Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals)

Guideline status

I think this page should become a guideline so it will carry more weight when cited in deletion discussions. What do others think? Everymorning (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I think so too, but it needs to evolve a bit (along the line of WP:NASTRO) before it gets renominated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to make a summary of this essay a sub-section of WP:NMEDIA

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(media)#Introducing_notability_criteria_for_academic_journals. I expect that this is noncontroversial and an obvious next step in confirming the usefulness of this essay. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• In principle I have nothing against this, but I don't think it is a good idea to copy the criteria without the accompanying notes. --Randykitty (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Criterion 3

I propose to delete this criterion, for the following reasons. To start with, it is often misinterpreted ("the journal we started yesterday is the only Bantu-language journal on the Patagonian cockroach, so this has a historic purpose"). Second, it is ill-defined. What exactly is a historic purpose? What is a "significant history"? Surely having existed for x years is not enough to qualify as a "significant history"? To make this objective, we would require reliable sources confirming the historical purpose/significant history, but then the article would meet WP:GNG and we don't need C3 any more either. We actually already say this in note 11... --Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I would be in favor of removing the first half of the criterion, but not for removing the second half; I think that the reason for doing specialized notability guidelines is to provide either alternates to GNG or explanations of how GNG applies. I think that saying that significant history qualifies is a good idea. Significant purpose though seems too vague, as you noted. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

But how is "significant history" less vague than "historical purpose"? Unless we stipulate that this has to be shown by references to independent reliable sources and then it just duplicates GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

SCImago

Does a journal having a SCImago Journal Rank qualify it as notable under this guideline, like having an impact factor does? I'm asking because I'm thinking about creating Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, which doesn't list an impact factor on its website but does list a SCImago ranking. Everymorning (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• SCImago is based on data from Scopus, so if something is in SCImago, it means that it is in Scopus, which we take as indicating notability. A bit belated, hope this still helps. --Randykitty (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals

Found this website [1], seems like a useful tool for our purposes but not sure. Timmyshin (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports Lawyers Journal and WP:NJournals

An editor at this AfD has brought to my attention the fact that WP:NJournals in fact does not require inclusion in databases only counts for notability if that database if selective. Either this was overlooked when HJournals was written, or it has been edited out without anybody noticing. I'm currently traveling and cannot look into this, so I'm posting here so that perhaps other interested editors can have a look. I'll cross-post to the talk page of the Academic Journals WikiProject. --Randykitty (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Constraining SNGs

@Headbomb: The purpose of an SNG is to exist outside other notability guidelines. Those in the community that oppose SNGs generally typically want to leverage particular notability minimums to tightly constrain the SNG in question. Your addition of material talking about inherited notability and such is out of step with this essay. You can have your own feelings about it but you need to show there's consensus, especially since I've reverted you. I'm fine discussing the matter but do not assume you represent the majority. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing I've added goes against anything that was already in the guideline, or any other guideline that currently exists. I've modeled it after WP:NASTRO, which has been accepted by the community. In fact, the additional material specifically says that notability is not inherited, again in full agreement with WP:NOTINHERITED. I don't understand your objection. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Going to ping @DGG, Randykitty, Steve Quinn, Everymorning, and Fgnievinski: here. This concerns [2]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Headbomb: My objection is that this essay need not include guidance or opinion found elsewhere. I don't disagree with NOTINHERITED. My issue is that you're specifically proscribing the use of NJOURNAL by adding content NJOURNAL does not and need not state. I don't care that the content you adapted was based on NASTRO and that the consensus there was ok with it. The consensus here might differ and again, since you can't understand, NJOURNAL is different. It's not supposed to repeat what you may have read elsewhere. This effort by you looks pretty transparent to me unless you really don't get it. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It does not change what WP:NJOURNALS says, it clarifies it and brings it in line with how WP:NJOURNALS is actually used. And I've got zero idea of what nebulous behaviour you're accusing me of, but feel free to clarify, since it's apparently 'transparent'.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So. "It does not change what WP:NJOURNALS says" Yes it does. You added text which changes what it says. "it clarifies it" Does someone other than you think the essay was unclear? Who are you to say what clarifies the question? "and brings it in line with how WP:NJOURNALS is actually used" Asserts facts not in evidence. NJOURNALS like anything, says what it says. You seem to have anecdotal beliefs about how editors interpret or cite it. Their use has nothing to do with what this says. "And I've got zero idea of what nebulous behaviour you're accusing me of, but feel free to clarify" and I will. This SNG makes assertions of notability based on certain aspects of journals. It has nothing to do with any other ideas of notability nor is it constrained by other essays. Editors might site this essay but be countered by others. That's how this works. Essays are not part of a cohesive whole; they're differing opinions representative of some consensus of thought. Changing essays (or guidelines) without consensus re-writes what we as a community agree upon into what you as a single editor believe. This is intellectually dishonest and I'm really struggling to AGF with how you claim you don't see that. As an analogy, this would be like me repainting speed limit signs on the highway and telling the police that I'm clarifying what the limit really is and bringing it inline with common practice. We as a community determine these things and you still don't have consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• There is no uniform rule on SNGs. Some of them are explictly alternatives, like WP:PROF, and say directly that anyone meeting it ddo is notable regardless of the GNG, but that professors can also become notable by the GNG, even if they do not meet the WP:PROF SNG. Others have portions that are alternatives, such as the rule than athletes who compete in the Olympics are notable , even if nothing else is known about them. Some can be limitations, and the rule that musical recording must chart of a list of specified charts i usually interpreted that way, as are some of the parts of WP:CREATIVE. The community can make any rule it pleases. It can do this formally by approving guidelines in a RfC, or by consistent decisions supporting them. The fundamental policies behind the notability guidelines are WP:NOT and WP:V; no SNG that violate them has been or is likely to be accepted by the community--though of course the community could change that also, doing so would be a really momentous decision. The meta-rule that says this in WP:5P5: Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions

NOTINHERITED has over the years been subject to man misunderstandings : inheritance goes downwards normally, not upwards. Normally, if a composer has written several notable works, their notability implies that he is notable also, but it is usually not the case that every piece written by a notable composer is notable (with an exception if he is truly world-famous, as for JS Bach).

The reason for the special guideline of academic journals is really quite simple: there is no other rational way of handling them: The nature of the wart of the world in which they exist is that there will almost never be references providing truly substantial coverage, unless one argues in a somewhat artificial fashion (we do that at AfD quite often, actually; it's the only way of accommodating common sense and the GNG--but this is a case where we don't need to, because we have an alternative. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: (and others), I'll be more direct, do you support the inclusion of the basic notability section / feel it clarifies how to interpret the guideline / address longstanding misunderstandings of journal notability in various XfD processes ? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a discussion, not an RfC. But, if it wasn't obvious from what I said, I consider the section "no inherent notability" as contrary to policy, because it essentially negates a well-established guideline and is directly opposed to the practice used in interpretation of the SNGs . I consider the section on no inherited notability a little dubious, because although it doesn't directly contradict other guidelines, in could be interpreted that way. However, its third paragraph on including a journal in WP lists is a good addition to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

But notability is not inherited for journals! That's always been the case. That a journal is published by Elsevier is irrelevant to whether we consider the journal notable or not. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a factor in some cases. That it might be published by, say, the Royal Society would and should be considered. Elsevier is a different matter. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Are there journals published by the Royal Society that don't meet WP:NJOURNALS#C1/WP:NJOURNALS#C2 or WP:NJOURNALS#C3? Because to my knowledge, all are clear passes of C1 and C2, and don't need a 'but the publisher is...' exception. And WP:IAR always exists. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

First, I wish to compliment @Headbomb: in taking the initiative here and modeling these subsections on WP:ASTRO. I find it interesting that what Headbomb has written seems to clear up issues that have come up in deletion discussions. I think we should take into consideration what DGG has said about NOTINHERITED. But also, if a journal is published by a highly notable publisher, the specific journal's notability still should be at least weighed according to the selective indexes. For example, if the Royal Society puts out a brand new journal, then that publisher of course could be a factor in a deletion discussion. Yet it is indeed a gray area if it were not listed in acceptable indexes, because then it seems to lean toward deletion, unless arguments for "keep" outweigh delete.

This seems to be based on established norms here at NJOURNALS. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Although a few SNGs do have "inherited" notability criteria, the norm at NJOURNALS is - this has not. been the case. This norm is based on the many deletion discussions up to the present. I think what Headbomb has written clarifies the norms that have been developed over time at NJOURNALS. The "No inherent notability" section is right on point, as is the "No inherited notability" section. This is exactly how we have conducted ourselves at deletion discussions. Also, my view has been that the acceptable journal indexes, such as Thomson Reuters, are considered reliable third party sources. This then fulfills GNG and the content policies - policies which are viewed as the core of Wikipedia. So, this is an excellent rationale for having this criterion. This is our SNG caveat. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Unless, I hear stronger rationales against including these subsections, I think these should be included in NJOURNALS. I would like @DGG: to clarify further, in case there is something I am not seeing. Also, I have a question. Have we had deletion discussions where inherited notability was such a strong factor that the discussion resulted in keep? (I am only curious, and not being argumentative). Steve Quinn (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

We can keep in mind there is always WP:5P5, and in such instances hopefully common sense prevails. I have been involved in discussions where a few literature or humanities journals have developed a "keep" consensus, although these were not listed in selective indexes - because they appeared to have value. I also wish to note, having these subsections is not unique. As Headbomb has shown, WP:AST has this.

WP:ORG has these sections as well. Please see: WP:ORGSIG and WP:INHERITORG. I believe these are fundamental concepts that are part of Wikipedia's foundation. I have a basic test for anything like these sections (whenever I come across such issues). I look to see if the content in question is consistent with Wikipedia content policies and the GNG guideline - across the board. If I thought these additions were not consistent, then I would strongly recommend against including them. Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for your time. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

You are making an argument for the second section, about inherited notability; the status with respect to the GNG is however, as I have stated it. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• I am pretty busy right now, so I don't have time to go into detail. However, this essay really needs an overhaul. I think we should let Headbomb work on it for a while and when he's done have a good look at the result. We can then either decide to go back to the version before he started his re-write or, hopefully, tweak and improve it further and then perhaps propose it to the community to be used as a guideline, instead of just an essay. --Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I have researched the argument about inherited and inherent notability. GNG for its part plainly states that notability is not inherited and there is no inherent notability. The SNGs that do have an inherent notability caveat within some small aspect of it is based on experience on Wikipedia and deletion discussions amounting to common sense. This results in saving time by not having to wade through GNG, or an AfD, to come to the same conclusion. So, as far as I am concerned NJOURNALS has not developed such a norm and this is supported by content policies and GNG, with rare exceptions within some SNGs.

Therefore, we can include a blurb about WP:IAR in what Headbomb has already written to account for those rare instances when it occurs. Then we can point to this guideline and say there it is. This will help to discourage an overenthusiastic attitude during talk page discussions or deletion discussions. In this regard, DGG does have a point. So explicitly including IAR should suffice. For example, if we found a lost manuscript by Einstein, then the published book or manuscript would probably be inherently notable and have inherited notability, all at the same time. And it would be a rare instance. Hopefully, this helps. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

In looking at WP:CREATIVE I notice that the only way any one of these line items (1 thru 4) can satisfy notability is with significant coverage in independent third party (secondary) reliable sources to back them up. Otherwise how would anyone know? So this is not actually about inherited or inherent notability. The person satisfying one of these line items becomes inherently notable only after support is garnered the old fashioned way - significant and acceptable coverage. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

In giving more weight to DGGs input, maybe we can actually create a list of publishers where their journals are considered inherently notable. For example, Royal Society journals, Oxford journals, any professional society journals such as IEEE (and which a Royal Society is).

Or what about this? If the journal is published by already notable editors and the journal articles appear to significantly contribute to the field or advance the field then is might be considered notable.

For example, (from WP:BIO#Additional criteria) "Journals are likely to be notable if they meet any of the (above) standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a journal should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Just throwing it out there - food for thought. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited, and the IEEE publishes a bunch of low-level crap (mostly proceedings) in addition to their premier journals. Royal Society journals are all notable, sure, but that's because they all meet WP:NJOURNALS#C1 or WP:NJOURNALS#C2, so again there's zero need for special exceptions for the Royal Society journals. For professional societies, very often their journals are not notable, and should be covered in the society's article. Concerning editors, it's the other way around. Editors of notable (and reliable) journals are considered notable because the EiC of those journals is position that can only be filed by top academic in their fields. But journals edited by notable people aren't necessarily notable, because it could be a journal that never took or, or because the editor is a quack. Again, the metric is the impact and significance of the journal, not of who edits it Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Headbomb: You still don't have consensus and I reject you continuing to change content while the discussion is still underway. I warn you this is not the optimal solution. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The section is marked under discussion. I don't know what more you want, but no one requires your personal approval to edit things and make improvements to the guideline / bring it in line with how it's actually used. So go make your threats elsewhere. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

You are clearly disregarding the discussion to force you own way, which is not how things should be done here. I don't want to edit war over this but I can only assume you intend to provoke or you hold me in such contempt that you don't care. Either way, this is not how Wikipedia is done. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia is not done by reverting construction and productive edits because YOU don't agree with them. There is clearly support for the section, or at the very least leaving it in for now while we discuss it. It's very hard to edit and tweak something and discuss something that doesn't exist. I'll let others revert your pigheadness. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with @Headbomb: that notability is not inherited and inherent notability does not work. This is clearly stated in the Notability guideline. And I am unable to find support for this in the core content policies. I gave it a shot, and it doesn't wash. The only reason other SNGs have their caveats is because it is a shortcut derived from experience, ultimately supported by GNG and content policies.

Also, in agreement with Headbomb, I support the additional text he provided. I thought this was clear from my above posts. I was just trying to think of extra stuff to add to that. But, really none of it is necessary. Maybe we could explicitly note WP:IAR, but that is about it. I am restoring the content so Headbomb and others can tweak it. I believe Headbomb and I gave sufficient rationale for keeping this text in the guideline.

Randy Kitty has stated their support by giving permission for Headbomb to write it and then see if we can propose to the community that this be elevated to an official guideline. So right now it is three to two. And I don't agree with Chris being suspicious of Headbomb's motives. I have worked with Headbomb off and on for years, and he is productive editor who edits in accordance with policies and guidelines.

He has incredibly contributed to WikiProject Physics and WikiProject Academic Journals. He also developed Wiki-Books (I think it is called that) and he might be responsible for developing the various task forces in WikiProject Physics. Essentially, Headbomb has a good head on his shoulders :-) I couldn't resist. It was an opportunity that presented itself :-) Steve Quinn (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The only thing I'll add to that, is that we do mention IAR (3rd paragraph in the lead), and you're thinking of Wikipedia:Books. Not that it's particularly relevant here, but might as well clarify that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Randykitty:, alright, I think I've more or less clarified, tweaked, and brought the guideline in line with current practice as much as I can on my own. Things should be a lot clearer now, both on why we need such a guideline (WP:NJOURNALS#Basic notability), on what exactly the criteria is (significant coverage / significant impact), on how to apply the criteria (WP:NJOURNALS#Remarks), and on what to do when failing to meet notability criteria (WP:NJOURNALS#Best practices/WP:NJOURNALS#Failing all criteria). I think this overhaul has been a long time coming, and we're about to finally get it right after all these years. Of course, there will still be corner cases, but I believe WP:NJOURNALS now covers pretty much 99% the deletion discussions that occurred in the last 5 years+. For the rest, we have WP:COMMON and WP:IAR. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• NO. "In the sense that a journal has been published, it may have been noted by its readers." You;'re presumably using journal in the sense of journal-as-a-whole, not the articles within a journal. If you mean the articles, then any journal which has been cited two or more times with significant discussion in the citations is notable. This would apply to almost of the non-predatory journals in the world. If this becomes policy, I could argue on that basis. That's a very forced interpretation. Better to eliminate the wording taken and misused from the GNG. We have the right to have policy completely independent of the GNG, and should not restate it.

Also NO because I continue to disagree about inherited notability in this case. The example given above of the IEEE newsletter is irrelevant. That's a newsletter or magazine , not an academic journal. An academic journal is a journal that publishes research level primary or review articles.. (technically, even J Chem Ed. and Physics Today are magazines, not academic journals.) What we may need to include is not just the two alternatives of articles or lists, but of combination articles.

If you already counted me in the opposition, it's 3 to 2. And that counts Randykitty, though he has not commented on the final version. You can't assume that you have someone's implied consensus . Even if he does agree, and my guess is that he might --in spite of the fact that he and I have agreed with each other in 99% of the journal afds, that is not sufficient consensus to overturn a settled guideline used in many hundreds of AfDs. Regardless of motives, this change will have the effect of greatly reducing the inclusiveness of ?WP for academic journals. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

No what? I have no idea how I'm presuming "using the journal in the sense of journal-as a whole, not the articles within the journal", or what that even means. Or how you can possibly read that it's suggested a journal that's been cited more than once = notable. Likewise we are not trying to circumvent the GNG, and never have tried to circumvent the GNG. Nothing has changed here. Also, not sure why you're trying to bring IEEE newsletters in this. I've talked about IEEE proceedings above, and and a good chunk if not most of them aren't worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. The IEEE publishes gazillions of proceedings, many of which are of very low quality and of little impact or significance. Which pretty much proves that being published by the IEEE ≠ notable. I've yet to see one example of a notable journal that can't be considered notable by C1/C2/C3 and needs to have a C4 = Published by XYZ. So I'll ask, do you have a concrete example of a notable journal that would be excluded under C1/C2/C3?

Also not sure how this 'reduces the inclusivity', the three criteria are exactly the same as they were. 1: Influential in its field 2: Frequently cited by RS 3: Historically important. Do you have an example of any AFD discussion in say the past 3 years that would have had a different result under the current version? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

It does seem we are operating on different channels. No to the proposed change in a stable guideline. No to an attempt to shoehorn a perfect clear specific guideline into the form of GNG, which doesn't apply at all, and doesn't pretend it applies to all types of articles. . No to the idea that the publisher is perhaps the key predictive factor of the importance of a journal.

As for IEEE, I think I may have contributed to some confusion about titles. Of course many of the individual Proceedings of specific meetings aren't suitable, but they are not a journal in the first place. They would be judged as books, and if we did cover them, we would cover them as the conference or conference series, not the published proceedings of the conference. What is notable is every one of the IEEE Transactions, all or almost all of which are in JCR, even though we do not have article on about half of them. And there are stronger cases than IEE. Cold Spring Harbor Press for example, or the Cell Press imprint now owned by elsevier.

If no afd discussion would have had a difference result in the proposed wording . why are you bothering to change the established wording? Whether they actually would, is a factor of how the key words are interpreted. Every one of them is subject to equivocation. Admittedly, so is some of the established wording. That's why I think it folly to change established guidelines (and I think so equally whether or not the changes would be more in line with my idea of what WP should cover): there is an established pattern of interpretation based on the established guideline. (I'm saying established to avoid confusion--I mean the true current traditional established guideline, not the proposal which you are calling the current version.) The established guideline has led to very consistent results, with the regular participants who know anything about journals (and usually there are just stray participants who do not, because others don't care about this) almost always agreeing. The questions have come over borderline issues. The main disagreement between myself at Randykitty for example, is my view that a new journal from a publisher ALL of whose existing journals are notable should be considered notable at the very start. The main other question is whether predatory journals by virtue of the discussion about their predatory nature should be considered notable (I'd deal with most of these by combination articles, because of the very large number of titles involved and theat the same factors apply). So I do not think you have consensus for change. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

You're being very contradictory, and very obfuscating here DGG. "No to the idea that the publisher is perhaps the key predictive factor of the importance of a journal." We agree on that. Publishers aren't important, nor are all of the several hundred of IEEE Transactions journals notable. The majority are (since the majority have impact factors), and the rest can be decided on a per-journal basis. But then you write "a new journal from a publisher ALL of whose existing journals are notable should be considered notable at the very start" which is in direct contradiction of that you just wrote, and clearly in violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL on top of failing to meet any of WP:NJOURNALS's criteria. So again nothing changed there, and you seem to object to what we already had in the guideline. As for proceedings, and predatory journals etc., we've always covered those in the same manner we did journals: If they can be shown to be 1) impactful 2) frequently cited 3) historically important, 4) have significant coverage in RS (aka pass GNG directly) they can have an article. Otherwise merge to publisher's article / delete.

"If no afd discussion would have had a difference result in the proposed wording . why are you bothering to change the established wording?" because this should be a guideline, not an essay. As well as to avoid this sort of confusion caused by a unclear wording.

Let's wait for Randikitty's feedback, but I don't think the current impasse will be solved by anything less than a community-wide RFC. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

On indexing and reliability

Here is a diff that I think is EXTREMELY important. Indexing is evidence of reliability, but it is not absolute evidence. Having an impact factor is evidence of reliability, but it is not a universal determinant of reliability. That these points were being made in PAG space is rather shocking. It also goes against the point that Wikipedia is descriptive not proscriptive. We would not accept a journal as "reliable" on the basis of it being indexed or having an impact factor. That's ludicrous. We need to conform to how we actually use journals and evaluate them here. jps (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for this. Mind you, a large amount of chatter about an unreliable journal might still show a high impact factor, so I would see that more as an indication of notability than of reliability. I also think that the criteria used by database maintainers need to be taken into account - "we did a deal with publisher X to index all the journals they ask us to" and the like need to be ruled out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

On a closely related point, it seems to me that criterion 1.c) is in the wrong place. The impact factor is just a summary of the citations and is thus effectively establishing criterion 2. I'd suggest that 1.c be moved to 2.d. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Please in future first obtain consensus here before making fundamental changes to this essay. I oppose the changes proposed, they are not an improvement over the current text. We will go by reliable sources, not by editors' opinions. --Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • This opinion does not make sense to me. There is no reference to editor's opinions in the changes proposed. The current text is simply not how it is done in Wikipedia. We do not claim that a journal is reliable simply on the basis of its indexing and the fact that it has an impact factor. Seriously. jps (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I have to agree with both these latest posts: We do indeed have to go by RS, and the existence of indexing and/or an impact factor is patently not an RS for a significant level of citation and, hence of notability either. Sadly, the present essay has got its proverbials in a twist over this and it does need a shakeout. Oh, wait, maybe I should repeat that - this here is an essay, not even a guideline, never mind an agreed policy. Anybody who wishes to go away and forget it even exists is fully entitled to. Goodbye, >big grin<. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Re: "The current text is simply not how it is done in Wikipedia." The last 7 years disagree with you. WP:NJOURNALS has been cited in pretty much every damned deletion discussion since its inception. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if this does not change, I will start advocating for this to be marked as rejected proposal as it is that horribly misleading. jps (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Fundamentally mis-worded

RE [[User:Randykitty]'s revert.

This "essay" is fundamentally mis-worded, or is mis-tagged and should be tagged {{proposal}}, to be subjected to a vote, and converted either to {{guideline}} or {{failed}}.

"This essay is meant to characterize consensus about ..."

Essays do not do this.

"A notable journal thus refers to a publication being known for its publishing of scholarly research in the spirit of WP:GNG."

Nonsenses. "thus" is misused logically, there is no preceding argument, and this sentence massively misconstrues the meaning of the WP:GNG.

As it stands, the wording is so seriously flawed that I think it best to tag it {{failed}}. It mis-asserts consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem with tagging this {{failed}}. Anybody who cares can see in the archives that that is what happened (Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals)/Archive 1#Promotion to guideline status. --Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I see. I would say User:SilkTork 00:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC) erred making that close. {{essay}} is not a "no consensus" middle ground between {{guideline}} and {{failed}}. A proposal is written in a fundamentally different way to an essay. That error led to this disaster. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

No error SmokeyJoe. My close was worded to explain the rationale as to why the outcome was neither to tag the page as guideline nor failed proposal. See Category:Wikipedia essays on notability for similar notability essays. Given the amount of strong support the proposal received from experienced Wikipedians who found the page useful I felt it would be inappropriate to mark it as failed, which tends to indicate proposals that clearly do not have consensus. I would suggest that if anyone wishes to either mark it as guideline or failed proposal, that a new discussion is first opened to establish where the current consensus is. If folks are no longer consulting it, then it could be marked as failed or historic; if enough folks feel the advice is useful then it could be marked as a guideline; if there is a balance of opinion on both sides, then leaving it tagged as an essay would again seem appropriate as essays don't carry the weight of a guideline, but can be consulted for the views they offer. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Essay is much better than failed, and I believe this current version would gain approval. We've had discussions about re-submitting this for guideline status, but it's grown stale a bit. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• SilkTork and Headbomb are wrong, because proposals and essays are different types of documents, and they cannot be simply interconverted. Guidelines instruct as to how to follow best practice. Essays present opinion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Impact factor

This essay currently states that, "1.c) For the purpose of C1, having an impact factor assigned by Journal Citation Reports always qualifies."

I think this is absurd. It cuts across the WP:GNG guideline, not to mention the policy on WP:NOTABILITY. The impact factor is a measure of recent citations and the presence of a low impact factor is pretty much proof that a current journal is not notable on the basis of its citations. The statement is also in the wrong place, as citations are addressed under Criterion 2. I would propose that it be moved to 2.d) and reworded along the lines of, "A significant impact factor assigned by Journal Citation Reports provides sufficient evidence of notability." But, what level would indicate a "significant" impact? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. For all its flaws, the impact factor is the single-most relied upon / agreed upon method in bibliometrics for determining whether or not a journal is notable or not. If Thomson ISI considers a journal for inclusion in Journal Citation Reports, then it clearly is a notable journal. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Headbomb. Many journals are important/significant in their field, and thus are regularly cited by scholars, but are rarely discussed by other secondary sources. Indeed, WP:GNG is a poor metric of notability for more arcane topics (including academic journals). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

question: given articles are based on such independent coverage, what would a notable-but-not-discussed-by-secondary-sources journal's article look like when brought to fa/ga? Is this perhaps a ripe area for some sense of wp:nopage? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The closest I can think of is something like Journal of the National Cancer Institute (rated C-class). However, that's still far from GA/FA status. For most journal, we aim to have the following: Publication title(s), publication history (establishment, mergers, splits, disestablishment), current and past editors-in-chief (or equivalent positions), publisher history, abstracting/indexing information (excluding trivial listing such as DOAJ/GoogleScholar), bibliographic information (ISSN, JSTOR, CODEN, etc.) and 'impact assessment' like impact factors or SCImago Journal Rank/others (usually only when the impact factor isn't available), access model (open, hybrid, delayed, closed), and an fair-used upload of the cover. If all this is included, that's a worth a Start-class. If we have more, or these sections are substantial like in the case of Journal of the National Cancer Institute, then C-class. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Your description does sort of sound like something that would run against WP:NOT, since those bits of infobox-type data would be more appropriate for a database or directory than an encyclopedia article. Or, perhaps, represent one entry in a larger list. I appreciate the challenge journals present, since they're more important than so many topics we cover -- but in the real world sense of importance rather than the notability sense. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

A lot of that goes in the infobox yes (e.g. we leave ISSN/CODEN/etc for the infobox, we don't put that in prose). But a lot of it is suitable for prose. See WP:JWG for our general advice on how to write the basic journal articles. Suggestions for improvement are always welcome. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

"Significant" is a problem as it would lead to endless debate about what is significant in each academic discipline. I wonder whether an approach might be to say that having an IF gives a rebuttable presumption of notability. In the Explore case, for example, a presumption of notability might be rebutted by evidence along FRINGE / PSEUDOSCIENCE lines arguing that it should not be treated as a serious academic publication as a purveyor of nonsense, and it would be a disservice to readers have an article typical of an academic journal when it is not one. Then, redirect the page to a list of publications of fringe / pseudoscience materials, protect the redirect to prevent re-creation, and write that these may appear on the face to be legitimate publications of academic work but are not (supported with suitable sourcing, of course). Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

(Not a direct response to EdChem, merely my thoughts on the general issue): I think that impact factors are largely numerology. I am not in favor of using them for any purpose whatsoever. My preference would be to remove that bullet from this essay. See e.g. doi:10.1126/science.aah6493 (an editorial in Science) for why: publishing in a journal with 30x the impact factor is still not enough to give your paper a statistically significant chance of more citations. It's both too sensitive to a small number of outliers and too easily gamed to give any meaningful information about journal quality. Being selected for review by Journal Citation Reports may be meaningful but we should not pick out the impact factor itself as the meaningful part of that selection. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the IF only measure what it measures. Having an IF does not mean you are a quality journal, only one that is cited often enough. In this case, we have a notable quack journal, and why Thomson ISI included it for consideration, I don't know. It could simply be a quack journal that's considered impactful in the sense that their claims are often rebutted by other journal (e.g. those are negative citations, rather than positive ones). We have articles on many quack journals. But again, like Randykitty mentioned above, we follow sources. There are many journals of astrobiology which I consider indistinguishable from worthlessness, for instance, but unless I can support that through reliable third party sources, that opinion stays out of the article. WP:V and all. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

My point is that it does not even mean what you say it means, "one that is cited often enough", because its numbers are far from representative of most papers in most journals. It turns out to actually measure only a small number of the most highly cited papers in the journal. (Also, because of its short time window, it completely misses long-term impact.) —David Eppstein (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Guideline?

At the top this is marked as an essay, and dutifully notes "essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines," yet internally it asserts that it is a guideline -- not just once, but (by my count) eight times. Shouldn't there be some consistency? It's like an article about wolves that says at the top "wolves are not a type of cat", but repeatedly refers to wolves as "these cats".

I have no opinion on the content of this essay but believe that we should use consistent language to avoid confusion. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• My impression is that it is in an horrendous state of confusion. I don't think it is an essay, or can be reasonably converted to an essay. Wikipedia:Scholarly journal is an essay. Probably this should be beaten into the shape of a more reasonable proposal. I think it is clear that some things, such as scholarly journals, are not well assessed for suitability by the GNG. Scholarly journals may be a major exception to the WP:GNG. Alternatively, most of journal might be best merged/listified/tabulated into larger articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This is mostly due to the insistence by many people that the word 'guideline' can only be used if it's an "official guideline". So we're stuck with the word essay, even though it's not an essay. Marking as an {{info page}} might be better, for now at least.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, now I'm more confused than ever. An essay that's not an essay? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It is tagged as an essay, but it was never an essay by any accepted meaning of the word. It has always been an attempt at a guideline. Almost supported, but not broadly enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... it's an essay that's not really an essay, so it calls itself a "guideline," even though it wasn't adopted as a guideline when it was voted on. My confusion is not exactly abating. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Marking it into an info page to side step the pesky process of needing to demonstrate community support? No, some things need toning down, others work, and generally a reboot from when it was last a proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Problematic

So the MfD has been closed; I am seeking to overturn it.

Here is why. The foundation of N, which is policy, is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" the community considers it notable and article-worthy, generally speaking.

This essay undermines that principle, and dramatically so.

This essay feels like the product of a "walled garden" to me and the folks who maintain and use this need to, in my view, change N to allow for the approach that is taken in this essay and that is argued regularly in deletion discussions about journals.

This should not exist or be used in anything like its currently form until N is changed. And once that is done, this should be rethought in light of whatever the community determines is OK at N.

That's my view, at this time. Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC) (fix mistake.Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC))

Consensus is that selective databases are exactly that. Reliable sources independent of the subject. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The very local consensus. That is the problem; local consensus cannot be used to override wider community consensus. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

And one that will remain in use, regardless of what tag is on top of the article. It's hardly something that evolved out of the whims of 2 random guys, but rather something that evolved over years of needing something to go by when evaluating whether or not a journal is notable. The best way to show that it is notable is to show that people noted it, and the people who notice these things are librarians and other people managing selective bibliographic databases and scholarly measure of impact such as impact factors. That's why we don't accept DOAJ as evidence of notability, because these people aim to be comprehensive and will index anything open, regardless of quality, but Current Contents is, because those people aim to include the best (see most impactful) journals. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: If you want to overturn the MfD close, start a DRv, but you have very little chance as MfD is not for deleting long-used pages which some people disagree with. You would be better off giving up on deletion and try to build consensus for change, or arguing for it to be marked historical. EdChem (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I already have started the process. Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: The issue you (and many others) seem to have is with the relationship between subject-specific notability guidelines and WP:N. The [to me] common sense understanding of a subject-specific notability guideline as an application of (or specialized guide to) WP:N, would mean that any of the former which conflict with the notability guideline should not themselves be considered to have the same weight as the guideline. However, as I recall, the subject-specific guidelines came first, later generalized for all topics, so there's some understandable sensitivity when people say they should then be subordinated to it. WP:N makes clear that a topic can be notable if it passes the GNG or a subject-specific guideline, but also defines notability in terms of "significant attention from independent sources" (or "significant independent coverage or recognition"). Yet the subject-specific criteria have many shortcuts to notability. Sometimes they're more carefully worded than others. WP:NBOOKS confers notability if "The book has won a major literary award." while WP:NFILM prefaces its criteria with "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist." It's inconsistent. This is not a guideline, but such a criterion would not be unusual among subject-specific guidelines (which is not to say that I think it should be a criterion or that this should be a guideline -- just to say this is a bigger issue). For me, I don't think it makes sense, on an encyclopedia built on WP:V, to have any guideline that isn't based on something like "significant coverage in reliable sources", and it doesn't make sense to have a base guideline define a term in a way that can be canceled by an apparent sub-guideline. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Only two came first, WP:PROF and WP:CORP. Several others came into existence in parallel with WP:N

All are subordinate to the principle that independent sources must provide suitable content, but all notability guidelines are presumptive. Case by case, AfD is the proving ground.

The inconsistency is largely driven by whether it is scholarly at one end versus promotional of profit making companies at the other. Academic journals are kind of interesting, they immediately claim scholarship, but they are profit making, subscription and submission fee gouging, profit making thin companies, some of them.

This page is definitely an attempt at a guideline.

The encyclopedia is not built on WP:V. That was a very early mistake. The encyclopedia is built on WP:A. Same point though. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The subject specific notability guidelines are designed to provide interim means of showing the presumption of notability in lieu of having immediate access to secondary sources that provide significant coverage. It is why all other established SNG's that are actual guidelines and not essays (demonstrating they have been community-vetted) are generally based on principles of merit and accomplishment, and not just because something exists; if one has done something significant, there will highly likely be sources that go into detail about it. It is expected that if sufficient time has passed and no sources appear about a presumed-notable topic, we can proceed to delete that topic; in other words, these are meant to guide all SNGs towards meeting the GNG in the very long term.

What this essay does is attempts is to assert that high citation indices are equivalent to merit but that's really not a measure that is assures secondary coverage is forthcoming. Academic journals are, for the most part, thankless entities that publish our important reliable sources and otherwise get no credit for that, but just being a publisher of this information doesn't make them notable. Journals are rarely discussed in secondary sources, period; they are a necessary device but the details of that device are really of interest for the most part to informational sciences and not the world at large. We should not be artificially saying "Well, they're important to us, so we should make more of them notable", because that undermines the concept of notability to start.

I do think that there should be a means to index journals - likely by their publisher - so that we can blue-link all peer-reviewed journals to at least a redirect to that publisher, but we should not be trying to have articles on every such journal when most of them will likely remain stubs forever.

There are elements of this essay that can be salvagable: I do agree that the 3rd criteria (noting that this nearly always assures GNG sourcing) is good, and the 2nd criteria has some elements of presumed notability that work. But that first criteria really is a problem and should not be used at all. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note - discussion with the closing admin did not result in a change of the close so I have filed a close review at AN: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_review:_Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion.2FWikipedia:Notability_.28academic_journals.29 Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• The speedy close was appropriate, because MfD is not a forum for settling policy questions. This issue of notability of journals, of giving them an easy run relative to the WP:GNG for example, is clearly in policy space. MfD was the wrong forum. The correct forum is an RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• on further reflection i decided to withdraw the challenge (diff). Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Bad notability interpretation and context

In my opinion, the guidelines are poor, and badly interpreted. Here are the main issues:

1. Notability does not imply WP:RS: Notability is often misconstrued as an indicator of reliability. ie, the Journal of Parapsychology, may be notable, but it doesn't make it a reliable source.
   The fallacy: notability is annulled when something does not meet WP:RS.
2. Notability = inclusivity, but, non-notability ≠ exclusion: Notability is about reasons for inclusiveness, but is often applied as a means of exclusion. ie. because the Journal of Astrology does not meet Academic Notability, it should be excluded.
   The fallacy: General notability is annulled when something fails notability in another area.
3. Notability is different for different people: Not everything is notable to the majority, the consensus, and the most popular group of people. Many journals have tiny circulations, but are still notable, even if they are rarely mentioned in the mainstream.
   The fallacy: Notability is annulled if something it is not noticed by my chosen group of people.

--Iantresman (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Some thoughts on why we need NJournals in some form or another

Given that several editors (either here or at the MfD) have argued that we don't need an SNG for academic journals, I am presenting here some musings about why I think that we need something like NJournals. Mind you, this is not intended to go into details (e.g., is Scopus indexing enough or not, what about IFs, etc). It's about whether or not we need an SNG. As starting point, I take the fact that probably nobody here will contest, that reliable sources discussing a particular journal in depth are very rare. Having multiple such sources about an academic journal is even rarer. Now let's do a thought experiment and suppose that NJournals would not exist. Where would that leave us with academic journals?

The immediate effect would be that we would have to apply WP:GNG and only accept journal articles for inclusion if we have multiple (at least two) reliable sources providing in-depth coverage (of the journal, not of some article that appeared in it. Coverage of an article may render that article notable, but not the journal per WP:NOTINHERITED).

The result of this would be that only the most notable of journals (such as Science or Nature) would qualify for inclusion in WP. In addition, some journals would meet GNG if they were involved in some scandal that resulted in significant coverage. Nevertheless, I estimate that 99% of all articles on academic journals that we currently have would not meet GNG and would have to be deleted.

The consequence of this would be the following. Many (most?) references in any science-, social science-, or humanities-related articles are to articles in academic journals. Currently, many of those link to articles about these journals, providing some basic, neutral information: what does the journal cover, who is the editor-in-chief, some basic indexing stuff (ISSN, link to WorldCat, link to the Library of Congress), and some details like publishing frequency, publisher, possible connected scientific societies, and how long the rag has been around. If we delete these articles, readers would not be able to find even the most basic info on them anywhere on WP.

I may be mistaken, but I think that very few editors here would find this a desirable situation.

We could, of course, also have the pendulum swing in the complete opposite direction. We could take an example of what we do for sports: any athlete who competed in, say, the 1908 Olympics is supposed to be notable, even if they ended last in a not very popular sport (like discus throw). We could therefore decide that every academic journal is notable. I think that would be the worst solution of all. It would lead to endless discussion about whether a particular journal would be "academic" (cf. the current discussion about Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing that started this whole brouhaha). It would also make it difficult to keep out predatory journals. The whole selection of which journals would be included and which not, would become very subjective and strongly depend on individual editors' personal viewpoints.

I think it is safe to say that nobody here would argue for an "open door" policy like this.

My conclusion therefore is that we have two options.

1. Apply GNG rigorously and only include articles on journals that are covered in depth by multiple independent reliable sources. We delete 99% of our journal articles.
2. Create a guideline that contains clear objective criteria that a journal will have to meet to be included. (Of course, GNG would always trump this, if there are in-depth reliable sources it doesn't matter any more if a journal would meet the SNG or not).

It will be clear that personally I think that the second solution is the most sensible one. How we define the bar that journals have to cross will have to be hammered out here. But I think that it is quite clear that we absolutely need an SNG for academic journals, even if that means that we'll continue to create articles for journals that technically do not meet GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

There are some fallacies here.

1. Let's take the NSPORTS situation. The reason that every Olympian is presumed notable is because it is no small feature that to make the Olympic team for a country is a major accomplishment, and such athletes are routinely covered by secondary sources from their local country to highlight their background and success. There are some exceptions to this, but the norm is that this secondary sourcing can be found for those athletes. That same principle must apply to selection of notability criteria for journals, and this is where the elements like IF or citation index fail, as they are simply numerics that do not provide any indication of importance; journals can have high index numbers and frequently are never discussed in secondary sources, and it seems more exceptional that sourcing like this will exist.
2. There are plenty of other ways that we can still have a journal name blue-linked in reference lists and not have a standalone page. One suggestion would be to have lists of journals by publishers, with the presumption that most of those publishers are notable too. These lists can have the years in publication, editors, and other factors you describe, and we'd use redirects to make each journal name blue-linked to the appropriate list.
3. But that said, there is no requirement that we have to have the type of documentation you describe for every citeable work. It helps, but not required per WP:V. We have many many citations to books that themselves or the authors are non-notable but considered still reliable due to other metrics. The only thing that is of key value here is the doi number that can be clicked so that the user can find the source, just as with clicking an ISBN takes the user to a similar page, and even then, that's not fully required, it's a nice feature.

I do think a lot of this is separating out understanding that WP:N and WP:RS are not mutually exclusive or tied together. A journal can be considered reliable without being documented on a standalone page. A notable journal can be considered unreliable (eg pay-to-publish ones). The MFD showed a lot of people fearing that removing this essay would render lots of sources unreliable, but that is absolutely not what is happening. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The information in those articles cannot be adequately summarized in table form, and these journals are clearly significant and notable scholarly endeavours. This is especially important that readers what to know what these sources are, because those ultimately are ultimately the sources upon which the Encyclopedia is based. No, not every journal needs an article (and we mention this explicitly in the guideline here), but redirecting an entry like Acta Physica Polonica to either the Polish Academy of Sciences or Jagiellonian University does no one a service (see WP:NOTPAPER. So the question become "do academics pay attention to these journals?". For the majority of journals the question is best answered through indexing via selective bibliographic databases. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

No, they are not clearly notable , even from a scholarly aspect, save to a small segment of people in information sciences (And I am an engineer so I have spent more than a far bit of time in academic journal searching). They are important, but importance is not the same as notability.

And it is actually easy to do your example of Acta Physica Polonica: it would not be just one line but three lines, two for the A-B split. I would even argue we could set these up like television episode lists, one line for the basic facts and a box for an expanded description if such can be made. A noted column would refer readers on the initial APP work to understand it was split to A-B, which they can later find on the same table. --MASEM (t) 21:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

To add, I find a lot of the arguments here comparable to the situation when we had problems with boatloads of mixed-martial arts (MMA) articles that a specific Wikiproject had decided its own set of notability requirements that took some time to defuse; the arguments I see being used mimic the same walled-garden issues that the MMA had. That said, I am not trying to reduce academic journals that contain an incredibly large bulk of human information to amateur athletes, its just that journals for the most part simply don't get recognition outside the ivory tower of academia and even within that tower, only from isolated corners. I think we recognize journals are important and hence a solution (lists by publisher) that avoids notability issues will still providing key information. I do think we should have lists of established journals, just not standalone pages of each individual journal. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Two remarks. 1/ Such lists would basically be a merger of the separate journal articles that we have now. I don't see the advantage of creating a huge amount of work in order to have the same result, just differently formatted. 2/ But there is a much worse problem with this solution. Who will decide which journals get included in these lists and which ones don't? The journal lists we currently have already are veritable spam magnets (especially those that include external links to the journals' homepages. Every predatory publisher is going to include their journals in these lists. Then what? Am I or some other editor supposed to move in and say "I think this Journal of Foo is not worthy of inclusion, so I'm going to delete it"? In short, to avoid this kind of capricious decisions, we would need clear criteria governing inclusion in these lists, or we would have to accept that any new journal that was created yesterday on somebody's kitchen table gets listed. --Randykitty (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

On the first point, it's basically making sure we are meeting core content policies by removing non-notable articles that have difficulty meeting these. Publishers are (presumably) notable and thus including the list of journals they include is not unreasonable information under that topic. As to your second point, however, we really can't make a distinction between a "good" vs "predatory" publisher in terms of how they are treated. I am fully aware of the issue of predatory journals in academia but we have to be aware that this can be at times a subjective label. The list of journals that a publisher prints is a factual thing (they either do or not) so all such journals under these publishers should be included in this list; at this list level, it doesn't become a matter of opinion to include but simple fact if a publisher handles a specific journal. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

So if I'm understanding you correctly, Masem, you're saying we should not have articles on every journal published by the big publishing houses, (Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press, etc.) but instead we should redirect these articles to list pages with titles like List of Elsevier journals or something like that? I just wanted to clear up what you wanted to do with, for example, the 685 articles currently in Category:Elsevier academic journals. Everymorning (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

... including Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine (first pick). Doubly sourced ascribing this journal as ""industry-sponsored" publications brought out by Elsevier without proper disclosure of their nature, and which had the superficial appearance of a legitimate independent journal." It's a thoroughly non-article, everything sourced is about what the journal is not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. Make a tables of related journals. Delete journal articles that don't have content beyond the tabulated information. There's an awful lot of cruft among things that look like journals. Tabulate the information being suggested that should be used as indicators of a notable journal, and see if it correlates well. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

...or--and this may sound crazy--you can just add more content to existing journal articles, so as to expand them so they contain well-sourced content that extends beyond "tabulated information". I suspect there are a fair number (but not most) of journals with articles now that you could do this with. Everymorning (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The table/redirect approach works alongside this: there is no need to AFD all mainspace articles on journals, and if a user finds enough sources to expand to meet the GNG (or if there are appropriate criteria that can be developed for journals), then they can expand w/o admin assistance and the tables remain just in case of any problems (the tables would still include notable journals). What one thing that has to be clear is that we can't rest that notability for a standalone article on a metric like IF or citation count, since that directly does not talk about the significance of the journal.

And only to one thing on SmokeyJoe's comment that Elsevier would have a table of about 685 (at minimum) this would likely require some type of multiple pages for that index (say, journals by alphabetical order, A-D, then E-H, etc.) , and then there's ways to use transclusion if someone wanted the full table. I suspect other core publishing houses have similarly high numbers, but we can deal with them reasonably well. I also through out a thought that some of this information may also be potentially better at a Wikipedia sister project like WikiSource or WIkiversity, but I'm not 100% sure about that. --MASEM (t) 07:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

My feeling about why we need NJournals: First of all, this is mostly about criterion 1. Criterion 2 (frequently quoted or frequently collected by libraries) is very rarely used, and as it already says Criterion 3 is mostly only satisfied when WP:GNG is also clearly passed. So most of the notability arguments in AfDs concern criterion 1. The issue, for me, is which journal indexes count as the in-depth reliable independent sources requested by WP:GNG. My own feeling is that indexes like Journal Citation Reports and SCImagoJr do count towards GNG, because their selectivity implies some level of editorial control (the usual standard for what makes a publication reliable) and the analysis they provide on each journal is sufficiently detailed to count as non-trivial. DOAJ doesn't count because it's not at all selective, and because when you look up a journal in it all you get is its publication data and contents, rather than any in-depth analysis. What we need in a journal notability guideline (or essay) is mostly a resolution of this question, if we can come to a consensus on it, as a way to head off re-fighting the same battle on every Journal AfD. It is partly on this basis (and partly because I don't believe in impact factors as meaningful) that I want to get rid of the clause about impact factors: one number is clearly not "in-depth", so it's a distraction from the real issue of whether these selective indexes should count towards GNG.—David Eppstein (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Except that's the thing, you can only have an impact factor if you are "indexed" in Journal Citation Reports, thus pass WP:GNG that way. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

However, the JCR is not a secondary source; it is a database of primary information (how often works are cited). We're looking for transformation to discuss the importance of how how frequently a journal is cited to meet the GNG. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.

Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area.

• David Eppstein. "First of all, this is mostly about criterion 1" I think that is not true. Criterion 1 is compatible with the GNG. If reliable sources (plural) assert "influential", they have asserted an opinion that is "secondary source material", you therefore have multiple reliable secondary sources. While "depth of coverage" may be an issue, for example a couple of sources list thousands of journals as "influential", a one-word characterisation, that would be a problem, criterion 1 implies meeting of the GNG.

Criterion 2 is very much not the style of the GNG and looks to me the main irritant generating opposition. It is "rarely used"? Why not drop it? If not dropped, I think it needs a lot more detail. What is "frequent"? Any reliable sources, or is papers in notable journals implied?

"My own feeling is that indexes like Journal Citation Reports and SCImagoJr do count towards GNG" I think is very problematic. The GNG is a specific line, itself an indicator of notability, which is a guideline that speaks to whether the topic should have a stand alone article. I think indexes like Journal Citation Reports and SCImagoJr are most definitely not the spirit of the GNG. I suggest replacing "GNG" in your thinking. eg: "My own feeling is that indexes like Journal Citation Reports and SCImagoJr are important considerations in deciding whether a journal should have a standa alone article". "selectivity implies some level of editorial control"? No. This is a world of processes and statistics, and is more the flavour of DIRECTORY than "coverage by multiple independent sources"

Under "Remarks" comes some illogical completely unacceptable redefinition of important concepts.

C1a is fine.

C1b & C1c are not OK. Indices are not "consideration". Criterion 1 was fine, but C1b and C1c are trickery used to define it to say something quite the opposite.

Remarks on C2 and C3 are a combination of self-explaining irrelevance and highly objectionable.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY?

I put this here to follow up on the excellent points by raised by Randykitty in the OP above. This is also following up on my note at the deletion discussion for Explore, here.

The mission of WP is to create articles that "summarize accepted knowledge" per WP:NOTEVERYTHING in a way that complies with the key content policies, V, OR, and NPOV.

What any notability guideline or essay should do, is provide guidance as to how the community can decide if we can do that for a topic in a given subject. A lot of that comes down to deciding what "reliable sources" are for the subject. (everything starts with sources - you cannot verify without them, and you cannot generate NPOV content unless you can read those sources and summarize them, giving WEIGHT per them). The presence or absence of reliable sources is what determines notability, throughout WP.

Randkitty discusses the sourcing problem for journals above. This is really the heart of the matter. There are databases that provide some data, like impact factor. But there are often not sources that allow editors to characterize journals.

This project took that path pretty much from the beginning, to create WP articles that are really directory entries - that don't characterize their subjects narratively, the way most every other article in WP does with respect to their subjects. (I have read a bunch of the history of this page, and this seems to come from a sense of... librarianship.. that this wikiproject serves somehow as a validator of sources (or at least a provider of data about sources) used in the rest of the rest of the project, and there is a whole sense of duty and responsibility tied up in that.)

Something I would suggest, is that the discussion above really be worked through and if this wikiproject decides it wants to stick with the "directory" model, that you work to change WP:NOTDIRECTORY to make an exception there for academic journals. I think it is well explain-able based on the kinds of sources that are available. The way things stand now, in my view the thread that guy opened at Jimbo's talk page, here is an entirely valid criticism. Right now journal articles generally do violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY and this is something that should be fixed to keep WP as a whole coherent.

This still leaves open the problem of how to apply NPOV for a given journal article, especially with regard to journals that publish FRINGE stuff, which are becoming more and more prevalent. The problem that is coming to a head with Explore is not going away. I am going to open another thread about that. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Fix this page? Discussions following deletion nomination

On 10 December this page was nominated for speedy deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). That nomination was closed as being out of process because pages like this are not eligible for speedy deletion, and instead would need to be deleted after more thorough discussion. Through and after that discussion, the below some related discussions started. I refactored the discussion by putting them all in the same discussion section. My intent was to make it clear that multiple conversations on this issue are ongoing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

update - Headbomb says, "(don't refactor people's comments, this is not how the discussion happened, and presents a falacious history)". I could be mistaken, but it was my view that this page had a flurry of related activity. Typically no one comments here. Between early October and December there were no edits, then suddenly over 2 days 30 people came here or to the deletion discussion to go wild. Anyone may draw their own conclusions on what this was about, but I think the deletion nomination prompted it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

No explanation excuses refactoring conversations, per WP:TALK. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

"always qualifies", how it is used, where it came from, and how that fits with WP generally

Apologizing in advance for this long thing.

We all know that in general WP is pretty allergic to rules that are applied mechanically. The community has some very bright lines that are "rule"-like (like, umm OUTING). We of course have strong policies that are very near-rule like, but they tend to be broad statements that need application. They aren't binary "rules".

Everybody here is busy and there are definitely subcultures and norms that develop in these subcultures. Some of that is subject matter-based, and some is just what humans tend to do. But these differences are really clear, when people who don't usually edit that area, come and try to do stuff. I experience this all the time in my editing about health - some people who don't edit about health and try to, are really baffled by MEDRS and they sometimes get angry -- I can feel the "what the hell?!?" reaction building in people who are used to editing without sourcing at all, or not really thinking about source quality. Or who do think about source quality but are unfamiliar with MEDRS. And sometimes they get all fired up and come and try to change MEDRS, which is (usually) a huge waste of everyone's time. I get all this. With respect to MEDRS, when people are upset, I go out of my way to try explain. I even wrote an essay about it (WP:Why MEDRS?) in order to explain. I get it, that this bright line thing (really the "no" it generates) is weird to people but very normal and even important to folks in this project.

Looking at the recent blow-up, what I think has upset people who are not part of the regular group who work on journals, is hitting the wall of this "always" business with regard to JCR impact factor, which has indeed been applied like a rule to automatically confer Notability and try to end discussions. If folks who are part of the group that works on journals are unaware of this - that "always" rule is jarring - it feels weird - it feels like a walled garden kind of thing.

In the 1st AfD, the "rule" was applied as a rule this !vote and this !vote and is ~probably~ (?) the cause of the rather shockingly rapid close (which didn't cite the "rule"). I'll note that this !vote did the "rule" thing some, but added some nuance. This !vote was the most ... "normal"-for-an-AfD !vote in the 1st AfD.

In the 2nd AfD the same dynamic is playing out with !votes like this, and this and this. And again we have a comment at the 2nd AfD that is .. well, "normal"-for-an-AfD, in that it didn't treat "always" like a rule that can be applied to automatically confer notability.

Other WikiProjects (like the radio people) have developed these kinds of "always" rules for notability too. It is jarring to encounter them.

So where did the two instances of "always" confers Notability come from in this essay?

condense: the Nobel "always" came from WP:PROF from which this was copied in August 2009; the "always" with regard to JCR impact factor was added in the first month, was not discussed then, and has never been discussed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This essay was created in August 2009 as a copy/paste from WP:PROF. From the first day, it contained the sentence: " For the purposes of Criterion 2, major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc, always qualify under Criterion 2. Some lesser significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige also can be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g. the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc. Significant academic awards and honors can also be used to partially satisfy Criterion 1 (see item 4 above in this section)." That makes sense, coming from PROF. (but hm, an "always") That language was added to PROF originally in this dif in August 2008 with edit note "Boldly install the new version". There was ~fairly~ robust discussion of that major revision, including this "always", in several sections of archive 5 of the related talk page. WP:PROF also contained, well before that, a Caveat section that included the following: "Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable."" Which was initially adopted here as follows: " Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may well exist. Some journals may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for the work they have published. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of quality of publications: The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: To a degree, journals are the sources upon which much of Wikipedia's contents are built. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable." That language came into this essay from day 1, and although it has been moved around and changed some, it is really important. That caveat was an effort to speak to the broader community. So after WP:PROF was copied here, it was worked over, and in the first set of diffs adapting this to Journals, the following sentence was added in this dif, apparently following the logic of the above "always" clause: "For the purpose of Criterion 1, having an impact factor assigned in Thompson Scientific's highly-selective Journal Citation Reports always qualify under Criterion 1." So that 2nd "always" clause has been in there from the beginning. I checked the archive, and it was never discussed. (!)

This is kind of tldr, but why I am trying to communicate is, that

• 1) "always" X, applied as a rule, is not normal in WP broadly
• 2) please consider getting rid of it (and I am mean please actually consider it - please have a robust discussion);
• 3) if you are going to keep it,
  • i) please consider holding an RfC to get community buy-in (I might initiate that myself is someone native to this project doesn't);
  • ii) please develop ways of explaining it - you might want to even add that explanation to this essay, and a practice of explaining it, when people are unaware of it.

Thanks. tldr - Jytdog (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for this post, the history is illuminating. Probably a good start for the discussion that we need. Unfortuantely, I'm leaving tomorrow for holiday travel to visit family and friends, so I won't be able to contribute much in the coming days. --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Sorry it is so "preachy" but everybody is here is good people and there is just sub-cultures clashing i think. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've got a thick skin and as long as people talk about arguments and not the person, then "everybody is here is good people and there is just sub-cultures clashing" is exactly how I take it. We'll find a compromise that everybody can live with, I'm sure. --Randykitty (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That's absolutely how I view it, and I'm sorry if I gave any other impression. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Wait, are you saying that the impact factor always notable is a copy-paste from Nobel laureates are always notable? If so, that might possibly be the most inane thing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. The difference beteen having an impact factor of 0.124 and having a Nobel Prize is pretty bloody obvious. Please tell me that's not what happened? Guy (Help!) 21:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • From what I have checked from Jytdog's analysis, that is what happened. (This is a common fallacy when others start new notability proposals too, they copy language without recognize the case. The Nobel Prize award is a highly unique case that has very little analogy elsewhere). This is why this guideline is extremely problematic as its written not towards selectiveness but inclusivity. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Given that history, I think it can be removed immediately and without any further need for discussion, not least because a Nobel Prize is a binary (you have or you don't) thing that gets awarded to a handful of people a year, whereas an impact factor is a linear metric that applies by now to tens of thousands of journals, with most papers in some listed journals never cited at all. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The impact factor has never been compared to a nobel prize, and that's not why we mention it. It's because Journal Citation Reports is on of the most selective, if not the most selective when it comes to including journals for consideration. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Historically that is exactly where it came from. Look at this dif at 09:24 on 26 August 2009 where the "always" IF was added, and just a few diffs later at 10:13, 26 August 2009 in this dif the Nobel "always" was removed. It is clear transfer of the "always" from PROF to this essay; the presence of the "always" is not normal in WP and is like a prion here. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It's still not why we have it, but rather because Journal Citation Reports is on of the most selective, if not the most selective when it comes to including journals for consideration. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

And to show truly how a selectivity as a criteria is the point of this, WP:NASTRO based itself on WP:NJOURNALS's selectivity idea [3]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

As selective as the Nobel Committee? And when you say selective, it includes t last count over 11,000 journals, which is a lot. The highest IF is over 130 (CA - a cancer journal for clinicians). I have seen impact factors of 0.12 and less. There are examples where publications on Beall's list have had impact factors assigned, and a fair number have been removed over the years. That does not look like a "highly selective" list, and certainly not to the point where inclusion confers automatic notability, as it does for a Nobel laureate. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Example: [4] is still listed as of 2016. OMICS Group is probably the best known predatory open access publishing company in the world. Selective? Guy (Help!) 23:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Notability is independent of reliability. We have plenty of articles on crank journals (see Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice / Journal of Cosmology, and I'd argue it's especially important to have those. As for OMICS, it's a shit publisher for the most part, but some of their journals seem to make more sense then others. I'm no biologist, so I can't say for myself if OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology is reliable or not, but it's certainly a notable one. It's likely included because it's published by Mary Ann Liebert, not OMICS.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

Would folks in this project please consider including discussion of NPOV in this essay - namely answering the question of whether there are sufficient sources to create an NPOV article? I understand the problem you face, in that what you consider to be "reliable sources" for journals tend to be databases, and there is rarely an issue of how to neutrally summarize a source that is a database entry.

But this is one of the problems that has arisen at the AfD about Explore and that is a problem that is going to get worse with time as more and more journals are created that publish FRINGEy stuff. Those journals will refer to each other, they will have impact factors, etc. This is not something that I think is easily solved.

Part of the consideration of whether an article is kept or deleted needs to be whether we can write an NPOV article about it. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC) (redact, to clarify Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC))

NPOV is a different consideration than notability. We address this in our writing guide WP:JWG. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm I think my OP was a bit misleading, but I will check that writing guide.

I did lead you to miss the point.... If you go way back into WP history, these "notability" guidelines arose to answer the question, "should there be a WP article about X or not?" Since everything in WP depends on sources -- you cannot write an article that has no OR, is V, and is NPOV without sources - the standard the community arrived at for the general GNG, was - "are there sufficient independent reliable sources with significant discussion of X, such that we can write an article that is not OR, is V, and NPOV?"

The answer to that question (should there be an article about X) of any given WikiProject cannot be different from that. The answer needs to describe how that standard applies within its discipline. Here in the journals project, the more fundamental problem has been "what are reliable sources about journals"? and you all have come up with these databases as the reliable sources. This is an interesting approach but it leaves open the problem of whether an article can be written that satisfies NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

And that "problem" is addressed in WP:JWG, which we refer to in Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals)#Best_practices. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I checked WP:JWG and "NPOV" does not occur in it. the word "neutral" appears once, in the following: "Never copy-paste descriptions (or anything else) from journal websites. These cannot be trusted to be neutral and are likely to be copyrighted material. Beware of weasel words, such as "is a leading journal...", "publishes high-quality research...", etc..." That's it.

You are not dealing with the problem, that the NJOURNAL essay does not provide a way for editors to determine if an NPOV can be writt`en at all. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

That's because there's no real problem to address. If you stick to WP:JWG, then you've written a neutral article. WP:NPOV covers the rest if you truly need a refresher on what NPOV is. Notice WP:NASTRO makes no reference to neutrality either, as do most other notability guidelines like WP:PROF. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I am going to stop engaging with you. This is not productive. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, you make up problems for WP:NJOURNALS that aren't problems for other notability guidelines. It's hard to take those seriously, especially when you simply assert those are problems without demonstration there is actually an issue. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I always view Wikipedia policy and guidance as a hierarchy, with WP:5P at the top. The point of WP:GNG is to ensure that we have enough reliable independent sources to ensure a verifiable, and verifiably neutral, article. Directory-based notability guidelines that do not take account of the availability of analytical sources, risk delivering articles that can never meet the canonical policy of WP:NPOV. It is unrealistic to expect the compilers of JCR to review over 10,000 journals to make sure that they have not descended into publishing bullshit. So we have a situation where inclusion in JCR - which, incidentally, includes a number of predatory journals - enables an article sourced entirely from the journal publisher's own description of the journal. It assumes that JCR is flawless, but every year a number get removed, including (in 2014 and 2015) a large number of predatory journals. Inclusion in JCR is a fair indication that a journal is likely to be notable, unless the impact factor is very low (and even that is suject specific: a cancer journal with IF of 1 is negligible, whereas a social science journal with IF of 1 will at the top of its field). Just strike "always". Make it like every other subject notability guideline: these are the things that are liekly ot indicate a notable subject, but in the end the determining factor is - and must be, per NPOV and V - the availability of reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd be fine with changing 'always' to 'usually', personally. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)