Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals

Image rationales

Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Images

Cover images

I see that some of these get deleted and some don't. What's the policy behind this? Xasodfuih (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to upload them to en-Wiki (not Commons), use a reasonably small thumbnail & provide a bit of boiler plate as a "fair use rationale", see eg [1]. Though many people write far more detailed rationales, I've never had any trouble with just using that. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FurMe is a nice tool to help write a Fair use rationale. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

News that won't get covered by automatic alerts

• The Category:Journals by publication frequency hierarchy of is now available with a set of basic subcategories.
• Category for deletion: Category:Three times annually journals, considered for rename then for deletion here

  Update: not deleted but renamed to Category:Triannual journals

• The {{WikiProject Journals}} banner alias {{WPJournals}} can now be used to tag other common classes: "Redirect Disambig File Template Category Project NA" (in addition to "Stub Start C B GA A FA / List FL"). See its new documentation with self-documented sample code ready for pasting.
• The Category:Academic Journal articles by quality page now display an automatic counter of classified articles. All its subcategories now have the standard navigational headers and have been tagged with the banner/class=category
• The main stub templates have been tagged with the banner/class=Template
• This project's main page has been updated (fixes to the header, assessment counter, documentation for tagging stubs or categorizing articles, cf. history).

That's some stuff I would have liked to find, please review/amend. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 23:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The CfD should get covered by the alerts. If it's not, please file a bug report at WP:AAlerts/Bugs.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The category didn't have a WPJ banner when it was nominated. As I understand it, the alerts are more or less only about articles tagges with the banner. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 05:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it does now, so it'll get picked up. As a general remark, it would be a good idea for this project to run a bot to tag articles from relevant categories. You are very lucky in that these categories will be very clean (ie not a lot of false positive). The alerts system will be that much more powerful.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been picked up, but it doesn't surprise me: the category was tagged after the fact. When a category is tagged, I don't think the bot is going to scan all old "category for deletion" and "category for rename" to see if it's already under discussion somewhere. Anyway, I had to populate the category in emergency and the deletion motion was withdrawn, it was just renamed to Category:Triannual journals. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 18:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TLBF. The automatic counters are a great motivator. We have work to do! ;-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellence in Research for Australia journal lists

As a bit of background, the Australian Research Council has been developing the framework for the government initiative called Excellence in Research for Australia. They have released two excel spreadsheets with the list of journals.[2]

I have created two lists with all of the journals:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/ERA hca journals (I started cleansing this list)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/ERA pce journals

And I have reused the structure of WP:LOMJQ for the two lists of A* journals:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/ERA HCA Astar
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/ERA PCE Astar

I am still inquiring about the copyright status of this data, which is why I have avoided including all of the spreadsheet data into those pages. There are two tasks I think we should do:

1. Ensure we have articles for all of the A* journals, and hopefully keep working through the lists
2. Incorporate this rating system into Wikipedia, either as categories, or in {{Infobox Journal}}

In the interests of full disclosure, this is related to my day job as a staff member of an Australian university. This would take a lifetime of Sundays to do myself, however if can reach a critical mass, Australian researchers will be able to use Wikipedia articles and categories to help them determine which journals they should be targeting, and the researchers themselves will likely hop in and help us create articles for the missing journals on the lists. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am marking journals on the list as {{done}} when the article has been confirmed as the correct journal, and the ISSNs are listed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have finished cleaning up the PCE A* list. There are now 28 missing journals on the list. I have only created two of these, so there were 30 missing. The list supplied by the Australian Research Council contains 96 journals, so we already had articles for roughly 69% of these A* journal (i.e. the top 5%).

There are also another seven entries which are redirects to Annual Reviews (publisher); given that the Australian govt thinks these are in the top 5% of journals, those seven are probably notable enough to have their own article.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have finished searching for existing articles for the HCA A* list. I count 121 existing articles, of a total of 378 journals on the list. That means Wikipedia has articles for only 31.5% of the top 5% of journals, and there are 257 missing articles on the HCA list.

There are 26 HCA articles which need an infobox before they can be marked as {{done}}. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine

Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine is a non-journal disguised as a journal. Crusio (talk · contribs) added the WP:WikiProject Academic Journals's template to the article's talk page.

Does this WikiProject concern itself with publications masquerading as journals? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• I am fully aware of the status of this journal (in fact, it was all the brouhaha that led me to check whether we had an article on it). As this was masquerading as a scientific journal, I think it belongs to the Journals Wikiproject. Placing that banner there does not signify any endorsement or such, just that this article falls within the interests of this particular Wikiproject. --Crusio (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Physics publications.

WP:PHYSPUB has been created recently. If you find a physics-related journal, could you please tag the article with {{physics|class=|importance=|pub=yes}} ? Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under its scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Two business journal lists

I have set up two lists of journals:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/BW Top 20 - Business Week

Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/FT Top 40 - Financial Times

Both have copyright issues, which is why I have put them in project space initially. Depending on how respected these lists are, we may want to ask the companies whether they would release these lists into the public domain. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure separate articles on these lists would be warranted. But I don't see any problem (copyright or other) with mentioning these rankings in the articles on the different journals (e.g., "BusinessWeek ranked this journal 15th in its 2008 annual top 20 MBA rankings" or something like that). --Crusio (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Two South African journal lists

Using the spreadsheets available here, I have created two more tables of journals:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/SA approved journals
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/SA approved journals intl

I believe these lists are annually updated by the Department of Education (South Africa), but I am not familiar with the publication collection/reporting that occurs in South Africa. Maybe we need to write an article about it. :-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BOTREQ#Journal compilation

I've made a request for a bot compilation of what is found in the |journal= parameters of {{cite journal}} and {{citation}}. This should be useful for your project. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Category farms at Informa journals

I've just cleaned out a bunch of cat farms in Informa publications (I'm sure there are many more to go). Given the similarities of the articles, I suspect that the articles were created by an employee -- which is fine with me, although it leads to some odd quirks, like wikilinking Ph.D after the editors' names and putting the journal title in bold italicized text throughout the article -- but they have a tendency to list a dozen or so categories for each journal, which is nonsense, and to miss the most relevant categories, which is unfortunate.

I just wanted to suggest to you all that you keep an eye out for this problem so that Category:Academic journals isn't any more bloated than actually necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think I removed some categories from these articles a few days before you while I was cleaning up a few of the categories. I noticed there were other unnecessary categories, and groaned, but didnt get back to cleaning those issues up. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The listing of scientists related to the journal

Hi I have raised a question about listing more scientists related to a specific journal, see here, then just the Editor-in-Chief. My question is, if it is forbitten (or should be forbitten) to list scientists related to the journal as Associate Editors and/or members in the editorial board...??

Personally I think it is a shame, that scientists associated with a journal are being removed. This listing gives an overview which people are interested in the same specific field, and have gathered around that specific journal. I think these listings give an overview of a specific group of scientists that all support the paradigm the journal is spreading.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)