definitely best practice, in both minor non-WP:NJOURNALS, or in notable journals where redirects where already created e.g. Physical Review D. Taking Phys Rev D for example, you'll see it is categorized in both Category:Physics journals and Category:American Physical Society academic journals. In the case of Faculty Dental Journal, I would definitely categorize the redirect in at least Category:Dentistry journals + establishment year + other journal categories. I would also expand Faculty of Dental Surgery to include the information on its publications. See Ornis Hungarica and Hungarian Ornithological and Nature Conservation Society for example.
As for disreputable publishers, I sort of disagree with Randy, at least in some cases. If we have an article on a notable crap publisher, I think it would make sense to redirect for all its journals, and categorize it in the publisher category only (possibly with Category:Fringe science journals, but certainly not legit journal categories like Category:Physics journals or similar). I wouldn't do that for "spam publishers" (i.e. crap publisher with 200+ journals focusing on volume), but I probably would if let's say the Time cube people has 5-6 serials under one notable publisher.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Lane's example is rather troubling. I take it as an indication that wp:NJournal needs revision, rather than that the journal's article needs deletion. If we delete articles on "boring" well-run journals, we wind up in effect promoting their competition whose sloppier policies permit the publication of more dubious content, which in turn generates the controversy we consider evidence of notability. Is that really what we want our policies to do? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Well keep in mind that we do have articles on fringe journals who are notable. Notability != quality/reliability. The best example I can think of is Journal of Cosmology. They were deleted on grounds of quality and notability, but then they said a lot of really dumb stuff covered in press, and that put them over the threshold of notability. I don't see a particular problem with that, as long as we right the articles accordingly. This is why Westboro Baptist Church has its article on Wikipedia, even if it's not as mainstream as the Roman Catholic Church. The existence of either of these articles these articles does not depend on their religious dogmas being true/accepted/whatever, the quality of their charitable work, etc. Only that they are notable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
That's not the same thing. We have articles on those fringe journals because they meet GNG, just as OMICS meets GNG because of its being so bad. Those are actually easy cases. I'm talking about journals that don't meet GNG and not even NJOURNALS, where we would among ourselves decide which ones are solid enough for inclusion (which I don't think we should do). --Randykitty (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
There are several problems with what you say. First, if you look at the history of NJOURNALS, you'll see that it was not accepted as a guideline because multiple editors felt it was too permissive. True, others found it too restrictive, but I don't think that you'll get a consensus for making it more inclusive. Second, concerning the dentistry journal above, I agree that it is a solid, boring journal. In itself, no harm will come to the encyclopedia if we include an article to it. However, note that in that case we would include the article basically only based on our own (subjective) evaluation. That runs against all principles on which WP is built, and for good reason. Take Current Chemistry Letters. It's on Beall's list of predatory journals and not included in any selective database, so it fails NJOURNALS and I took it to AfD. But suppose would would admit the dentistry journal just because we feel that it is solid. Now look at the AfD. There is probably some socking going on, but at least one editor argues that it is a solid journal and therefore should be kept. Who's right? You'd get endless discussion not based on any criteria other than what a certain person feels is solid enough for WP. In short, we need criteria and I strongly feel that the current NJOURNALS is the best we can get. --Randykitty (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I share Randykitty's worries and concur with LeadSongDog's statement of the problem.
We are cataloging 6,000+ journals in Wikipedia and if I had to guess, I would say more than 50% of those do not meet WP:GNG and are here for WP:NJOURNAL or even less. I personally do not think the Wikipedia article model is even useful for these journals because there usually is not not more than 1-2 facts to say about the journals beyond presenting infobox-style data about them. I often think of making a journal database in Wikidata so that when any citation is used, it can be tied to that journal as a Wikidata item, and we can get metrics about the use of journals cross-wiki and cross-language. Whatever place journals have on Wikipedia, getting data about them into Wikidata seems like their more natural place especially as technical content gets translated and people who will never read these journals still need to see data like journal affiliations, year of founding, and impact reports.
I am not eager to propose reform of NJOURNAL or exceptions to GNG. I might be more interested in joining discussions about putting this kind of information in Wikidata where it would be more useful, and imaging how Wikimedia projects could catalog an exhaustive list of journals that we scrape from every database. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
That sounds like it might work. We would then only keep those articles on journals that meet GNG and the rest would be on wikidata. However, wikidata items as they are currently displayed are not for the common reader, so we'd need some kind of interface displaying those data in an infobox-like way. It might also be more difficult to keep them updated, but much depends on how things would be implemented. --Randykitty (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • BTW, the problem most of the time really is impatience. If a journal really is noteworthy, it will be included quite rapidly in selective databases. See, for example, ECS Electrochemistry Letters. It was established in 2012 and already had an impact factor listed in the 2013 JCR (published this summer). Which, as an aside, also dispels the myth that a journal must have at least 2 years of citation data before it gets included in the JCR... --Randykitty (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, it isn't just me subjectively saying FDJ is relevant, rather it's a regulated professional society who publish that journal. As far as I can find, there is no such society publishing Current Chemistry Letters. Your example of the Electrochemical Society is an academic (rather than professional) but equivalently-credible publisher. The failure of wp:NJOURNALS to include the question of "Who published it" among the criteria is baffling. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't find that baffling: WP:NOTINHERITED. On my user page I have a short list of journals that were created by large established publishers and then fizzled after a short time, which shows that this, too, is no guarantee that a journal will eventually have a notable impact. --Randykitty (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
It happens. It's rare, especially from the major scientific organizations (you list only 1, and only 1 from a univ. pres. The others arefrom commercial publishers, at least two of which I would not classify as first-rate. There's no point making a guideline on such a bsisis when it complicates an otherwise simple criterion. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Web of Knowledge[edit]

I have been informed on my talk page, essentially the images I placed on series of articles have been replaced. These have become orphaned non-free images: File:ISI Web of knowledge logo.jpg; File:Search result from ISI Web of Knowledge image.jpg; and File:Web of science and web of knowledge.gif.

It may be that these images are dated. However, interestingly, I did a Google search for Web of Knowledge. There are almost no hits in the first 30 slots for Web of Knowledge. There are only links to Web of Science. Does anyone know if Web of Knowledge still exists? If not then we might need to do some rewriting on Web of Knowledge and Web of Science articles. Also, I won't have time to work on these until December. Sorry. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. I may have found an answer on a Thomson Reuters' WoS page (click on link here) -- "You asked for a more intuitive search experience. And on January 12th, we unveiled an easier and more streamlined way for you to navigate our carefully curated citation index. We have improved your user experience, and renamed it. The Web of Knowledge — as you know it — is now simply the Web of Science" --Steve Quinn (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, I placed the first image mentioned above back into the article for historical purposes. It is now near the bottom of the Web of Knowledge article. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Steve Quinn Put the pictures in if they are used to discuss the subject of the article. It seems like there is some dispute about whether the product has changed name, or whether an old product was discontinued when a new one was introduced. If "Web of Knowledge" was a distinct thing, then it can have its Wikipedia article and these pictures. If it is something else now called by a different name, then maybe these pictures should be removed. I cannot say, and the sourcing seems ambiguous. What do you think should happen? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I only placed the logo File:ISI Web of knowledge logo.jpg back into the Web of Knowledge article for its possible historic value. Here is the diff. But this is just my opinion, and I am not sure a case can be made that it has historic purpose. I can fine tune the source for this file, if anyone wants more information on its source. The other files really don't seem to have further use on Wikipedia as non-free content, so I am not doing anything to stop their deletion. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, my main question is - does anyone know if Thomson Reuters still has the "Web of Knowledge"? I don't think so, according to --- this Thomson Reuters' page. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the upper right corner, you still see "Thomson Reuters" displayed. I entered the Web of Knowledge today and it still displayed Thomson Reuters. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Crossings (journal)[edit]

Could someone please review this edit to Crossings (journal)? I believe that library and society sources are appropriate for establishing #1 Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals). If the sources I have added are not appropriate (and I agree that they're minimal), let's either find better ones or PROD this article as non-notable.

I came across this in the course of updating Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/List_of_missing_journals/A-C#C and need some help to avoid edit warring. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

A few other possible sources for perusal:

Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Libraries are only of limited use as sources. Making a link to a website is very easy (and doesn't cost them a dime), so may libraries or institutes have "resources" pages where they link to anything that could be of use (sometimes even to predatory open access journals). --Randykitty (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Subject guides (e.g. MST subject guide and the Boston University Library guide to museum studies) are hand-selected resources (so the cost is in time and expertise). They are not indiscriminate links to lists of free e-resources (which is where the links to predatory open access journals are likely to appear). Did you look at the book chapter above? I think it's more useful for someone (hopefully a third person) to look for more convincing signs of notability -- since the info above suggests they could be found. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
You don't need a subscription to Scopus to check their journal listings (I'll do this in a few minutes, just back from a visit to the zoo :-). The chapter is, like the others, at best an in-passing mention.Yes, it indicates that there may be notability, but, no, I don't think ti satisfies NJournals (and let's not even talk GNG, because very few journals meet GNG directly). --Randykitty (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Too bad, it isn't in Scopus. --Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Not surprised: consider the type of journal. Can you please give me an example of a journal meeting #1 NJournals, to your personal standard? ("The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.") (BTW, is this the Scopus link, for my future reference?) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I checked the Thomson Reuters journal list (Arts & Humanities Citation Index and Current Contents). Journal is not listed there either.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I took another look at the book chapter. Sure, it's a passing mention -- in a table of recommended resources, as an example of an open access journal, in a chapter on 'how to do research'. It says "This chapter equips you to be a more effective producer, seeker, and user of information. The first part of the chapter explores the kinds of resources that can make what you say believable. The second part of the chapter guides you through the process of finding these resources efficiently." This suggests that more evidence can be found. I'm going to write the journal to ask where they're indexed (though again, given the type of journal, that's not a given). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This Excel file contains the Scopus journal listings. The link you fund is, I think, a list of all Elsevier journals. Scopus lists many journals in the humanities and social sciences. I find NJournals#2 and #3 rather problematic. People often look at numbers of citations, but I find this very subjective, because what is "a lot" strongly depends on the field. Personally, I'd like good sources that say the journal is influential, but that makes #2 & 3 basically the same as meeting GNG. #1 is satisfied by inclusion in a database that is reasonably selective, because that is the equivalent of a reliable source stating that it is "influential in its subject area". That excludes such databases as GScholar, JournalSeek, or DOAJ, which strive for completeness, as well as a lot of other ones. Nevertheless, there are good and selective databases for almost any field (such as ATLA for theological journals). I find #1 the best criterion in NJournals, because it is the only one that is reasonably objective and it is rare that editors disagree about what is a selective database. Writing the journal is a good idea, they should know where they are listed and this would not be the first one that I see that doesn't display this info on their own website. It's been said on this page repeatedly, we really need a good guideline for the notability of academic journals, but getting such a guideline accepted by the community is in practice basically impossible. I tried to launch a discussion a while ago at the Villagepump (I think), but got the same problem as people ran into when proposing NJournals as a guideline (it's only an essay now): Many editors feel that any academic journal should be included, as many others think that only those that meet GNG should be included. I find both position undesirable. Including all means including a lot of crappy journals that have no influence at all and are completely forgettable. Including only those that meet GNG would mean that almost all journal articles would have to be deleted. The lack of a good guideline is really detrimental to this project, aggravated by the fact that usually very few editors participate in AfD debates. The subjective criteria in NJournals (2 & 3) make it rather easy for one or a few determined editors to get even the worst journal kept, whereas others sometimes take perfectly good journals to AfD because they don't recognize NJournals, wasting our time. I admit not having a solution to all of this... --Randykitty (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi again, @Randykitty:, thanks for the link (the journal list I linked above says "The Master Journal List includes all journal titles covered in Web of Science." -- so that's not just Elsevier publications). I agree that GNG is inappropriate for academic journals and that some journals should not be covered here. As a researcher who's studied AfD, I completely know what you mean about lack of participation. (Feel free to ping me if you see something that needs extra eyes but I don't have time to actively seek out debates; much of my time now is going to WP:AfC, partly because I see potential for improving the process, especially with the new Draft space.) NJournals seems good to me (and I'd support more formalization, let me know if that comes up again), but I do recognize subject librarian-created listings (not generic lists from library catalogs) as meeting #1 -- I think that's our main point of difference which I see we've come up against before. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Back to Crossings: I got the cryptic response that they're EBSCO-indexed at least (with the editor asking colleagues about other indexing), and found one confirmation they're in Art & Architecture Complete (I stopped there--they aren't in Academic Complete but they might be elsewhere, if you have a better place to look that up, aside from one-by-one per index/DB, let me know. I'll let you do the honors of removing the notability tag, if you think it's now justified, @Randykitty:. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Academic journals by country of publication[edit]

I have just created Category:Academic journals published in the United Kingdom, Category:Academic journals published in the United States, and the parent category Category:Academic journals by country of publication. Please help to deploy them, and populate the latter with sub-categories for other countries. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh PLEASE... Not again. These country categories have been done away with years ago, as they are inappropriate for 90% of all academic journals. Modern academic publishing is thoroughly international. One journal I know of had the following situation: EIC in France, co-owned by an international society and a publisher in the UK (subsequently sold to an American publisher, but office handling the journal still located in the UK), editorial board all over the world, typesetter in India, printer in Malaysia, print copies mailed by a company in Singapore. Pray tell me what the nationality of this journal is. In infoboxes we routinely leave the "country" field empty. We only fill it in if the journal is published by a national society (not if it is an international society, even though for legal reasons they will be officially registered as a society somewhere). Please empty those categories and let them be deleted. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
In such edge cases, it's the country listed as the country of publication on the title page. If that's not available, feel free to create Category:Academic journals with indeterminate country of publication Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
That's not "edge cases", that's the vast majority of cases. And please also don't forget that many journals called "American Journal of Foo" or "British Journal of Foo" are often published by publishers not located in the US (like Elsevier or the Nature Publishing Group -a British publisher owned by a German company) and in addition often edited by people from other countries (and their editorial boards may be from all over, too). Having country categories just leads to endless bickering about the "nationality" of a journal and conveys no useful information whatsoever. --Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
You'll find a list of journal published by the Nature Publishing Group here. Some have a country in their name ("sinica", "American", "British"). Others are explicitly "International". Acta Pharmacologica Sinica has an editor-in-chief in Shanghai, the deputy EIC is in Baltimore. The American Journal of Gastroenterology has two co-EICs, one in the US, the other in Canada. They have specific "international Associate Editors". The British Journal of Cancer has contents editors in 3 countries on 2 continents. And this for a smaller publisher (by number of journals published) which, as said, is generally considered to be a British publisher but is owned by a German company. Please also note that the last time such country-specific categories were created, they were deleted after a CfD (e.g., [1]). --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The location of an EIC (or any other person) is immaterial to the country of publication. The example you give discusses a category of "Indian medical journals", not "Medical journals published in India". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Please explain the difference, if any, between "Indian medical journals" and "Medical journals published in India"... There are other examples, but the archive only goes back to Dec. 2010, so that's not easy to find. If you search the archive of this talk page ("journals published in", "American journals", etc) you'll find earlier discussions, all concluding that categorizing academic journals by country is undesirable. And it's the EIC who determines the editorial policy of a journal, the publisher (if it is a good and respectable one) does not meddle with that. So if you think that "country" is relevant for academic journals, I think a very strong case can be made that it should be the country where the editor is located, not the publisher. Oh, wait, perhaps it should be the country where the EIC was born? Or where they did their PhD? Face it: academics nowadays is intricately international. And what about the publishers that I mentioned, things are not straightforward there either. Is Nature a British journal (that's where NPG is located) or a German one (that's where the mother company is located). Are journals originally published by Blackwell Publishing British journals? Or are they now American journals since Wiley took over Blackwell? And even though the people actually doing the publishing are still located in the same offices in Oxford? Is "Frontiers" a Swiss publisher, or a UK one (they were taken over by NPG), or, again, a German one? Don't these examples amply demonstrate that "country where published" is an absolutely uninteresting and irrelevant thing? --Randykitty (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Please note that I will be travelling the coming days until Oct 29, with only intermittent (or no) Internet access. --Randykitty (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort, but I also think country categories are not needed. I agree with Randy Kitty. It is too difficult to pinpoint a country of origin because publishing and research are dispersed all over the globe. It is truly international. It's not like it was before the 1980's. We live in a global community now, especially with academic journals. Springer, Elsevier, Wiley, NPG, and others have a global reach, along with innumerable academic journal titles that each of these publish --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Here's another interesting example: Acta Neurologica Belgica. It is the official journal of 8 (eight!) Belgian societies, but published by Springer Science+Business Media, a German company. Does that make it a German journal? No, wait, it's website says that is is published by Springer Milan, so it's an Italian journal... --Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Checking your example in the ISI Web of Science, Belgium has been given as country of publication. However, categories for countries of publication are useless as Randykitty pointed out with many arguments. At present time we have only a very few international companies such Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer and some more. Therefore we have many journals published in the Netherlands (Elsevier) and Danmark (Wiley). Since we have categories for the major companies already, the new categories for countries of publication will repeat this again. It is waste of effort. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The Scientific World Journal[edit]

There's a discussion on the talk page of this journal article about the appropriateness of including raw data on the numbers of items published each year. Comments from knowledgeable editors here are welcome. --Randykitty (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting discussion going on at WT:MEDRS[edit]

The discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Impact_factor_of_journals_as_the_determining_factor_in_weight Comments would be appreciated by those who know a lot about this issue. Jinkinson talk to me 02:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

importance categorization[edit]

isn't it time we start categorizing articles based on the importance for this project? plenty other projects already do so. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes, this project is one of the few exceptions. It makes sense, though. The vast majority of articles that fall under this project are about journals. Then there is articles on publishers and scientific societies. I think all of these have the same importance for the understanding of the concept "academic journal": "Low". Then are are a very few articles, like academic journal itself, that would have a different importance rating. Really doesn't seem worth the effort to me. --Randykitty (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
@Randykitty: We could assume it's low except if it's otherwise stated. Or maybe what we need is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Academia -- it's falling through the cracks of Wikipedia:WikiProject Education, Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals. Worth it? Fgnievinski (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think so. Not sure how active WP Education and WP Universities are. Not sure I understand what you think is "falling through the cracks". --Randykitty (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Just had a look at the talkpages of those two and they seems almost moribund. Combining the three in a "WP Academia" might revitalize the projects, but then, perhaps not... Perhaps you should put a note on their talk pages and then we can see what happens. It would perhaps make sense to include academics, but that would perhaps be a strange cut out of WP Biography. --Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
@Randykitty: I'll continue this topic here: Talk:Academia#WikiProject Academia?. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

other traditional citation impact metrics[edit]

please weigh in here: Template talk:Infobox journal#Eigenfactor?. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Impact Factor is a product name not a generic concept[edit]

pls weigh in here: Talk:Impact_factor#rename to Impact Factor (capitalized). Fgnievinski (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Academia?[edit]

Please see here: Talk:Academia#WikiProject Academia?. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology[edit]

The Royal Society of Chemistry (where I'm employed as Wikimedian in Residence, to declare my interest) have a new journal: Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology [2], should anyone want to start an article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  • It's generally not a good idea to write an article about a brand new journal, as it will not yet have any notability. It takes a while to get indexed in the really important selective databases and journals rarely get written about in reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Electrochemical and Solid State Letters nominated for deletion[edit]

Discussion is here. Contributions thereto would be appreciated. Everymorning talk to me 00:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Digital Science article request[edit]

First of all, please let me disclose my conflict of interest as I am an employee of Digital Science. I have requested an article on Digital Science here and I just wish to highlight this request on this talk page. Many thanks. George K Digital Science (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Another journal AFD[edit]

Discussion is here. I'm inclined to agree w/nom since it's not indexed in any of the really important databases and has no IF, but I'm not sure, which is why I haven't !voted. Everymorning talk to me 03:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Launch of WikiProject Wikidata for research[edit]

Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention[edit]

This is a notice about Category:Academic Journals articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Fake impact factors[edit]

Please beware, see: --Randykitty (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. We should see about getting a bot assist, or AWB or similar effort to look up each "journal" they have listed to see if we have a corresponding article. If so, we should be looking closely at the subject journal as a suspected predatory publisher.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
At this point, they list about 70 journals (not even close to the "real ISI"), but a bot would indeed be handy! And you're right, I didn't think of checking WP, but given that we accept a (legitimate) IF as proof for notability, some may have slipped through. There are other predatory impact measures out there, Beall has a list of them, too. --Randykitty (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Also of interest is Debora Weber-Wulff's blog. We should really reach out to her. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)