Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 {{Notability guide}}
-This guideline is meant to reflect consensus about the [[Wikipedia:Notability|notability]] of [[academic journal]]s, [[proceedings|conference proceedings]], [[monographic series]], and other [[scholarly method|scholarly]] [[serial (publishing)|serial publications]] (including [[grey literature]]) devoted to reporting the results of [[scholarly method|scholarly]] [[research]]. For the sake of simplicity, all such publications will be referred as 'journals' in this guideline, unless otherwise noted. Non-scholarly publications, such as [[trade magazine]]s and professional society [[newsletter]]s are instead covered by [[Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals)|WP:NMAG]].
+This essay is meant to characterize consensus about the [[Wikipedia:Notability|notability]] of [[academic journal]]s, [[proceedings|conference proceedings]], [[monographic series]], and other [[scholarly method|scholarly]] [[serial (publishing)|serial publications]] (including [[grey literature]]) devoted to reporting the results of [[scholarly method|scholarly]] [[research]]. For the sake of simplicity, all such publications will be referred as 'journals' in this guideline, unless otherwise noted. Non-scholarly publications, such as [[trade magazine]]s and professional society [[newsletter]]s are instead covered by [[Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals)|WP:NMAG]].
 A ''notable journal'' thus refers to a publication being ''known for its publishing of scholarly research'' in the spirit of [[Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline|WP:GNG]]. These criteria are ''independent'' from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)|WP:NBIO]], [[Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)|WP:NORG]], etc. Journals found to be notable under these criteria are likely to be [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], but are not necessarily so. Journals could be known for being historically influential in an area of research now considered obsolete, or even in influential in a [[pseudoscience|pseudo-scientific field]]. It is possible for a journal not to be notable under this guideline but still meet [[Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline|WP:GNG]] for other reasons.
-Note that this is a '''guideline''', not a '''rule'''; [[WP:IAR|exceptions may well exist]]. It is also possible for a journal to be notable according to this standard and yet not be an appropriate topic for an article in Wikipedia because of a lack of [[WP:Independent sources|independent]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] on the subject (see [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]). Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; however, most journals nowadays have home pages which [[WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD|may be used as sources for uncontroversial information]]. If the journal can be considered a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], this will be often be sufficient to create a stub on a particular journal, even in the absence of other sources.
+Note that this is an '''essay'''; it is possible for a journal to be notable according to this view, yet not be an appropriate topic for an article within this encyclopedia because of a lack of [[WP:Independent sources|independent]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] on the subject (see [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]). Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; however, most journals nowadays have home pages which [[WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD|may be used as sources for uncontroversial information]]. If the journal can be considered a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], this will be often be sufficient to create a stub on a particular journal, even in the absence of other sources.
 == Basic notability ==