Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)

This guideline is meant to reflect consensus about the notability of journals as measured by their academic impact. For the purposes of this guideline a journal journal is a periodical publication devoted to reporting the results of scholarly research or higher education and journal notability refers to being known for such engagement.

This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, Wikipedia:Notability (media), etc.: it is possible for a journal not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines. Conversely, if a journal is notable under this guideline, its possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant.

Criteria

If a journal meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable. If a journal meets none of these conditions, it may still be notable, if it meets the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the journal will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. See the Notes and Examples section below before applying this guideline.

1. The journal is considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in its subject area
2. The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources
3. The journal has served some sort of historic purpose or has a significant history
4. The journal has produced award winning work

Publications that primarily carry advertising, and only have trivial content, may have relevant details merged to an article on their publisher (if notable).

For journals which have made substantial impact outside academia but in their academic capacity, the appropriate criteria for that sort of notability apply as an alternative. If notable only in another capacity entirely, see the general criteria for that field.

It is possible for a journal to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability. For the routine uncontroversial details of a journal, official institutional and professional sources are accepted.

Notes and examples

Examples and practical tips for applications of this guideline follow.

1. The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field.
2. 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.
3. * Citation indexes: the only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus. They are, unfortunately, very expensive: Scopus will be found mostly in university and large college libraries, and Web of Knowledge in major universities. Scopus covers the sciences and the social sciences, but is very incomplete before 1996; Web of Knowledge may cover the sciences back to 1900, the social sciences back to 1956, and the humanities back to 1975, but only the largest universities can afford the entire set. (Fortunately, additional citation indexes with public access are being developed.) These databases are furthermore incomplete especially for the less developed countries. Additionally, they list citations only from journal articles—citations from articles published in books or other publications are not included. For that reason, these databases should not be used for disciplines such as computer science in which conference or other non-journal publication is essential. Web of Knowledge provides a free index of highly cited researchers, which may be of some value. In individual scientific fields, MathSciNet, SciFinder Scholar (Chemical Abstracts), and similar disciplinary indexes are also valuable resources, often specifically listing citation counts, but access to them is also not free and usually requires a university computer account.
4. * A caution about Google Scholar: Google Scholar works well for fields where all (or nearly all) respected venues have an online presence. Most papers written by a computer scientist will show up, but for less technologically up-to-date fields, it is dicey. For non-scientific subjects, it is especially dicey. Even the journal Science puts articles online only back to 1996. Many journals, additionally, do not permit Google Scholar to list their articles. For books, the coverage in Google Scholar is partly through Google Book Search, and is very strongly influenced by publisher's permissions and policies. Thus, the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability. In the other direction, GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites. Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be twice the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material. In essence, it is a rough guide only.
5. * A caution about PubMed: Medline, now usually accessed as part of PubMed, is a well-established broadly based search engine, covering much of biology and all of medicine, published since 1967 and sometimes even earlier. It includes a few journals in medically related clinical subjects, but is not complete in those. Further, not all articles in PubMed are from peer-reviewed journals, as it includes medical news sources of various degrees of quality, including such items in peer-reviewed journals it does cover. It also exhaustively covers letters to the editor and similar material, not all of which is of any significance.
6. * A caution about "related articles" In PubMed, and most other databases, "Related articles" are not articles that necessarily cite the original; they are articles on the same general topic, usually selected by having title words or citations in common. Some may cite the original (and some clearly do not, for they will have been published before the articles in question). They are useful for finding additional papers on a subject, which is the purpose for which they were designed. The only way to count citations using such a listing in, for example, PubMed, is the tedious method of looking at every one of the related articles published after the article in question, finding its "cited article" display, and check if it is there. (Some PubMed records do not list cited articles, for a variety of reasons.) Nor will such a listing necessarily include all the citations. - Help for "Related articles" feature
7. * Measures of citability such as H-index, G-index, etc, may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with considerable caution since their validity is not, at present, widely accepted, and since they depend substantially on the source indices used.
8. * For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied.
9. Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question.
10. There are other considerations that may be used as contributing factors (usually not sufficient individually) towards satisfying Criterion 1, e.g.: significant academic awards and honors (see below); service on editorial boards of scholarly publications; publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals; publication of collected works; publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person; special conferences dedicated to honor academic achievements of a particular person; naming of academic awards or lecture series after a particular person; and others.
11. For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1, significant academic awards and honors may include, for example: major academic awards (they would also automatically satisfy Criterion 2), highly selective fellowships (other than postdoctoral fellowships); invited lectures at meetings of national or international scholarly societies, where giving such an invited lecture is considered considerably more prestigious than giving an invited lecture at typical national and international conferences in that discipline; named lectures or named lecture series; awards by notable academic and scholarly societies; honorary degrees; and others. Ordinary colloquia and seminar talks and invited lectures at scholarly conferences, standard research grants, named post-doctoral fellowships, visiting appointments, or internal university awards are insufficient for this purpose.
12. For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant subdisciplines (e.g. particle physics, algebraic geometry, medieval history, "fluid mechanics", "Drosophila genetics" are valid examples). Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1, except for the actual leaders in those subjects.
13. Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1.
14. Having a small collaboration distance from a famous or notable academic (e.g. having a small Erdos number) is not, in and of itself, indicative of satisfying Criterion 1.
15. 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).
16. Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1.
17. Biographical listings in and awards from vanity press publishers, such as the American Biographical Institute, or from publications incorporating a substantial vanity press element in their business model, such as Marquis Who's Who, do not qualify for satisfying Criterion 2 or for partially satisfying Criterion 1.
18. For the purposes of Criterion 3, elected memberships in minor and non-notable societies are insufficient (most newly formed societies fall into that category).
19. Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education.
20. Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or Vice-Chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc. Lesser administrative posts (Provost, Dean, Department Chair, etc) are generally not sufficient to satisfy Criterion 6, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g. being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify). Heads of institutes and centers devoted to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories are generally not covered by Criterion 6; their heads may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines.
21. Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as a journal expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.
22. Criterion 7 may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study. Books on pseudo-science and marginal or fringe scientific theories are generally not covered by this criterion; their authors may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines.
23. Patents, commercial and financial applications are generally not indicative of satisfying Criterion 7.
24. Journals dedicated to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories are generally not covered by Criterion 8; their Editors-in-Chief may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines.

Caveats

Some caveats to this guideline follow.

1. 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 build. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable.
2. A journal whicho is not notable by these guidelines could still be notable for non-academic reasons.
3. It is possible for a journal to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for an article in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability.