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 determine whether there are sufficient sources with which to write an NPOV article for a given journal, 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) 00:02, 17 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)

Sorry, ,that figure is widely off. The JCR at this moment contains analyses of 11997 journals, not "tens of thousands". --Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 22 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)

• Since this is the section about "always", am providing dif here of Headbomb's consent to changing "always" and dif of Guy's statement of intent to change it. (sorry, i think about people finding stuff later) Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• So we have to keep this nebulous phrase because one editor wants it that way? I do not agree with this and this already causing a problem in one discussion [5]. Just because, the criterion says "always" doesn't preclude an editor using their own judgement in a deletion discussion. NJOURNALS is meant to be a guide when it comes to deletion discussions. The wording right now appears to be pretty much useless. Saying "reasonably reliable indication of significance" understates the significance of JCR impact factor, is a phrase that is unclear in its meaning, and consensus should be sought for change from "always' not the other way because one or two editors decides to change it. Change to "almost always" for now - get rid of this unclear phrasing that means nothing. I think consensus should have been sought for such a change because this is central to NJOURNALS. Also, impact factor does indicate that the journal has an 'impact' in its field where hundreds and hundreds of other journals do not have an impact factor at all. This makes a difference in keeping a journal article. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, Jytdog - Headbomb said it was OK to change it to "usually" not the nebulous, meaningless phrase that is there now. This is not the agreed upon change. So please change it to either "usually", or "almost always". I don't see consensus here for the phrase currently in this guideline. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for talking Steve Quinn. If what you mean by "useless" is "it is a not a "rule" anymore," that is indeed the point; 1) the "rule" thing is extremely unWikipedian and 2) this "rule" arose in this essay in a kind of outrageous and invalid parallel with the Nobel Prize. Do you see all that? Jytdog (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any correlation between this and the Nobel Prize, although I did unsuccessfully try to look at diffs provided. I will try again. Also, I have never seen anybody call this a rule before. As with any guideline - it is a guide and every editor should use their best judgement. In every case, except the one that I linked to, impact factor clearly indicates the journal has an impact, where hundreds of journals do not have an impact factor (at all). The journals without an impact factor do not ususally make the cut on Wikipedia, although some do. I have worked on or with this project for years. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I hope this change didn't come about just because one journal is obviously fishy and should not have an impact factor - although it advertises that it does on its site. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The point that is made is that "impact factor" is only a metric seemed significant by a very tiny minority (those interested in the informational sciences). Having a high IF has no demonstrated coorelation to being the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources, which is what notability is supposed to be built on, not a analytical value. --MASEM (t) 06:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not true that only "those interested in the informational sciences" look at IFs. While many people agree that IFs are overrated, many more people still use it as a guide on where to submit the results of their research. Every journal editor knows that if a journal's IF goes up, so do submissions. Publishing in a journal with a high IF still makes or breaks the careers of young scientists. We can like that or loath that (I belong in the latter category), but it still is the reality. WP is not the place to change this practice, we should only report on what is being said in reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Randykitty and Masem the discussion about High IF is a complete waste of time. The criteria is having any IF. Jytdog (talk) 13:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Except that what I say about having a high IF goes even more for just having an IF. New journals face an uphill battle to get established, because they don't have an IF. A vast majority of researchers will not submit anything to a journal that is not in the JCR. But as soon as a journal gets accepted for inclusion, even though at that point the journal's first IF is not known yet, submissions will soar. The world at large obviously thinks that having an IF is very important for a journal... --Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The world at large is trying to get tenure, and hiring committees look at IF in submissions. Most people think this system is badly broken. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Nonetheless, the reality is that tenure and hiring committees think IFs are valuable. --Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It still comes down to the fact that if you step outside academic circles, very few ppl in the world care at all about IF or the like, and academic journals rarely get called to attention unless they are an established source of major science news reported in mainstream (like Nature), or they become embroiled in bad science or a similar situation. Within the academic world, the whole issue around IF and importance and the like is not something discussed in readily-verifiable sources - it's word of mouth, debates and discussions at conferences, etc. but little to any is written down save for that small slice of informational sciences. And because IF itself is generated automatically simply from database results, its not a transformative information about a journal. Hence, IF is no way a measure of notability as defined on WP. We need secondary sources, and a high IF is not an apparent merit to assure those sources will exist. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

1/ WP covers many things that are ignored or barely known outside of the circles that care about it. 2/ If you look at our article on the impact factor, you'll see many references discussing the value or lack thereof of the IF in journals like Nature or BMJ and others. Trade magazines like The Scientist or Lab Times also regularly cover this discussion. Having an IF, is the result of a journal having been selected by a committee of experts, I cannot stress that enough. Do they sometimes make mistakes? Surely. Does that invalidate their opinion? If it would, we could just as well abolish every source used on WP, because every source will make mistakes from time to time. --Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The points still come down to the need for secondary sources to demonstrate notability. And that's the point that even if you consider within information science or academic circles, there is very little secondary sources about specific journals. The bulk of the information about journals are statistics like the IF, and those stats alone (alongside primary info like publisher, year started, etc.) is not sufficient for a notable wikipedia article. That's why the "high IF is always notable" is a really really really bad notability presumption. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What is very clear, is that the effort to end discussions about the appropriateness of a WIkipedia article about Explore by declaring "it has an IF and is notable - it's a rule!!!!" has drawn a lot of attention to this essay and how it is used. Jytdog (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

That's an oversimplification. That journal is also in Index Medicus, a highly selective subset of MEDLINE, curated by specialists from the United States National Library of Medicine. --Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, i am going to have to walk away from my computer. It is not a fucking oversimplification. I provided mother fucking diffs of only fucking some of the fucking "rule" being mother fucker applied as a binary mother fucking rule. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Jytdog, I would greatly appreciate if you could refrain from swearing. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you understand what was so upsetting about what you wrote? Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jytdog Yeah, I just noticed that. Somehow I missed that at the top of this thread. So, I stand corrected. I have never seen anybody use this as a rule before these two AfD discussions. So, since there is such a tendency I agree that it needs to be changed. In light of this, I also understand why you changed to the phrase that you had. We don't need a bright line rule - it is not worth the friction. I am endeavoring to go through the Drop Down box for the history aspect - thanks for doing this research ---Steve Quinn (talk)

• Jytdog In fact, if you want to change it back to the phrase you had, go ahead and do so. We can work on it later after the storm has passed. And I am no longer for keeping "always" in this guideline - based on this discussion ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! so beautiful to have authentic discussion. from my perspective, it is OK how it is now, with stronger language but the "don't use it is as a rule" thing; it was OK before. Whatever is most useful to the regulars/members of this project, whose tool this primarily is, but helps prevent future straying into rule-using.  :) Jytdog (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I cannot emphasize enough that you are in the minority and your edits to this guideline are against consensus. Rather than continue your derangement, just go edit elsewhere. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

And I cannot emphasize enough that the harder this project defends this misguided essay the more likely it is that the broader community will render it historical through an MfD. Walled Gardens get torn down. Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

By all means! I support you using process (RfC or MfD) to resolve this. You may not, however, continue to boldly edit when you've already been reverted. Your emotional outburst above and apparent frustration lead me to believe you've gotten too wrapped up in getting your own way and I think there are other places on Wikipedia where you could contribute. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

And it's hardly a walled garden, nor a 'misguided essay'. No need to be a sour grape. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:39, 22 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)

They aren't problems for other guideliens because other guidelines don't include the claim that presence in a database always confers notability. We have seen above that the source fo this text is the Nobel prize. Do you think listing on JCR is comparable with the Nobel prize? Guy (Help!) 23:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Things that don't bend, break. This WikiProject has drifted away from community norms in a few ways, and if that doesn't get fixed in discussions here then the community will fix it. Others are being more open to discussion with the rest of the community than you are, and hopefully it won't come to a MfDs to mark things as historical, but if that is where this ends up, that is where it ends up. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 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/likely', personally. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Fine, then I will do it. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Please go slow with making changes, Guy. This essay has been used for 7 years and we want to get consensus for changes not drive them in. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• the bigger problem is still here. What are the criteria for journals that mean that we can write an NPOV article about it? Putting this another way, what does this essay need to say, such that people don't react in deletion discussions that involve questions of whether there are sufficient refs to write an NPOV article, with "it in X database, it is fine"? Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no such problem, and that's addressed by WP:JWG and WP:NPOV. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Am looking forward to a reasonable discussion on this. The problem that has arisen with Explore is not going away and NJOURNALs has nothing to address the problem. It needs to. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't need to do anything. This page is about the notability of journals, not their reliability, or their NPOV description. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

We do want avoid attack articles, but that's a bit where UNDUE also has to be considered. Take any random predatory journal. If there are secondary sources that criticize its predatory nature in depth, it is still reasonable to consider an article on it, keeping UNDUE in mind that most of the article will be the criticism; however, the presence of secondary sources means we can also pull from primary sources - eg the journal itself - to discuss the journal in a factual, unbiased/NPOV manner first before jumping into the criticism of the journal. That it, even if everything else about the journal is negative and could be taken as an attack on the journal (which can be mitigated with proper tone), we can always dilute that with the core basics about the journal and achieve a NPOV-compliant article. Mind you, I suspect it will be more likely that one would describe the predatory publisher in this notable manner before any of their journals (read: the case for OMICS). --MASEM (t) 00:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Masem. If there are plenty of articles discussing a journal there is no N problem even under GNG, much less NJOURNALS. The problem is with situations like Explore, where the subject meets the database-based requirements in this essay but there are insufficient sources discussing it to allow us to even describe it per NPOV so it fails GNG as normally understood. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

If no sources can be found describing it as a shit journal, then we shouldn't say it's a shit journal, regardless of what your own personal feeling towards that journal is. That's WP:V and WP:NPOV 101. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking forward to productive discussion of this issue. Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

concrete example

The current essay says:

General remarks

G.a) Journals dedicated to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories will often not meet any of C1, C2 or C3. However, they may still be notable under the Wikipedia:GNG, WP:NFRINGE, or other guidelines.

In 2016, when there are more and more journals publishing alt med and woo, it is more and more likely that the kind of journals mentioned there will get citations from other such journals, and C1 will be met by its having an impact factor. This is probably what is going on with Explore. I don't know what "notable under WP:FRINGE" means (maybe trying to bring in unusual sources as provided in WP:PARITY?) But I would look for this section to say something like "not notable because per WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE WP articles must discuss that aspect and there may be insufficient sources characterizing the journal" or the like. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Notability under WP:NFRINGE means exactly what that page says. "For a fringe theory to be considered notable, and therefore to qualify for a separate article in Wikipedia, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia.

A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of a theory – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability. Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird", or during "slow news days" (see junk food news and silly season)."

Journals notable under WP:NFRINGE are Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice / Journal of Cosmology, both of which fail WP:NJOURNAL, but which are nontheless considered notable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

OK so apply this to Explore. Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

No need to, it's indexed in selective databases and has an impact factor, making it a clear pass of WP:NJOURNALS. You're the one who wants to say this is a shit journal, the onus is on you to provide those sources. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I look forward to a productive discussion on this. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

BEFORE

Headbomb is insitent on including the following:

<ref name="wpBefore" group="lower-alpha">Wikipedia editors have been known to reject nominations for deletion that have been inadequately researched. Research should include attempts to find sources that might demonstrate notability, and/or information that would demonstrate notability in another manner.</ref>

I think this is inappropriate for several reasons.

• It is generic and applies to all deletions.
• It implies WP:OWNership.
• It embodies special pleading, implying that these articles are special or unique.
• It invokes a bureaucratic process unique to these articles.
• It fails to assume good faith.

I removed it, I think it should stay out, but Headbomb disagrees. As above, I think we have a problem with this essay invoking concepts that are unique to Wikipedia, IMO we should roll these back, and this is one of them. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hardly, we have guidance like this in plenty of other guidelines like WP:NASTRO. Compare Wikipedia:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#Failing_all_criteria with Wikipedia:Notability_(academic journals)#Failing_all_criteria or Wikipedia:Notability#cite_ref-8 or Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#cite_ref-note10_14-0. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Just put in a link to WP:BEFORE. This is certainly not unique to NJournals. I have seen the argument that BEFORE was not met used in many deletion discussions and actually only rarely in journal-related discussions. --Randykitty (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

done here. Jytdog (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It was done [6]. Removing the section outright as you have done is completely inappropriate and nowhere near what RK suggested. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

That does not seem to be AT ALL what she meant.  :) I am not a fucking idiot. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, my apologies for not being clearer. What I meant was "just add a link to BEFORE", not "replace with a link to BEFORE. That section contains some useful advice, I think, which is more difficult to distill from BEFORE. --Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I don't think BEFORE is hard to understand, but whatever. Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Readers?

I think a perspective worth considering is that of the readers of Wikipedia. When I am reading articles, there are times I look to the references to look further into something written on Wikipedia. When it comes from a journal, I always hope to see a link to a wiki-article on the journal because if I don't immediately know it. Finding out who the publisher is, how long it has been around, IF, editor and her or his institution, are helpful to me to forming an impression. Links in the cite to authors is helpful too, as they can tell me about their work and that they are notable enough (in WP terms) to have an article. For example, suppose I saw a claim about fusion as a future clean power source in an article section on technological approaches to global warming, and that I had some science background but the reference I found didn't immediately jump out at me:

• Fleischmann, Martin; Pons, B. Stanley (1989). "Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium". J. Electroanal. Chem. 261 (2): 301–308. doi:10.1016/0022-0728(89)80006-3.

I would note two notable authors and a journal article, all of which would quickly point me that this was the start of the cold fusion mess. There are, of course, other warning signs – a single article from 25+ years ago would have many follow ups and reviews in major journals if the claim had checked out (so a better reference should exist), a low profile journal (which the journal article does not make clear, I might add), and authors with no background in nuclear processes. The J. Electroanal. Chem. article does and should point out this very big story, which to me is the kind of content a reader might hope to find in a journal article.

For example, on the predatory journals topic, I wonder if (for those that are actually notable), it might be more helpful to have an article which notes its inclusion on Beall's list and (in the case of OMICS) that it is subject to legal action by the FTC, than it is to have no article at all. I know JzG and others are working on avoiding such references being included in article space (which is appropriate as they are not going to be reliable, generally), but they will still happen, sometimes just by an editor not realising that a source in a google search is flawed.

I am raising this to make two points:

1. On the Explore journal issue, an article telling me that the editors are considered fringe-y (which is supportable by RS, as I understand it) is much more useful than no article at all. I agree that an article that looks like every other journal article and does not point out the reality is flawed from an NPOV perspective, and a case-by-case analysis of what is needed for questionable journals... which also suggests to me that the Journals and Fringe WikiProjects and editors need to be working together towards better content. I don't suggest that is not the motivation and intent of recent events, but the outcome looks and feels to me much more like conflict than team work.
2. There is a related problem, which is that there has evolved a fixed view on what a journal article should be which I see as unhelpful at times. DGG's idea of routinely including highly cited or also high impact articles from the journal have met resistance in the past, and I think it should be encouraged for articles. I also think that material can be included to flesh out articles, depending on what the journal has done. For example, I have recently created and am working on Zeitschrift für Kristallographie – Crystalline Materials where I have included some history on the journal's formation, on special issues dedicated in memory of scientists who have died (all 3 I have found so far have no en-WP bio but do have de-WP bios), and on special issues on topics (which point out a topic we are missing (or where I can't find the relevant en-WP page) and where there might be useful references due to such issues typically including a review of that topic). I think that there has been a trend to minimalist information on journals which makes them less useful for our readers. I know that including the number of citations on WoS for articles requires regular updates, but this could be done annually when the new IFs are updated.

In short, what is most useful for readers, which is what I think we need to aim for, guided and within policy, of course. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I will point out that I think that every peer-reviewed journal that will likely be usable as a source (eg discounting predatory journals) should be blue-links to help the reader identify the journal, but at that point, blue-links don't have to lead to standalone pages, but could readily go to lists of journals per publisher, using a table format to collect the details that are factual about non-notable journals for exactly the purpose of helping readers. The problem with your suggestions otherwise still ends up avoiding the demonstration of notability for a journal, and making some elements "self-important" which is the last thing we want for WP standalone articles. --MASEM (t) 06:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that every peer reviewed journal used a source for a WP articles should have a description here in WP, for the benefit of the readers; I would add that every publication likely to attempted to be used as a bad source should have one also. The way to deal with the notability standard if necessary is to make use of the provision in WP:N for combination articles for topics that individually do not meet the standard. Personally, I rather have an inclusion standard based of reality rather the chance of references, but since the community seem to feel otherwise, we can nonetheless use WP:N is the flexible fashion that was intended. This is WP, and we not only make the rules, but make the interrelations.

A::s another point, I continue to think the most useful information about a journal is the papers it publishes--we do not publish complete tables of contents, and I have always removed them, but that is no reason not to highlight articles. DGG ( talk ) 07:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• I am familiar with the perspectives above about linking to articles and authors in citations; i don't share them. i don't like links to authors and journals in refs and view them as bad clutter and curse when I click on one by accident and arrive at a WP article about the journal when I want to read the actual article being cited. I think that folks who value such links also support a low bar for notability for journals so that they can be linked in citations. I don't know how much that in turn might arise from the way some members of this WikiProject see it as somehow serving as a librarian for the rest of the project. I don't see it that way, but want to note that i am hearing that perspective. But no, we should not as a matter of course provide Wikilinks to authors and journals in citations in my view and in my view we should not have a low bar for N for Journals. Jytdog (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

AfDs

Reading the above discussions, one would think that the AfD of Explore is the only one currently ongoing. Anybody wishing to avoid developing a tunnel vision might take a look here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Article alerts. Several AfDs are listed that have barely any participants, even after having been relisted. Taking a look at them will perhaps provide some perspective to the above discussions. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Notable editor

FYI: An argument is being brought forward at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rutherford Journal, that NJournals should be modified to include that a journal is notable if it is peer-reviewed and edited by a notable academic. --Randykitty (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited, period. That's a non-starter. --MASEM (t) 04:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I think there is a logical argument here, in that highly notable academics do not edit tin pot journals, and so if a journal has a prominent editor then it is likely notable, However, if it is that notable a journal then there will be more direct evidences / measures attesting to notability than the identity of the editor. So, I wouldn't use this approach. Further, in the Rutherford case, though the editor makes it to notable and has a wiki-bio, he's not in the "highly notable academics" category I mean above. EdChem (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually seems to me that at the moment he only meets C8 of WP:PROF ("The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area"), which makes for interesting circular reasoning... --Randykitty (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Jack Copeland: Reviews of his book on Turing: Irish Times Notices of the American Mathematical Society (10 pages) Publishers Weekly Technology & Culture Logos doi:10.1002/asi.23705 doi:10.1002/asi.23705

• Coverage of his views by the BBC Audio interview with the Australian ABC Video lecture on Turing (60 min) Coverage from Bletchley Park (note this one lists him as FRS NZ, but he's not an FRS according to the Royal Society website) International Association for Computing And Philosophy (Covey Award) Podcast on Turing with Copeland Copeland writing in Huffington Post Copeland writing in Scientific American mentioned in connection with Imitation Game
• Reviews of Colossus: The Secrets of Bletchley Park's Codebreaking Computers: doi:10.1353/tech.2007.0112 doi:10.1080/03612759.2011.572539 Nature Review
• Turing's electronic brain: American Mathematical Society
• I think there's enough here to make an argument for Copeland's notability. Thoughts, Randykitty? EdChem (talk) 11:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited. The editor may be notable, but that means nothing as far as the journal goes. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Headbomb, the post above was for Randykitty's benefit as the notability of Copeland is not well established in his wikibio, so I was pointing out a few things that I found when I had looked earlier. I would not have posted this at the AfD discussion because it is not relevant to the retaining of the journal article, I know.  :) I know notability is not inherited but there can be correlations. If an internationally renowned academic is the editor of a journal, even if I had never heard of it, I would likely infer that it was a significant journal... but it also likely follows there would be evidence to establish notability. There is logic to the suggestion that highly significant editor likely implies significant journal, but it is also true that the idea of including this in policy is unwise, especially as the argument that marginally notable editor implies journal must be kept automatically is both undesirable and a likely consequence of such a policy change. EdChem (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I can name at least three different journals where an editor was extremely notable, but the journal was completely ignored by the world. Rabbit holes, can be fallen into, you see. jps (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Too many bad journals have appropriated the names of too many good academics for this proposal to fly. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Indexing

I am afraid I take much exception to the claim that selective indexing confers notability. It can be a piece of evidence used in notability, but by itself it does not indicate notability. The essay should make this clear. It's only a piece of evidence, but there are a lot of journals that are indexed selectively which are, nevertheless, entirely non-notable (in the sense that no one pays attention to them and never has, but the publisher continues to put them out there because they receive fees from authors/organizations/etc.)

jps (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope, selectiveness confers notability. Saying no one pays attention to journals included in selective indices is a contradiction. That's the point of selective indices. I, as a researcher, do not want to be given a bunch of crap in my literature searches. That's why I make use of these services. Because they give me the non-crap, and exclude shit like The General Science Journal.

Nothing is perfect of course, but if a journal doesn't have an impact factor, or isn't indexed in a selective database, I would think long and hard about citing something published there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

And even less submitting something there! These databases are "selective" thanks to curation by a committee of specialists. Just as an Oscar or Grammy nomination by a committee of specialists is taken as proof for the notability of an actor, just so I don't think we should second-guess a committee of specialists selecting academic journals. --Randykitty (talk) 08:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"an Oscar or Grammy nomination by a committee of specialists is taken as proof for the notability of an actor"?! It is very rare to rare find such an absurd thing said at a notability page. But, this is a failed notability subguideline, masquerading as an essay, so I suppose that's why these rejected notions may be gasping for air here. No, a nomination is an "indicator" that the person might be notable, a rebutable presumption. The real proof of notability is where others have written about it, and the judge is AfD. "curation by a committee of specialists"? Is that a fantasy? Evidence? What is a "specialist"? jps is right. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

What is a specialist? An expert in the field. What a ridiculous non-argument you're presenting. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

A specialist, with respect to the journals, or to their fields, or to fields published in some of the journal? Who are these specialists who curate databases of selected journals? In most cases, "specialist" is a buzz term of promotion without connection to any specific qualification. I'm sure these hypothetical curators would agree to being called specialists, but it doesn't mean much. Point one out and lets see whether they are an "expert". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand where this argument from Headbomb and Randykitty is coming where they've become convinced that all journals which are included in an index are notable because journals which are not included in an index are not. SmokeyJoe is right. That's simply the logical fallacy: Most A are not B therefore all NOT A are B. A journal may be notable because it is indexed, but the criteria by which indexing occurs in selective indices is not the same thing as what we would need to write an article in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't understand where you get that idea. Our assertion is that journals included in these databases are selected because they are notable and that journals not included will need other evidence before they can be deemed notable. I don't see any logical fallacy here. Non-included journals can be notable if there are other sources than databases (such as sources describing predatory practices, or because a journal publishes such rubbish that it gets covered elsewhere). --Randykitty (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • YOur assertion is that journals included in these databases are selected because they are notable is extremely dubious. There are reasons to include journals in a database other than Wikipedia-notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Clarification: they are included because they are among the most important ones in a given field. Which is evidence of Wikipedia notability. --Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
      • That's better. But who decides which are among the most important versus of lesser importance? Selected curators? Or payment of fees? If the journal is not independent of the database that lists it, the listing is not evidence of notability. Ability to pay creates real world importance. I'm playing devils advocate here. Not listed in the database sounds like a pretty sure indicator of non-importance, but notions of database-listing implies notability fly in the face of the spirit of WP:N. it would be easier to argue inclusion without reference to "notability", along the lines of S Marshall's essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• There's no fee involved to get included into bona fide databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, the Science Citation Index, etc). Almost all major databases are independent of the journals they cover. The one possible exception is Scopus, which is owned by Elsevier. But, whatever you may think of that publisher, they are no fools and if people would feel that their journals were getting an unfair advantage, that would rapidly diminish trust in Scopus. So they put in place mechanisms that separate Scopus from Elsevier in this regard. It's very similar to the procedures that legitimate publishers of newspapers, magazines, academic journals, etc. use to guarantee editorial freedom. "Importance" is indeed decided by selected curators. Of course those are selected on the basis of their competence in a certain field. Again, it's in the interest of the database provider to select the best curators possible, because any database will rapidly lose its credibility if it starts including stuff that is widely perceived as sub-par. --Randykitty (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• The independence of the indices is true, but see my screed below for the bug in this program. Basically, indices leave inclusion/exclusion decisions up to a "committee of experts" who often, in the case of certain pseudoscientific areas, end up being a committee of pseudoscientists. This isn't just a problem for indices, mind you! Even so-called "Gold Standard Open Access" journals suffer from this. I have found terrible pseudoscience published by Nature publishing group in the OA journal because the editorial boards are vast and the "specialization" can be done to such an extent that you get only the credulous evaluating the credulous. This has been documented to have happened in even the best indices and the reason their reputations do not suffer too badly from this is because obscure pseudoscientific journals remain obscure whether they're indexed or not! This is primarily the reason I bristle at the suggestion that selective indices are automatic indicators of notability on Wikipedia. jps (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I can assure you no one considers pseudoscientific indices to be worth anything. Now it's always possible the selection process was hijacked in a corner case, but that does not invalidate the general idea. That's why we have WP:IAR, and why guidelines aren't hard rules. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• But we already know that this has occurred and the WP:IAR argument did not work at the AfD. We have an enormous list of journals that are included in selective indices in alternative medicine, some of which may be notable but many of which fly under the radar in exactly the way I am describing. When your corner cases are that many, I think there is a problem with the generalization of the rule. jps (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• A journal being on alternative medicine does not necessarily imply it is a shit journal. These may be be journals that investigate alt med claims in a serious and scientifically valid manner. It is also possible they're included for indexing because they are known for being influential in alternative medicine, or make claims that are often cited for the purpose of debunking them in more serious journals, or whatever. Look at the first on the list, The American Journal of Chinese Medicine, I see no reason why we shouldn't have an article on that one. Likewise for Acupuncture in Medicine. Others however, seem to be clear fails of WP:NJOURNALS, like Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. I wouldn't take an article existing evidence that WP:NJOURNALS is what allows for its existence. It could simply be an article that fell through the cracks, and no one got to nominate it for deletion yet. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• You think Acupuncture in Medicine is notable? Then why is its impact factor in the toilet? The fact is, the editorial board is populated entirely with acupuncturists and it Edzard Ernst has let it be known that the papers it publishes are shit (check his blog and search for the journal -- he mentions a specific paper). Nevertheless, the journal itself is not discussed beyond its homepage, the index, and the citation report. It's a shitty article and we should wait for people to actually notice the journal who aren't inveterate trypanophiles like literally every single person associated with that WP:FRINGE outlet. jps (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, and by the way? Object lesson! It seems your evaluation of the journal you thought wasn't notable passes religious test of "it's indexed therefore it's notable". Whether we can write an article or not, be damned! We can just have a permastub! Huzzah! jps (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• • • • • It's simply not true that journals are indexed because they are notable because no index tries to find out whether it is possible to write a Wikipedia article on a journal as the criteria for indexing. jps (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Please see my clarification above. I should have said "important" instead of "notable". --Randykitty (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, but right now the guideline doesn't make that clarification. Just because an index says a journal is important doesn't mean that it has the final word on Wikipedia stand-alone article notability. Since there exist some journals about which much has been written, if there is a concrete lack of reliable sources written about a journal save for the fact it has been indexed, that to me is an indication that the journal is probably best not separated out as a separate page. Why can't that be reflected in this essay? jps (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's not that fact that it's indexed that makes it a notable journal, but the fact that it's indexed in a selective indices. We're quite clear that being indexed in trivial/comprehensive databases count for nothing when it comes to notability (to quote "Likewise, just because the journal is indexed in a bibliographic database does not ensure notability."). Some journals that pass WP:NJOURNALS could be merged into other entries (e.g. a journal series, or a publisher's article), we recognize that, but there is no sense in merging such entries to publishers when it comes to massive publishers like Elsevier or Wiley-Blackwell, or journals that aren't part of series. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• This discussion has been getting unwieldy, but in the interest of fairness I'll try to respond directly to this point. The question as to whether an index is selective or not is an excellent one to ask. It has the useful function of shutting down the argument that gets made that, for example, because a certain journal is found in Google Scholar, it must be notable. Google Scholar, of course, isn't really an index in the library science sense, so I am happy that this point is made clear. Yes, I applaud the essay for declaring that only selective indices should be used as evidence of notability. But I think the essay goes way too far in this point. The argument that an index is selective is just as much an editorial decision as looking at the journal itself and deciding whether it it is notable. This is just removing the step of evaluation up one level to the index rather than the journal. What we then have to do is start having arguments over indices (which are interesting discussions, but somewhat removed from the question of individual journal notability). For example, certain "selective indices" are claimed to be selective because they only include a small percentage of journals. This isn't necessarily a convincing case for selectivity because it is the criteria that the index uses which actually makes it selective. I could publish an index with a single journal in it which would be super exclusive, but that's obviously not evidence of notability. Arguing over whether a particular index, no matter how highly regarded, is doing a good job vetting the more obscure journals it lists is, I think, just exchanging one discussion for another. It really doesn't resolve the question.

My biggest complaint, ultimately, is that massive publishers are given a pass (though it's true that they are not given carte blanche, there is a bias towards big publishers for a variety of legitimate and not-so-legitimate reasons). Especially these days, when it is known that the academic publishing model is being disrupted, we have to come to terms with the fact that many of these massive publishers are not beyond reproach, nor are the indices which claim to vet them. All else being equal, I of course will go with the Elsevier or Wiley published journal, but there are plenty of journals that these groups publish that are absolute trash because their goal of respectability is only secondary to their goal of making money. It is a sad fact that it is much easier to get your trash-journal indexed if you can convince Elsevier or Wiley or SAGE or whoever to publish your trade journal in exchange for some exorbitant printer's fee (much of the academic publishing model functions in exactly the same way as to WP:VANITY presses due to the fact that the audience is so limited). The question then gets turned around, "Is this journal well respected in its field?" Well, when your field is magic done at the top of mountains or some sort of nonsense, all you need is deep enough pockets to buy yourself respectability. When you pay Elsevier to publish your newsletter, you can lean on the weight of their reputation to impress all the rest of those who like to do magic on mountaintops into nodding their heads excitedly as to how now suddenly your marginalized field is being taken seriously. Elsevier makes money, and if the journal remains obscure and in low circulation, it suffers no penalty for publishing such trash. It can hide that low-circulation, low-impact journal deep on its lists and point out if challenged that the journal is indexed clearly because it is "respected" by the "members of their field" (which are the mountaintop magicians, you see). Meanwhile, there are plenty of stories where, for example, legitimate independent journals who bothered to take the claims of the credulous seriously end up marginalized on indices due to only the credulous being accepted as "members of their field". Now, Wikipedia cannot right great wrongs, but neither are we under an obligation to continue to propagate them either. I am all in favor of using a selective index and impact factor as evidence of notability. I cheer this project for doing so. But this cannot be the sole criteria used and right now that feels to me like what is going on. jps (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"Is that massive publishers are given a pass", absolutely not. We mention nothing of publishers in WP:NJOURNALS, big or small. There is no bias. Likewise, indices and which journal gets included in those indices, as Randykitty has pointed out several times, are selected by independents boards. If an Elsevier published index had a bias towards the inclusion of Elsevier journals, then the index's value would be greatly lessened, and no one would bother using it. And lastly "cannot be the sole criteria used". It is not. The criteria are "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." Being indexed in selective indices is but one way of meeting those criteria. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, you missed my point. It is undeniable that massive publishers are given a pass when it comes to selective indexing. Because we are biased towards selective indices, we are biased towards massive publishers. This is largely how it should be, but it causes the problem I outlined. The "independent boards" being referenced would be boards of mountaintop magicians only, and these impressionable magicians are much more likely to be impressed by an Elsevier journal than one published by a grumpy Stanford academic who is famous for criticizing mountaintop magic. So as to the three criteria, since (1) does not specify what the "subject area" is, it will necessarily include certain pseudoscientific walled gardens. Criteria 2 is basically ignored as long as an impact factor exists (at least I've seen that in AfD debates where an impact factor of 0.5 was ignored in favor of the argument that Journal Citation Reports mentions it). Criteria 3 is also subject to the pseudoscientific walled garden problem. The argument that if you manage to convince a board to index your journal you magically meet all three criteria is also precious. Basically, the rationales of the essay, which I think you are faithfully reproducing, are really rather thin and buggy. jps (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Your main problem is that you object to pseudoscientific journals having articles on Wikipedia. Well, they are allowed to have articles on Wikipedia. As for "where an impact factor of 0.5 was ignored in favor of the argument that Journal Citation Reports mentions it". Impact factors are assigned by Journal Citation Reports. To say they're ignoring a 0.5 impact factor because it's mentioned by JCR makes literally no sense.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not quite. My main problem is pseudoscientific journals have articles on Wikipedia when they haven't been noted by the relevant experts in pseudoscience (which are necessarily not the pseudoscientists themselves). The argument I am making is that people in the AfD discussions will make mention of the fact that an impact factor exists while ignoring what it is (which, it seems, is what you just did). We should be having discussions about what the impact factor of the journal is, but instead, people will say, "Oh Journal Citation Reports mentions it, so we have a reliable source!" Up until recently, this essay more-or-less argued that if the journal had an impact factor, it was notable. It still doesn't do much better. jps (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Two notes.

First, I have noted this before, but RandyKitty made a great post above, Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academic_journals)#Some_thoughts_on_why_we_need_NJournals_in_some_form_or_another, about the kinds of sources that are available about journals, and the two choices that the community had to make about journals:

1) Use normal RS and have very few articles about journals, or

2) use selective indexes and have a much larger set of articles about journals... which enables this project to serve kind of like the librarians for WP.

It explains things really clearly. Clearly choice #2 was taken and has been acted on for seven years now. I think folks in this project should consider copying/adapting some of that section explaining this and add it to this guideline. jps if you want to try to shift the model to choice #1, it is going to take an RfC and you are going to have to grapple with the reasoning provided in that section above if you want to persuade the community to change the model.

Second, as I also noted above, I do recommend that this project consider working to change WP:NOTDIRECTORY to create an exemption for journal articles, because the articles that are created under model #1 are directory entries. After that gets done, this essay should be updated to explain that. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous false dichotomy all or nothing approach that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. We should look at each journal case-by-case and make arguments for notability. Simply having been indexed is evidence of notability, but there could be arguments against that as well. For example, if there are literally no sources which discuss the journal, we may decide that it is impossible to write a WP:NPOV article about the journal, but might be able to include it in a list of some sort. My worry is that when we have journals which fly under the radar of an indexing service (for example, when the panel of experts asked about indexing the journal only includes homeopaths for a journal on homeopathy), we will end up simply adding to the confusion by writing a permastub on the journal. It would be much better if we had a list inclusion, for example. At least then people would understand why Wikipedia is even mentioning it. jps (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"For example, if there are literally no sources which discuss the journal, we may decide that it is impossible to write a WP:NPOV article about the journal, but might be able to include it in a list of some sort. " If there are literally no sources, then nothing can be written about the journal, and it would fail WP:NJOURNALS quite spectacularly. If it's got an impact factor, then you have Journal Citation Reports as a source. Likewise each database serves as their own source on the journal. Plus, we can source a lot of non-controversial information (e.g. journal history, editors in chiefs, publishers, etc.) to the journal itself per WP:PRIMARY. See WP:JWG for more. Follow that, and you create articles like Acta Ophthalmologica, which you cannot possibly claim violates WP:NPOV. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? You seem to be willfully missing my point. Journal Citation Reports don't discuss journals beyond the citation report. It's a phonebook for journals that a particular group of people decided is worthy of cataloging. jps (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep at it, and you'll end at WP:ANI for the 234th time for WP:NPA. And JCR is a source for the impact factor of the journal. That is a verifiable fact supported by a WP:RS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep at it and we'll get a group of us to ask you to leave us alone here. You are the one being unhelpful. It's pretty clear. jps (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

jps I understand very well (as I think does every one else) that you want model #2 and if there are not normal RS for a journal it should go into a list article. You have made that clear. Ignoring the oddness of the sourcing situation around journals and pretending that the last seven years haven't happened are not going to help you persuade anyone. It is going to take an RFC to change NJournals this dramatically. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

That approach calls for the response: This is a failed proposal masquerading as an essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

While I don't object to model 2, I'm also not saying that this is the model we need. In fact, I don't think either model is very good. The ideal is to have a general set of rules, but not make them automatic. Sometimes there will be journals that are indexed that may not be notable enough for a standalone article. Why is that such a controversial statement? jps (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• This is becoming quite an unwieldy discussion. So please forgive me for not putting my comments directly behind those that I am reacting to. I am referring to WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94's comments above, asserting that deciding what databases are selective enough is an "editorial decision" just as much "as looking at the journal itself and deciding whether it it is notable". So perhaps WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 can tell us where he gets the information that a journal is a bad/pseudoscience/fringe journal. Any reliable sources for this? In fact, just as we don't call somebody a "quack" here without having a good source for that, just so we shouldn't tag a journal as "fringe/pseudoscientific/whatever without a good source. Our personal opinion should not enter into that. And WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 cites WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT vis-à-vis Headbomb, but despite the fact that it has been explained to them over and over again how really selective databases work, they keep coming up with wild assertions that homeopaths decide what homeopathic journal gets into those databases. Any sources for that assertion? Or is that just your opinion? --Randykitty (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep. I've got sources. In particular, I know people in publishing and have worked on getting a journal indexed. These sources aren't allowed on Wikipedia but, crucially, now stay with me here: we're not writing a fucking Wikipedia article on how this works. What I'm saying is pretty straightforward, the indices have a few overworked non-specialists (career publishers) who convene the boards of the "specialists" to evaluate x, y, or z. When it comes to alternative medicine, they choose alternative medicine practitioners. They aren't even apologetic about it. You can call them up and ask them directly.

We're not dolts. We can tell when a journal is promoting pseudoscience or not. It's not difficult to tell. The articles speak for themselves. By pretending that we cannot make any determination that a journal is WP:FRINGE, you are essentially behaving indistinguishable from a FRINGE-POV-pusher. Not a very good look, if I do say so.

jps (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I now finally get it! Headbomb, DGG, David Eppstein, myself, and several others are not qualified to identify which databases are selective, because that's just an editorial decision just as much "as looking at the journal itself and deciding whether it it is notable". That we're wrong on how these databases work can easily be seen by the fact that you "know people" and you therefore know that we are wrong. And of course we don't need reliable sources to claim that a journal is a fringe journal. We only need to take your word for it, because you know one when you see one. The rest of us are just FRINGE-POV pushers, who don't know one when we see one. Excellent logic, stupid of me not to see this clearer before! --Randykitty (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You are just as qualified to determine the content and notability of a journal as any other Wikipedian; likewise with the selectivity of indices. My point is that by passing the buck to the indices you are pretending that you aren't making an editorial decision when, in fact, you are. jps (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Your position, as I understand it, is that selective indexing = notability. It seems to me you adopt this position so as to not have to evaluate individual journals. I find this position to be problematic because it allows you to push for preserving journal articles that are in moribund states without having to show that it is possible to improve them. I contrast this to DGG's argument below that he could write an article for any given journal that would properly contextualize it. I have yet to see evidence of this, but at least that is an argument that is getting at the fundamental point that we are trying to WP:ENC here rather than WP:NOTDIRECTORY. jps (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed revision of "Basic notabilty" section

What do folks think of the revision below? changes are shown with underlining and strikeouts, then a clean version is below. the goal is to integrate this better with N, and explain that indexes are considered RS, using content from RandyKitty's post above. This is just a draft and I anticipate changes...

Current

Extended content

Basic notability On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below. Reliable sources Reliable sources as generally considered by the community 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 qua The consequence of this would be the following. 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 information: what does the journal cover, who is the editor-in-chief, some basic indexing information (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 journal has existed. If we delete these articles, readers would not be able to find even the most basic info on them anywhere on Wikipedia. Therefore, the community has determined that for academic journals, reliable sources for the purposes of notability testing and sourcing include ;No inherent notability Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Major journals are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller journal can be also be notable if they can be considered to be influential in their field. Even if editors personally believe a journal is "important" or "inherently notable", journals are only accepted as notable if they have attracted notice in reliable sources. The fact that an journal exists is by itself not enough to support notability. Hundreds if not thousand of publications can exist in each field, many of them short-lived, while others amount to nothing more than predatory open access publishing scams. A journal can be considered notable if it can be demonstrated to have significant coverage in the media, or demonstrated to have a significant impact in its field. This is usually verified through the journal's inclusion in selective indexing and abstracting services and other selective bibliographic databases. No inherited notability In the sense that a journal has been published, it may have been noted by various entities like the ISSN International Centre and WorldCat, who assign and compile information about serial publications. For the purposes of this guideline, notable means having attracted significant notice in the spirit of WP:GNG. No journal is exempt from this requirement. If the journal has received no or very little notice from independent sources or from the academic community, then it is not notable even though other journals in its field are commonly notable. Likewise a journal published by a notable organization does not necessarily mean that the journal is notable. Likewise, just because the journal is indexed in a bibliographic database does not ensure notability. Several database, like the Directory of Open Access Journals, aim for being comprehensive, and will index almost everything they can, regardless of impact or significance. It is not the job of Wikipedia to needlessly duplicate content in these databases. This guideline does not prohibit the creation or maintenance of list articles that contain information about non-notable journals. However, such lists are still subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability and no original research, and editorial decisions to exclude non-notable journals from such list can apply.

Proposed

Extended content

Basic notability On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below. Reliable sources Reliable sources as generally considered by the community 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. The consequence of this would be the following. 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 information: what does the journal cover, who is the editor-in-chief, some basic indexing information (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 journal has existed. If we delete these articles, readers would not be able to find even the most basic info on them anywhere on Wikipedia. Therefore, the community has determined that for academic journals, reliable sources for the purposes of notability testing and sourcing include selective indexing and abstracting services and other selective bibliographic databases. No inherited notability In the sense that a journal has been published, it may have been noted by various entities like the ISSN International Centre and WorldCat, who assign and compile information about serial publications. For the purposes of this guideline, notable means having attracted significant notice in the spirit of WP:GNG. No journal is exempt from this requirement. If the journal has received no or very little notice from independent sources or from the academic community, then it is not notable even though other journals in its field are commonly notable. Likewise a journal published by a notable organization does not necessarily mean that the journal is notable. Likewise, just because the journal is indexed in a bibliographic database does not ensure notability. Several database, like the Directory of Open Access Journals, aim for being comprehensive, and will index almost everything they can, regardless of impact or significance. It is not the job of Wikipedia to needlessly duplicate content in these databases. This guideline does not prohibit the creation or maintenance of list articles that contain information about non-notable journals. However, such lists are still subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability and no original research, and editorial decisions to exclude non-notable journals from such list can apply.

-- Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I find this way, waaayyyy too rant-y and unfocused. Thought experiments? Whole paragraphs on "reliable sources" just to say that bibliographic indices are indicators of notability? They are not WP:RS (which is about WP:V) about anything, since they (usually at least) do not verify, they are indicators of notability. A complete rewrite of the "basic notability section" throwing out the very basic idea that the academic impact of journals is important? Throwing out "No inherent notability"? I honestly have no idea what this rewrite aim to achieve, but if you want to rewrite anything, I suggest you first address what exactly is it you are trying to achieve with this rewrite.

Now I'm not opposed to clarification where it's needed in the current version, but I'm strongly against what's been presented above. The CORE of WP:NJOURNALS is

• 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.

Whatever leads to this section needs to focus on those criteria. Clarifications can be made in the 'remarks' section, if needed. E.g. 1b) could possibly be expanded a bit, but a whole subsection on databases in the preamble is way unwarranted. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

unconstructive. i look forward to constructive discussion, that specifically deals with the atypical sourcing used by this project. I am sorry you find RandyKitty's description of why the odd sourcing is used here to be "ranty and unfocused". Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I swear working with you is the most annoying thing in the world. Unscontructive? You haven't even mentioned what in the world you're trying to address with those chances. "Atypically sourcing"? Hardly, we write our articles following WP:RS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Likewise. Read the very opening of the post and this entire page. You have your head in the sand and every comment you make here is defensive and unconstructive. This essay is going to change and be integrated with the rest of the encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

That remains to be seen. Because as far as I can tell, the essay is fine as is, and you haven't actually come up with any actual issue with this as far as it being a notability essay/guideline is concerned. There is no head in the sand, only unsupported claims that 'this essay needs to change' for unclear reasons. Clarify those reasons, and we can have a discussion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

There are many different established Wikipedians commenting here that something doesn't smell right. You are arguing that you cannot understand what we are saying (though I will grant that we aren't all saying exactly the same thing, many of us are pointing out the broader issue). The problems as I see them are that this essay is (1) being used as a de facto guideline without any wider agreement by the community that it should be so used, (2) is admittedly a divergence from WP:GNG for reasons having to do with sourcing, and (3) being used to argue that any journal that is included in certain "selective" indices (how it was determined that these indices are selective enough for Wikipedia is not explained) or mentioned in Journal Citation Reports is notable enough for a standalone article. In fact, the essay can be interpreted around point (3), but in practice there are a group of editors including yourself who seem to have adopted a categorical stance towards journal inclusion in Wikipedia which brings us back to point (1). For me, it seems like there are many ways to resolve this. We could have a well-advertised RfC where the two different sides state their claims and we see if, for example, we should update this essay to guideline, leave as is, or mark as historical. We could try to add some explanatory text that explains the status quo. We could try to get the text to read less categorically. My guess is that the only approach you are going to even be half-heartedly supportive of is (1), but since these issues have not really been hashed out in a proper way yet, I think you're going to have to give us patience while we decide what the next steps are. It would help if you would assume a modicum of good faith on the part of those who disagree with you, even as I am trying to do so with respect to you right now. jps (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of this. I think Headbomb needs to be removed from the discussion. jps (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

We'll just continue to work around them. I do look forward to constructive discussion. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I think your desire to add an explanation is good. It makes me understand at least where we're coming from. jps (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It is completely inappropriate for a proposed notability guideline/essay/whatever to define notability by membership in a specified list ["The result of this would be that only the most notable of journals (such as Science or Nature) would qualify for inclusion in WP"] rather than by actual criteria. Also, that bar is way too high. This proposal is a non-starter for me: so far from reasonable that it's not worth wasting my time discussing the details of why it's no good. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

User:David Eppstein I don't think you read this carefully or all the way through. It maintains the status quo and just explains why for the purposes of journals, indexes are considered RS for notability - most of it is copied from RandyKitty's excellent post above explaining that. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to disagree with a proposal that defends the status quo, even though I personally also prefer the status quo, when I think that proposal is written badly. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

User:David Eppstein and User:Randykitty.... David, do you disagree with what Randykitty wrote here? Assuming David doesn't disagree, would one one of you please propose some language explaining the different way that RS is defined for the purposes of this essay, and explaining why? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I wish there was some explanation that was understandable, though. Basically, I think this page is written as a means to allow for inclusion of a certain critical mass of journals. The idea is that such articles would be written to explain basic and simple information about the journal, its publication, and what its stated editorial philosophy might be. The question I have is, why standalone articles? The argument has been offered that a list would be too ungainly. That may be true, but I read many of the articles on journals that are kept and have to just blink my eyes. They don't do much more than reproduce the about section on the journal's actual webpage. How is this WP:NOTDIRECTORY then? jps (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

A stub that just copies the publisher, ISSN, and scope of a journal is not worth keeping (example: the current AfD target APL Photonics). But a stub that covers the history and impact of a journal, with sources, should be ok. For instance, I think the stub on Mathesis (journal) (a somewhat obscure and now defunct mathematics journal, but sourced to four reliably published independent references about other topics that provide some detail about its history, one more source that appears less reliably published, and one catalog entry) is non-problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

A statement like that would be fantastic. jps (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

A statement like that would be utterly wrong. We do not delete stubs because they lack content. That's what a stub is: an underdeveloped article. We delete things because they are non-notable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

We do delete stubs that lack evidence of importance towards notability. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think it is constructive. A bit wordy. Fundamentally, this page needs to choose between being a guideline or an essay.
• The three criteria are fine. It is Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals)#Remarks that goes off the rails. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Re:jps Most of those articles are at the stub level and could be expanded by following WP:JWG. WP:NOTFINISHED applies in many cases. The information on a journal is in many ways like information about some random astronomical object. A lot of what's important about a journal is the basic stuff (same for a galaxy). Picking NGC 17 randomly, you could argue that all this is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It's just a list of basic facts about the galaxy, its physical properties, who observed it, etc. But there are two types of "directories" ones like this and ones like [7]. WP:NOTDIRECTORY takes the stance that Wikipedia is not the second kind, we do not just list indisriminate information, and uncurated collection of facts (e.g. we do not give tables of contents, lists of authors, etc. (see WP:JWG#What_not_to_include). Being the first kind of directory is perfectly acceptable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The crucial difference between articles about galaxies and articles about journals are the plethora of reliable sources beyond NED or atlases which discuss galaxies. If we had as many papers written about journals as we do about galaxies, we wouldn't be having this discussion. jps (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop shifting the goalposts. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

LOL! You mentioned galaxies, not I. All I'm saying is that it would be nice if we had papers written about journals. But we don't, so here we are. :) jps (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• The GNG may be the way the world sees notability of most topics, but it does not match the way the world sees the notability of journals. As the main communication media in the sciences and hard social sciences, those people who are concerned about journals know perfectly well what it important, and we need only show it. The importance of a journals is basically that it publishes important articles--that;s the basis of its existence, and without that nobody would read it. Important articles are articles that hare heavily cited, and therefore the Journal Citation Reports works very well to match the real world for those fields it covers (it doesn't work for niche field, or the humanities, or non-English titles--these are all harder problems. (The Scopus covers some of this, especially for European languages)

There is more than a stub to be said about a journal. Relevant information includes its publishing body or succession of publishing body, its title changes, the sequences of the editors in chief (of critical importance here because e-i-c of a major journal alll by itself is sufficient to meet one of the standards of WP:PROF), the famous authors it has published, the individual famous articles it has published, the changes in availability by ejournals and then open access of various types. A full analytical article on a journal is quite complicated, which is why there are relatively few quotable studies, but the verified information can none the less be given. (Third part indexes and catalogs provide the verification). Some day after I get free from arb com I may write a few. DGG ( talk ) 10:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Might I make a request? I would like it if you would choose one of the fringe journals that have lately been kept to do this on first. I would like to see if you can find a way to properly contextualize, for example, a journal whose editor in chief was sued by his state medical board for dubious practices related to the very "alternative medicine", the same subject he is supposed to be expertly editing. jps (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

that is a somewhat different problem--how to handle subjects not notable except for something negative. There's also the possibility that the person is indeed an expert by the standards of his field, so how to handle alt med is yet another special case where there is little agreement. When I do this I will do it for ordinary journals. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Request moved below for a fuller discussion of how fringe journals should be discussed. Mostly to avoid the trolling seen below. jps (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The talk page makes it fairly clear that the sourcing of that specific claim is what's the issue. If this is as you say indisputably true, it should be straightforward to provide as source that meets WP:BLP standards, (or can explain why casewatch.org is the same as Quackwatch, or whatever). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Off topic, take it to Talk:Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine

I'm not sure about that, Headbomb. Well, I mean, it's just plainly true that casewatch and quackwatch are the same group, but I'm not in the mood to have that eye-rolling-ly obvious discussion. On the other hand, it's questionable as to whether it is BLP-worthy inclusion because, crucially, the journal is so obscure it could come across as a petty and coatracky hit piece to point out the quack-i-tude of the EIC. Just because something is true doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. That goes for BLP issues as well as journals which are obscure in spite of being included in all the fanciest of indices. jps (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "but I'm not in the mood to have that eye-rolling-ly obvious discussion." Then don't complain about good faith efforts from other editors. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Eh, WP:CIR, you know. It's pretty easy to click on the about page of casewatch. jps (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC) And when you click that link, a competent editor who knows how to read carefully will learn that one of the people behind Casewatch is also involved with QuackWatch. Apart from that, there doesn't seem to be any connection and nowhere on the "About" page of CaseWatch is it claimed that they are part of QuackWatch. --Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC) More than one, my dear kitty. If you and Headbomb cannot figure out that the two websites are connected, I am very discouraged that you two are running the Journals WikiProject. jps (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Neither I nor RK removed that source, you're looking at an edit made by StAnselm for reasons they detailed on the talk page. I neither condone, nor condemn the edit, and would very much like it if you stop ascribing to us the opinions and edits of others. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC) There are two biosketches on the about page and only the one for Barrett mentions QuackWatch, my dear 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS. I would think that someone who is very active on keeping fringe science out of WP would know the difference between "connected" and "the same". That QuackWatch is an RS does not mean that another site, even if there's some personal overlap, is so, too (it was "QuackWatch" that you claimed in your edit, wasn't it?). --Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC) You are making a fool of yourself. E-mail Barrett yourself and see how he prefers to describe the relationship between the two domains. Or maybe check the third-party sources about it. As I said, eye-rollingly obvious. jps (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC) If you think that emailing somebody and asking their opinion is an acceptable source on WP, you really need to read up on what constitutes acceptable sourcing. And saying that one website is a "sister site" to another one still does not make the sister site the same. You incorrectly wrote that QuackWatch said something. If your approach to creating reliable encyclopedic content is "it's a sister site and one person contributes to both so I can call it QuackWatch even though it's CaseWatch", then, for once and very exceptionally, I'll roll my eyes and tell you that the person making a fool of himself is you. --Randykitty (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC) You really are tiresome. If I didn't know any better, I would guess that you are somehow connected to the journal publishing business. But that wouldn't be right, would it? jps (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Because I try to be exact in what we write here and am a stickler for being correct, that makes me perhaps tiresome for people that cut corners, but how that would connect me to the journal publishing industry is beyond me. But your superior intelligence keeps surprising me, so perhaps I'm missing something yet again. I'm sure you'll explain it at length. --Randykitty (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Fake journals

• I know this page is about identifying notable journals, but coming from the other end, how do you identify a fake journal? For example, the International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mathematics. It appear to not be in databases. Please comment at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Draft:Sukuma_Calendar. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Beall's List is a good place to start. It's best not to base arguments on journals that are run as complete scams according to Jeffrey Beall. jps (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Number 195. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
      • For those with academic backgrounds, you might enjoy that the paper mentioned at the DRv mentioned by SmokeyJoe has a fake doi and the paper has the following as a reference:

        McCarthy & Guinot: Julian Day Number (2013), 91–2, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_day

        Any paper with a reference like that has had no meaningful review. Presumably it means the McCarthy & Guinot reference (no. 5) from Julian day, which is actually a chapter in an edited book, but how it has appeared in this alleged "academic publication" is laughable! EdChem (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

  • For mathematics journals specifically, inclusion or non-inclusion in MathSciNet is a pretty good test. There are occasional unlisted but non-fake journals (e.g. on topics like recreational math) but in general they list the real ones and not the fake ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

As a point of order, these aren't fake journal, these would be predatory or scam journals. Or just low-quality journals. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mathematics exists, so to say the journal is fake is not quite the right word. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

A journal which is a scam can be safely called a fake or a phony. jps (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't really know what I'm doing on here, but the entry on the "journal of near-death studies" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Near-Death_Studies could use a review to verify whether or not it is legitimate. I find myself highly skeptical from what I'm reading. (anonymous user) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.239.214.11 (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Making progress

Before the breakout of conflict in mid-December, this essay had two significant problems, with two ancillary problems

1. the "always notable" language
2. the reliance on indexes as RS for notability discussions, which has no support in WP:RS, and two things that stem from the reliance on indexes:
   1. the resulting directory-like quality of articles, which conflicts with WP:NOTDIRECTORY
   2. the resulting lack of characterization of journals, so that an indexed FRINGE-spewing journal is described pretty much the same way as an indexed run-of-the-mill academic journal

We have managed to address #1 to some extent, but there has been no progress on the other one nor the two problems that flow from it.

User:Randykitty's post above laid the groundwork for dealing with #2 and discussed 2.1, but not 2.2.

The discussion above by members of this project has mostly been reacting to jps, who is acting like the fence-storming activist. In the context of everybody's limited time and energy, jps would you please cool it, and would members of this project please focus on the remaining issues?

In my view, the following need to happen for the status quo to remain mostly intact:

1. The essay needs to address 2, 2.1, and 2.2
2. WP:RS needs to be amended to include indexes as reliable sources
3. WP:NOTDIRECTORY needs to be amended to allow the kind of journal articles that exist.

If these things don't happen, this essay should be made historical, as it out of step with the rest of the project. Can we please focus on addressing these issues? Thx. Jytdog (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Selective indices are WP:RS for the purpose of determining whether a journal is notable or not, and there is no conflict with WP:NJOURNALS and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We do not list only trivial information like issns and other trivialities tables of content, list of authors, etc (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide#What not to include). Even if it were an issue, problems of contents are beyond the scope of notability guidelines and should be addressed elsewhere. But if you want to ammend WP:RS or WP:NOTDIRECTORY, be my guest, I just don't see the need for it.

Concerning the characterization of fringe journals, we go by what WP:RSes say about it. If no one has criticized a journal for being shit, we stick to what has been said about it, and we don't say it's shit because of WP:SYNTH. But I've yet to see a notable fringe journal that hasn't been criticized by an expert somewhere, weather they fail WP:NJOURNALS (e.g. Journal of Cosmology) or pass it (e.g. Acupuncture in Medicine). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand that is your position. I would be willing to try to RS or NOTDIRECTORY but I won't do that until this essay is updated to explain the use of indexes and why the resulting articles are directory-like. I'll note that if I do try and either effort fails, the status of this essay will be damaged. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

"I would be willing to try to RS or NOTDIRECTORY"? What does that even mean? Or why does WP:NJOURNALS need to explain "the use of indexes" (at least beyond what we already say "A journal can be considered notable if it can be demonstrated to have significant coverage in the media, or demonstrated to have a significant impact in its field. This is usually verified through the journal's inclusion in selective indexing and abstracting services and other selective bibliographic databases." (emphasis mine) or "why the resulting articles are directory-like" (especially when they are decidedly not directory-like). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You wrote: "But if you want to ammend WP:RS or WP:NOTDIRECTORY, be my guest,". I wrote: "I would be willing to try to RS or NOTDIRECTORY". I and others have already explained that the use of indexes in this project is idiosyncratic within WP and the reason why they are used needs to be explained so that other people outside your bubble understand it. Your comments are again bizarre and unproductive and I will ask you just not to respond here further, as comments like the one above are just clutter. Your behavior is the exact flipside to jps' and between the two of you we are making no progress. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry if your inability to write proper English somehow makes me "bizarre" and "unproductive", but "I would be willing to try to RS or NOTDIRECTORY" makes literally no sense. What does "trying to RS" mean? What does "trying to NOTDIRECTORY" mean? As for the uses of indices being idiosyncratic to this project, this is hardly the case. WP:NBUSINESS considers inclusion in lists such as the Fortune 500 or the Michelin Guide to be good enough to establish notability, as does WP:NASTRO which considers inclusion in catalogues such as the NGC Catalogue or Messier Catalogue to be good enough to establish notability. In fact, that WP:NASTRO guideline was modeled after WP:NJOURNALS's selective database/index critera [8]! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking forward to productive discussion. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Apparently not, because this is your boiler plate reply whenever someone disagrees with you, instead of addressing the substance of the argument. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, I guess I could have, um, "ammended" my text, but to anybody reading the discussion in good faith what i meant is obvious. I will implement WP:SHUN with respect to you from now on. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Or how about you do a little WP:AFG every now and then and stop pretending the rest of the world can understand half assed English? I have specifically asked to you clarify what you meant, and you've repeated the exact same words. Don't blame your bad faith pigheadness on me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that Jytdog omitted the word "change" and meant: "I would be willing to try to change RS or NOTDIRECTORY". Whether such changes are necessary is perhaps debatable. As I see it, there are two separate issues. First, are bibliographic indexes RS? All these indexes have stringent editorial control. So, like Headbomb, I am of the opinion that indexes are reliable sources. If they are also selective, then I think that confers notability. That's basic GNG: if several RS discuss a subject in-depth, then it is considered notable. The problem then boils down to the question whether being included in, say, the Science Citation Index or Scopus constitutes "in-depth coverage". If all that these databases would do would be to list tables of contents, then it could be argued that this is not the case. So something like Current Contents is selective and reliable, but it is not in-depth and does not contribute to notability. However, the SCI and Scopus do much more than that. They analyze every journal in minute detail. The particulars are a bit different for the two, but it is important to realize that they do not just calculate impact factors. In addition, they look at things like article influence; which other journals cite a journal being analyzed most; which journals are most cited by the journal being analyzed; what is the journal's citation half-life, how does the journal compare on any of these measures with other journals in the same subject area; etc. That we (and many researchers) do not use all these results is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there is an in-depth analysis. Hence, I think that these selective indexes are RS that discuss a topic (journal) in-depth and, hence, we are meeting GNG. What needs to change, perhaps, is that NJournals should explain this in more detail than it currently does. Next: NOTDIRECTORY. Again, I agree with Headbomb that a journal article prepared according to our writing guide, even though perhaps only a stub, is something much more than a directory entry. We're not talking phone-book here... Finally, somewhere in all the text above the issue has been raised that these articles would be permastubs. Again, I'm afraid that I have to disagree. We have articles on Roman citizens for whom we barely know more than their names (it is assumed -not without logic- that if their names came down to us over two millenniums, these people must have been notable). We also have articles on athletes that competed in the 1900 Olympics and for most of those, again, we barely know more than their names, what they competed in, and how high they ended. It would appear highly unlikely to me that we'll ever get more sources about those people. Now those articles are permastubs: stubs that are unlikely to ever grow into a full(er) article. The same is not true for the journal articles created following our writing guide. Any journal that is currently in existence ca at any time become the subject of significant coverage, even though there is no way of knowing when (or even if) that will happen. Granted, usually such coverage means that something went wrong with the journal (fighting editors, accepting rubbish articles, etc), but that is not the point. The point is that sources may be forthcoming in the future, hence these are not permastubs.

Now does this mean that I think NJournals is perfect and should stay as it is? No, it doesn't. To start with, I think we need to do a better job to explain why selective databases are RS. Other details also need to be looked at again, such as the "historical purpose". I think that to argue that something has a historical purpose, you need at last one good source that says so, it should not be an editorial judgment of a WP editor. But if such sources exist, then the journal meets GNG, so I think it is superfluous and should be scrapped. There's the remark about evaluating in how many libraries a journal is held. That measure is rather dubious for open access journals (libraries only need to add a link to their webpage and, presto, they "hold" the journal). Even for subscription journals this is not always meaningful in this age of bundled package deals (libraries have to take some journals they're not interested in, in order to get those that they really want for a lower rate). In addition, in my experience WorldCat (the main source for this kind of data) is highly unreliable. However, all these things are details. The main issue is that of whether or not we accept indexing in selective databases as in-depth coverage in a reliable source or not. I give my arguments above, let me hear what you think. --Randykitty (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Disagree on CC not counting towards notability. Indepthness of coverage is not an issue if selectivity is good. You just can't use CC as a source to write anything except that the journal is in CC, since they don't do any other analysis, whereas being in JCR will give you the impact factor, which as flawed as it may be, is an actual measure of impact in concrete term (likewise for the SCImago Ranking of Scopus, etc.). So while CC does count towards establishing the notability of a journal, it would not add content, and a journal only being in CC would likely mean there's so little to write about it it might not appropriate for a standalone entry per "It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject.". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW, Randykitty (talk · contribs), I think you're going off an old version of the guideline concerning history. The current wording is "Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area.", whereas the old wording was "Criterion 3: The journal has an historic purpose or a significant history." Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, my poor memory. But that new phrasing doesn't really change my point, I think. For a journal to be judged "historically important" there need to be soruces that confirm this. --Randykitty (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes. That's why we have the remark that passing C3 pretty much means passing WP:GNG directly. It is a tighter language than before, however, so whereas one could argue "but this journal was meant to do X" (purpose), now one needs to show that a journal actually did X (historical importance/impact). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in Randykitty. The last paragraph is helpful. To get things rolling would you please propose language that explains the use of indexes in this essay? thx Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with most or all of what Randykitty says. However, to make this line of reasoning clearer in the actual essay / failed guideline / whatever it is, maybe we could replace the text about having a citation index being a marker of automatic notability? The actual marker of notability should be the in-depth report on the journal prepared by these indexes. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

For C1 this has mostly been addressed. What used to say "always qualifies" currently says "usually qualifies"

history of changes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
first by Hbomb changed to read "usually" then then by Guy changed to " is likely to indicate that the journal is notable" then by Steve Quinn here back to "always" (zoiks) then here by me back to " is likely to indicate that the journal is notable" then by Steve Quinn here to "usually qualifies (in other words, this is a likely indicator of notability)." after a bunch of fuss, buy HBomb here to "usually qualifies"

-- Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

A question since I cannot access either Scopus or SCI: how much of the information given is generated by a human directly, and not simply the result of database searching? This to me makes a big difference - if its just a database result, that's primary information and not a secondary source. If there's actual human analysis of the results, that's different, that shows transformation of information that makes it a secondary source and at least a reasonable starting point for notability presumption. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea, but who exactly performs the analysis is hardly something that should make a difference. What algorithms to use is decided by humans. What data to run the algorithms on, and which to exclude is decided by humans. Which journal is included in the analysis is a human decision. That's what matters. That's the point of using selectiveness as the criteria of notability, as opposed to analyses done by say Google Scholar, which aims to be comprehensive. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: however, would probably know for sure, and have more information there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Just briefly: there's human involvement. One of the criticisms on the IF is that the IF as reported by the JCR cannot be reproduced using the SCI data. The reason for this is that the raw SCI data are curated by editors (to weed out errors, get a clearer count of numbers of "citable items", etc. While this is a source of criticism, it is also an indication that this is not simply a computer program doiing standard calculations (even though that certainly is part of it) but that there also is significant human intervention. No more time for more right now... --Randykitty (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It absolutely matters who or what is making the report and by what means. Secondary sourcing requires a transformative step that cannot be done by a computer algorithm, and requires human expertise to make certain leaps of logic. If SCI or Scopus only use computer programs to scour databases, that's not a secondary source. And if per RandyKitty, that SCI's results are only to eliminate outliers prior to the algorithm , that's still a problem with SCI not ending up as a secondary source. We're looking for a human to say something along the lines of "why" the results are important. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Every bit of human analysis can be performed by a computer. If I take the FFT of a signal manually, or ask a computer to do it for me, the results will be the same regardless of who actually did the calculations. If I tell a machine "use this data, exclude this one, use this algorithm" etc., the analysis is just as valid if no computer were involved. That a source is primary or secondary is besides the point. JCR is the primary source for the IF (which is perfectly allowed per WP:PRIMARY), but is a secondary source for notability, since the JCR is independent of the journal. That the IF was calculated by a human or a machine is besides the point, because to analyze that specific journal was a human decision. Experts, not a machine, decided a journal should be analyzed because knowing its impact on the field was deemed important (again, by humans). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

First, there are things about human analysis that cannot be done by computer, such as synthesis of thought. We're not expected a secondary source to be based on human analysis only - it can be augmented by computer analysis, but still requires the human to have come to some conclusion or novel thought about the results beyond what the computer said. Selecting which data to use, in a manner of outlier elimination, does have some human insight in this case (since we're talking more semantic than numerical data so outliers can't be calculated easily), but we're still concerns on the end data and the human analysis on that. In terms of primary vs secondary, you are describing more the difference between first and third-party - the journal is the first-party, JCR the third. Primary sourcing can come from third-parties, such as one just reprinting results of a database like IF (it seems in this case). Secondary needs that transformation of thought.

Now, to take the argument that some decision was needed to decide that a given journal was to be analyzed by the IF or other algorithm, okay, but then what we from the encyclopedia (outside the world of information science) is why that was the case, so that we know where that journal fits into the larger world picture from a layman's view. And unfortunately , it doesn't sound like this reasoning is published by IF or others, they have just determined internally "this is an important journal, we'll analyze it". That gives us no help in writing an encyclopedic article on the journal. On the other hand, if there is even a paragraph snippet that explains their logic for inclusion, great, that's secondary sourcing we need - not the actual index but that reasoning. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• The analysis necessary for determining notability in WP articles cannot be performed by a computer. In this particular field, it requires human judgment at multiple stages. First, to see if the journal is in a field where JCR is relevant--I see the above argument does mention this, but it does not mention the situation in many fields where it is relevant but not decisive.. . Second, to compare it with other journals in the same field--the JCR algorithms for field cannot be depended on, and the relevant level of IF for importance of a journal varies widely by field. Third, to determine if the IF calculation has correctly classified in each instance what counts as a source article for which to do the calculation (I note that ISI and Scopus do this quite differently, and there is no general rule to decide which one is better. ,Fourth, to determine the extent to which the nature of the contents -- review articles in particular--has been allowed for -- ISI gives only a partial indication. (It is possible to determine this in some cases from the distribution of values in the summary statistics, but in general, it requires re-analysis of the primary data. Fifth, to asses the likelihood that the data for the journal is a fluke--errors have happened and been corrected, so it can be safely predicted there are also errors that have not yet been corrected. This is just a preliminary list of the problems--with some more time and a little research in the extensive literature on the validity of IP calculation I could identify many more. I've been doing journal selection for libraries since the introduction of JCR, There is no fully automatic way for analyzing intellectual production in a meaningful way, and this will remain the case because some of the factors are no quantifiable, with some of the even being subjective. The availability of IF data is a wonderful tool, for use by people who understand the technique and the conceptual and social universe with which it operates. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much to DGG and Randykitty. So, Jaytdog and Masem - this seems to be the kind of context you are both looking for, to help explain this project's notability criteria. Also, it seems to provide a satisfactory explanation for how the IF is an important tool for determining notability on Wikipedia - for those who do not regularly contribute to this project.

A point I wish to bring up is - as a contributor to this project I do not appreciate characterizing this project's academic journal aritcles as part of trivial directory. This appears to be an erroneous view. A lot of work goes into creating one article, including having to determine if it will make the cut. It may only take an hour or a little more to create a stub, but the author has to pay attention to detail - because every author has to answer to the other editors in this project.

There is important information in each journal article - in particular, its scope, its impact, the publisher, its homepage, the location of published journal articles online, where it can be found in the Library of Congress, and so on. These are important reference materials for our readers and, I am guessing, for some researchers. These are not trivial creations. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

No one is calling information about journals as "trivial". But they do mostly fail the basic notability guidelines we expect for most other topics, showing how the journal is relevant the world at large and outside the field of information science. Does this mean we shouldn't cover these journals? No, but just not in standalone articles. It is completely fair that each (non-junk) journal should be a clickable blue link which at least links to the publisher's page and givens sufficiently basic details about the journal. We just can't make the special case that just because it is cataloged in a citation index that that automatically presumes we can write a GNG-capable article. I've also pointed out that there can exist a place to have more details on journals on the sister projects where it might make more sense since this data is less encyclopic and more, well, data-ish. --MASEM (t) 06:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree with you on not having standalone articles. And I don't agree that journal articles should be reduced to clickable blue links. And we can make the case, and have effectively made the case - that since it is indexed in selective databases and demonstrates an impact in its field we can, indeed, write a GNG-capable article. Because it is an article that satisfies GNG already.

As has been stated at least several times before - selective database listing = independent reliable sourcing. Furthermore, selective indexing = reliable, independent published sources per WP:RS. Significant impact is a mantra on Wikipedia for helping to determine notability - so this project is not different. Several other projects have been mentioned by Headbomb that use indexing of some sort as well. So, again this project is not different from any other.

I was under the wrong impression about your point of view. I erroneously thought you were modifying your position. I see that is not the case. Lastly, I don't think the sister-project idea is going to work - at least not for me - and I think I am not alone. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Steve Quinn , again see RandyKitt's section above here where it is really clear that if regular GNG, with normal sources, applied, there would be like five journal articles in WP. Instead there are very many, each sourced to indexes and essential a catalog entry. yes, a directory entry. That is what you all do here. Which is not trivial work. At all. Being a librarian is a real job. But that is what it is, and needs to be brought into harmony with the rest of WP.

And with regard to explaining, no - highly technical talk buried here on the Talk page is not what is needed. What should happen, is an explanation about why NJOURNALs relies on indexes and indexes do, be made part of the essay so that when people come to read it, it actually explains what is going on here, instead of assuming it. This will be better for everybody, including people who try to create new journal articles that get put up for deletion. Jytdog (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Our journal articles are not directory entries in the sense of WP:DIRECTORY, and it would be productive if you stopped claiming they were. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

can we please focus on the key next step, namely including a discussion of indexes as sources in the essay itself? Thx Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to make lists

I think that the members of the Journal WikiProject are being honest that they believe that journals are notable when they are indexed by what they think are selective indices. I think, however, that if the articles about obscure journals are all pro forma, it would help us to look at what a list article would appear as. I can imagine a list such as List of indexed medical journals to be very useful. We don't even have to make the decision right now whether to redirect to the list article or have stand-alone (which I would prefer to be case-by-case), but I think such a list would be good to have.

jps (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

We have List of medical journals (see Lists of journals for others). All journals are indexed somewhere, so there's no point in having such a list. If the point is to have one list per selective index, then those would have such high overlap that they would be merged to List of medical journals. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Making lists would, as far as I can see, make it so much more difficult to keep out non-notable journals or to clearly signal bad ones, which I think is 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS's main concern. To be included in a list does not necessarily imply notability. So what would there be to prevent, say, OMICS Publishing Group, from inserting their journals in such lists? How would pseudoscience journals be clearly discussed? A list simply has no place for all the info that we include in those much maligned stub articles on journals, let alone any discussion on the quality of one journal or another. Regardless on how you'd organize such a list (by publisher, by subject...), they would be unwieldy long. In my opinion, the current system is vastly superior, even though perhaps not flawless. It makes it possible to present all available info on a journal and to add any information that may become available at some point (perhaps somebody writes an article or book chapter on the history of a field, including a discussion on the influence of the journal on that field, or, less positively, editors fight and resign or some bad editorial decisions are made and generate third-party coverage). --Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

List can contain some basic information. It can say where the journal is indexed. It can say if it in Bealle's List. It can say when it began to be published. We should have a way of identifying the journals in a field, and they are a better way than using only categories, which is the only alternative, and give no information whatsoever. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Lists that exist in mainspace should not discriminate against "bad" journals by exclusion, though if there are sources that call them out, that can be noted in this list; our sourcing requirements should be a behind-the-scenes thing and not reflected in mainspace. But in the desire to meet WP:RS, separately in WP space there can be white/blacklists of journals that can be used as RSes. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you please clarify that, lists in WP space that can be used as RS? --Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I think they meant that some journals can be RS, and we can list in WP space the ones that can and the ones that can't. Not that the WP list is itself a RS. Not that that does any good to the Wikipedia readers — WP space is only for editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

That's what I mean. I do not know what exists already in the various sciences, but for example, at the video games WProject, we have WP:VG/S, an internal, behind the scenes list of sources we've vetted for reliability based on our personal consensus as WP editors. What's in this list does not affect any of what is put into mainspace (sites we've deemed unreliable like VGChartz still have mainspace articles), outside of sourcing. Similarly, you may have a WP-space list that blacklists junk medical journals for very good reason, but if one factually knows the journal is considered, broadly, a medical journal (even if one that published bunk), that should be included in the mainspace list of medical journals. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussing indexes as sources in the proposed essay

It seems to me, Jytdog provides a view from the outside, which maintains three things need to happen - and I interpret this as meaning a compromise is needed. The three goals they stated are:

1. An essay that "needs to address 2, 2.1, and 2.2"
2. "WP:RS needs to be amended to include indexes as reliable sources"
3. "WP:NOTDIRECTORY needs to be amended to allow the kind of journal articles that exist"

Although I don't see the need for an explanatory essay, I think Jytdog's view probably represents a sector of this community that perceives this essay as essential. Personally, I am willing to work with this compromise - on all three goals. However, leaving aside what I am willing to do, please note that Randykitty, Headbomb, and DGG have provided very insightful explanations. Masem and jps have also provided useful information. There might be more on this page.

In any case, from these contributions, I think a very useful explanatory essay can be constructed (and even more than one). This is what I intended when acknowledging Randykitty and DGG at the beginning of my previous post. So, I entreat other interested parties to propose elements of these explanations and counterpoints to begin building a proposed essay. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

My position is that none of these things needs to happen, that the analysis and selectivity provided by these indexes already qualifies them as reliable and in-depth sources, and that this essay merely codifies that understanding. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

David I agree with you. This is why I am having a difficult time with this. I think the essay does a really good job of codifing this. However, I am willing to work with others on this as a compromise to other views, and see if this will work. Anyway, I think what you just wrote is the first line that I am proposing for additional explanation. Also, please keep critiquing this as we go along (if you have the time) - I think this would help to keep this idea from going off on a tangent. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, it is possible this doesn't have to be written into the actual codifying document. A link might suffice, to the proposed explanatory essay. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

---

1. So, my first proposal is as follows:

• The purpose of Criterion 2 is to assert (or explain how?) "the analysis and selectivity provided by these indexes already qualifies them as reliable and in-depth sources and this essay (guideline) codifies that understanding".

Should it be Criterion 2 "asserts" or does it "explain how"? Is this for criterion 2? Also, this possibly gives us the kernel central idea, around which we can build our essay. Comments? Steve Quinn (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

2. OK here is another proposed element for this essay, quoted from one of the above comments (way above):

• "The actual marker of notability should be the in-depth report on the journal prepared by these indexes." Change this to - "An actual marker of notability could be the in-depth report on the journal prepared by these (highly selective) indexes."

Comments? Also, I suggest that comments related tp a proposed piece of this essay, be made under each proposed piece. Just a suggestion. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

3. Well, I am not intending on going to town on this, but I found something else in the above comments that may be useful:

• "Science Citation Index or Scopus constitutes 'in-depth coverage'" - is the beginning of this segment. Below is an edited version, and hopefully a comprehensive version. Some phrases are in quotes and these are derived from the same above comment (paragraph length by Randykitty).

For the purposes of this essay and this project, "Science Citation Index" (SCI) and "Scopus constitutes 'in-depth coverage'". "Current Contents is" considered to be "selective and reliable" and could contribute to notability. The SCI and Scopus" - "analyze every journal in minute detail", "they do not" merely "calculate impact factors.

In addition, they look at things like article influence, which journals are most cited by the journal being analyzed; what is the journal's citation half-life, how does the journal compare on any of these measures with other journals in the same subject area;" and so on. Wikipedia editors do not use all of these results for writing academic journal articles. However, the most relevant factor is that there is an in-depth analysis.

Analysis is achieved by a combination of computer analysis (algorithms) and human judgement, and the human factor governs. --Steve Quinn (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. Comments? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

What does a SCI or Scopus review look like? Can we use their reviews to write a good article or a featured article? If so how? jps (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Jps - I will have to get back to you on this. These are interesting questions. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Steve Quinn thanks very much for engaging. Greatly appreciated. What I am looking for -- what I think would help outsiders to understand how this essay works and its basis - is a brief section actually discussing sources for content about journals and which among them are considered reliable. I proposed language to do that above based on what Randykitty wrote... too much perhaps and people seemed to react super-negatively to the (completely obvious to people outside this project) explanation by Randykitty about how there would be very few journal articles if the kinds of' RS standards that are usually applied, were applied to journals. So an explanation about what indexes are in library science, why they matter, how they are generated (from the discussion above!) an which ones matter and why, would be really, really helpful. I am not challenging the use of indexes -- just asking that it be explained. Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate Randykitty's willingness and ability to write that. I would not have been able to. But now that he has, I can try to derive some from what he wrote. Regarding WP:RS, I would prefer to not to say Wikipedia's definition of WP:RS is at variance with this project's definition of WP:RS, because there is no discrepancy. I would try to word that differently.

Sources for journal content? First notability has to be determined as a positive by using one of the three criteria. Content can be derived from reliable text (or web) sources that discuss the journal, and content can be garnered from the journal's own description per WP:PRIMARY and WP:NNC - but only after notability has been established. This is where the writing guide comes in. It is common practice to make sure the content that we write about the journal applies non-promotional wording. Like we can't say "the top journal" in its field or the "most rapid publishing" unless there are actual independent reliable text (or web) sources that say this. Steve Quinn (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

A brief mention in a commercial database (such as Social Sciences Citation Index) based on completely haphazard and undisclosed criteria does not constitute "in-depth coverage" in any meaningful sense of the term and should not by itself be considered sufficient. These journals should be judged based on the same rigorous criteria as other journals (for example, by being historically important). Furthermore, as the databases in question favour English-language publications to an extreme degree (90% and above) while in many cases nearly entirely neglecting the non-English realm of academic publishing, this would be an example of a systemic bias favouring English-language publications; such databases also tend to favour certain disciplines over others. --Lillelvd (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Lillelvd, those opinions of yours have already been debunked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian Journal of Sociology. --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen them being debunked anywhere, rather the opposite. --Lillelvd (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes they were debunked! No they weren't! Yes they were! No they weren't! Sigh. --Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The 'depth of coverage' in these databases is inconsequential on notability, much like the depth of coverage in the NGC Catalogue is inconsequential for WP:NASTRO. The selectiveness of these indices is what's at play, because selective indices only consider impactful (thus notable) journals. Concerning the 'bias' of these 'commercial' databases, I've yet to hear a real argument there. Yes these cover mostly English journals, yes those criteria are often not explicitly listed on the database homepage, but none discriminate on a journal based on the language it's written in, nor does it change the fact that the Social Sciences Citation Index and others like it are considered authoritative and reliable by librarians and social scientists alike. Most of science and academia is done in English. That doesn't mean science/medicine/literature done in say, Afrikaans or French is bad, but if no one is reading it, no one is citing is, and no one is indexing it, then I have no idea on what basis you would consider that publication to be impactful/important/notable. Even if there were bias, that wouldn't make the journals in the SSCI non-notable, but rather mean that some notable journals aren't in the SSCI. Indexing in selective databases is only one of the ways to establish notability, and if you can show non-indexed journals to be notable via the other ways, that is allowed under WP:NJOURNALS too.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not question that the inclusion of a journal in one of these selective indices is something that can contribute to notability of a journal, but absent of anything else to describe about the journal besides "it sits at #XXX on the SI", it doesn't constitute enough to meet the GNG level of sourcing requirements. Further, there's been no indication given that being on one of these indices assures that GNG sourcing can be found to expand upon that indicing (chances are better, but nowhere close to a virtual guarentee to allow the presumption of notability under a subject-specific notability guideline). This is the walled-garden problem that we've seen before for MMA fighers - the users that want to keep them assure that "but they are very important" and could rattle off win-loss records and bunches of stats to show that, but never could produce sources to show that notability was there. Similar thing is happening here, in terms of putting excessive weight on the indicies while not actually getting to the material that WP articles should be built atop. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

A win/loss record on its own wouldn't got toward notability, but being listed in a list of 'The 500 best MMA fighters' (or whatever authoritative/recognized lists exists in the MMA world) which uses the win/loss record at its criteria would count towards notability. We do note quite clearly however, that "It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Independent, third-party sources must exist for every topic that receives its own article on Wikipedia, without exception (see Wikipedia:Verifiability: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."). For the routine, uncontroversial details of a journal, official institutional and professional sources are accepted." Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Masem, most everything you just asserted, I see as your opinion. And everyone is entitled to their opinion. And thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• quick note... with regard to indexes and WP:RS - what I have written so far may have mislead folks to believe I am saying that the use of indexes isn't valid, and that the directory-like articles aren't valid either. Policy grows out of practice, and policy needs to change sometimes to catch up with practice. [{WP:RS]] doesn't currently mention the use of indexes as RS and it should do. Part of the reason for including a description of indexes here, is to help explain the background to the wider community when we go to update WP:RS. I would like to hold off on the NOTDIRECTORY discussion til later. One thing at a time! Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

"Doesn't currently mention the use of indexes as RS and it should do", I'm not necessarily opposed to specifically mentioning indices as being RS, but as of writing, WP:RS is a very high-level overview of what constitutes and RS and what doesn't, with very very few direct examples of "this is an RS" and "this isn't an RS". I don't really where it would mention indices as themselves being reliable sources (or even why it should) when the only specific advice given is a very general one

"Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree."

We however, already mention citation indices thusly

"One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context."

"In recent years there has been an explosion in new journals of very low quality that have only token peer-review if any (see predatory journals). They simply publish whatever is submitted if the author is willing to pay a fee. Some go so far as to mimic the names of established journals (see hijacked journals).[1][2][3][4] The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should be treated similarly to self-published sources. If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected accredited university, and that it is included in the relevant citation index."

I honestly don't know, see, or understand, how someone could read the current version of WP:RS and conclude indices aren't allowed as reliable sources on whether or not a journal is indexed by that index, or as sources that journals indexed in selective indices are deemed influential in their field. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

That section does provide a hook, which is very useful, but it is not about reliable sources for generating content about journals nor about the notability of journals under a Notability analysis per se. It is about background work for editors to do while considering sources. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

That's because sourcing and notability are to completely different things, and it is very unnatural to try to somehow merge the two together. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Notability is to sourcing like gravity is to mass. You are going from unhelpful to completely clueless. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for DGG

But, DGG, the argument on the AfD pages is made that these fringe journals are notable for something other than being completely negative. For example, the argument is made that they are notable because they are indexed. I didn't even bother trying to write about the fact that the company that publishes the journal operates out of a strip mall in suburban Minneapolis, sponsors conferences where drinking bleach is argued to be a cure for almost every malady known to man, and articles that argue against vaccination on the basis of debunked claims are published routinely. None of these true points are admitted into the article because, in spite of all this stuff being easily discoverable through a simple google search, nobody is writing any third-party exposition on alternative medical journals. So we're left with a stub that gives the impression that this journal is just as notable as, say, Astronomy and Astrophysics. jps (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Piotrus' thoughts

It seems I missed this very interesting discussion. Having caught up on it do some degree, here are my thoughts:

• regarding the current C1-C3 notability criteria:
  • I fully agree with C1 as worded right now, however "Examples of such services are..." is not acceptable. We need a comprehensive list of which indexes are sufficient for establishing notability.
  • I am not particularly fond of C2. It is too vague, and few people except <10 Wikipedians very familiar with this area will be able to use it efficiently. For the sake of an argument, I would like to ask if anyone can think of a frequently cited journal that is not indexed in database that fulfills C1? The only way I can think this could remain is if we can produce data on h-index for a given field, and agree on a cut-off point dividing notability from non-notability. Such h-index data could be presented in the "list of journals in foo field" articles. Without a clear number, I believe C2 is not useful (too easy to abuse).
  • As noted, C3 is redundant to WP:GNG, and I see no need to keep it.
• I agree that "WP:RS needs to be amended to include indexes as reliable sources", through it should only see the indices that meet C1 as reliable. Again, we need a comprehensive list of reliable indices.
• I agree that "WP:NOTDIRECTORY needs to be amended to allow the kind of journal articles that exist". There are other precedents - ex. monuments and objects of cultural heritage, about which we can barely write more than 2-3 sentences. This is however a discussion that would be better held at the talk of WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The point of a guideline is that it's a guideline, not a rule. Most of the specifics are best tackled on a given AFD debate, and whether or not something is 'selective enough' can't be addressed in bulk except in the clearest of cases, which are those mentioned. Compare to WP:NASTRO, which lists 4 catalogues (HR, Messier, Caldwell, NGC), out of the many that exists. We can expand the list to give a few more examples, but there are myriads of selective indices. Is ADSABS good enough? In most cases yes (as far as astronomy journals are concerned), but sometimes no (it indexes things other than journals, such as technical reports, monographs, preprints, books, etc.). "Cited often enough" is deliberately vague, because what is "often enough" depends on the field. If you can demonstrate it's cited often, and people agree, then it's good enough, and the article is kept. If people don't agree, it's not good enough, and the article is deleted. This is a feature of the guideline, not a bug. Having an arbitrary h-index cutoff ignores that this greatly varies by field, and with journal age. A 80 year old medical journal with an h-index of 30 is much less impressive than a 4 year sociology journal with an h-index of 30. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: The myriad of indices should not be a problem. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games created a page that lists and analyzes myriad of video games ources: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources (please look at this list, it is IMHO very impressive piece of work). I have never heard of ADSABS, but I see you know something about it - so you could make this comment on the list. If at some point you stop contributing to Wikipeia, we may lose our only editor familiar with this indice; and even now, can you be sure you can find all discussions that mention it and make such a comment if needed? If we have a list, you could share your knowledge of that indice there, and it would be easy for editors in all future discussions to refer to it and see if this indice is good or bad. Therefore I think it is totally feasibly to create such a list and to make all future AFD discussions easier by having a definite answer of whether being indexed in FOOINDEX is enough or not. If Video games fans can do it, so can we :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

ADSABS is known and used by virtually everyone remotely connected to physics and astronomy. I'm not against building a list of indices in general (would make a good addition to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Resources), but I'm against enshrining that list in policy. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Progress on guideline?

Has there been any progress on this fake guideline? Either make it a proper guideline, or make it an overt opinion page that asserts nothing by fiat as essays should be, or give it up and tag as {{failed}}. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have something constructive to say? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The status quo is pretty poor. Something needs doing. Denial is not productive. I have suggested merging journals, guidance for mention in table or list articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I was reminded by Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Journal_on_European_History_of_Law_(2nd_nomination). This essay remains cited, but devoid of credibility or usefulness. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The guideline isn't fake, and enjoys wide support. It may or may not have wide enough support to reach official guideline status, but it definitely wide enough support to remain useful and used as the best de facto guidelines in discussions on journals. So right now, we have the status quo. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not fake, yes, it is currently the best there is. It's not very good. If it enjoys wide support, let's put it back through the {{proposal}} process. As an "essay", it is getting away with being sloppy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not "sloppy", no. The only time there's an "issue" with this page is when people want a certain journal to get special treatment. It's most often because there's a journal being deleted because of it. This case often involves COI-people, like editors or authors that often published in the journal which thinks that by not having an article on the journal, it means their scholarship published in the journal is sloppy. We specifically mention that reliability (quality of scholarship) does not imply notability, and vice versa.

We occasionally get accusations of 'western/English' bias, but I never found this to check out (e.g. in this case, people have said 'European law journals' are niche, which is completely laughable). I'd be more than happy to have articles on Kenyan sociology journals published in Swahili, if it can be demonstrated via sources that this journal is notable. You will likely not be able to do this via 'Western' indices, but that doesn't exempt you from providing sources to demonstrate that notability in the first place. The guideline more than allows for this possibility.

Occasionally people object because a journal is kept because of it, which usually stems for an ideological battle against pseudoscience/poor scholarship, who thinks academia is compromised when we acknowledge that shitty scholarship can be impactful.

When there's disagreement on how to interpret the guideline as too restrictive (most of the time) / too permissive (occassionally), that pretty much tells you it's pretty near the sweet spot. When disagreements happen, the solution is not to WP:TNT the thing, it's to look at the core idea: has the journal been demonstrated to be impactful? If you can show this, the article should be kept. If not, the article should be deleted (or merged, which is often a better outcome than deletion). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. And I like your edits. I think the way forward is to get this page recognised as a guideline. I like the notion of merging non-notable (non-impacting) journals to their publisher. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The semester is ending here (and I suspect for a great deal of people at WP:JOURNALS), and I'm currently working on WP:JCW and [9]. Gimme 2-3 weeks and I'll be able to free some time to write a proposal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• User:David_Eppstein, noting Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Journal_on_European_History_of_Law_(2nd_nomination). I think it is a verifiable worthy topic to cover, but not worthy for its own article. It needs somewhere to merge. What is your opinion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that (although you voted to keep in the AfD and your side won) the new suggestion to merge comes across as an attempt to re-litigate the decision. I didn't participate in an AfD and haven't formulated an opinion on the notability of that specific journal, but the only plausible merge target is European Society for History of Law, a redlink listed within the article. But there's currently nothing to merge because that society's article doesn't yet exist, and in general notability of academic societies has many of the same issues as notability of academic journals (lots of people belong to the societies and use their journals, few reliable sources actually write about them in any depth). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm definitely not here to try to win something. "What to do with non-notable journals" is an interesting question. To date, notability of a journal has not been well defined, with much of this "essay" incompatible with normal principles of Wikipedia-notability. But it shares something with WP:Prof. Non-wikipedia-notable journals includes niche impactful journals, fringe journals, fake journals and money making scam journals. And to keep it complicated, top journals blend into money-making scam journals. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, I don't doubt your good faith, it's just that a merge request now would seem to be odd timing. Anyway, I think trying to define notability of journals in a way that keeps the legitimate journals in and pushes the scam journals out is not going to work very well. Notability is too different a thing from legitimacy. I think the best we can do is try to keep the major journals in, make sure that scam journals are only included when they have enough coverage to properly source the fact that they're a scam, and not worry too much about whether standards that accomplish those goals end up keeping or excluding the minor but legitimate journals. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Are Nature's subject specific journals notable via this standard

I created a page for Nature Ecology and Evolution and a PROD was added asking for it to be deleted. This journal has published research widely covered in the New York Times and other high profile outlets. The average publication in this journal has an altmetric score higher 90% of published papers with the top 10% of papers in the journal higher in the top 1% overall papers on altmetric. If it were to get indexed by ISI would that all of a sudden make it pass this guideline. --MATThematical (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Research gets mentioned in newspapers and magazines all the time. So to answer your question, unless you have couple of sources discussion the journal (rather than simply research published in the journal), that go beyond simply press releases, or can show the journal is indexed in selective database (such as several of the ISI ones, but others exist too), then no, the journal isn't notable. Or at least, isn't notable yet (see WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTALBALL). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC to amend this and related guidelines

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Amending_WP:NMEDIA_and_related_guidelines_to_accord_with_WP:PSCI.2FWP:NFRINGE -- Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

What databases are and aren't selective?

I think there should be more information on this page about which databases are and aren't selective, as per criterion 1b. For example, I just came across American Journal of Applied Sciences and wasn't sure if it meets this guideline, as it is indexed in some databases, but none that I know are selective (SCI, PubMed, etc.) [10] I'm wondering what other editors think about this issue generally and w/regard to this journal specifically. Everymorning (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

According to MIAR, it's in Scopus, which we consider selective enough usually. It's also in Aerospace Database, Civil Engineering Abtracts, INSPEC, Metadex, and Communication Abstracts, although I have no idea about those databases' criteria for inclusion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Dictionary definition of guideline

user:Headbomb please explain why in this diff it makes sense to cite the dictionary definition of "guideline". Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Randykitty:, mind restoring the longstanding version while this is being discussed? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: simple: The word wikt:guideline is what is meant in its common sense, to distinguish from WP:GUIDELINE, which isn't meant. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)