User talk:Randykitty

Before posting here, please READ THIS FIRST

Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, please add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "+" tab, or, depending on your settings, the "new section" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise. I dislike talk-back templates and fragmented discussions. If I post on your page you may assume that I will watch it for a response. If you post here I will assume the same (and that you lost interest if you stop following the discussion).

START A NEW TALK TOPIC.

Canadian Medical Education Journal

I am looking for feedback/advice regarding the recently rejected submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Canadian_Medical_Education_Journal I've read and reread the criteria for notability, and I would love some examples of how this submission could meet that criteria. If not now, then down the line. I don't want the article deleted, so I would like to figure out the right source before I waste anyone's time. I was looking at various other academic journals, and CMEJ seems to fit the same criteria. Any insights would be great! Hickeygamez (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what to say. You have been pointed to WP:GNG, which for academic journals usually is very difficult to satisfy, and to WP:NJournals, which is easier to satisfy. However, in the present case, there is no sign whatsoever that this journal comes even close to meeting GNG. You shouldn't look too much at other articles (unless they're really good). There are over 6 million articles on WP and the number of people patrolling them is limited, so it is to be expected that some of them don't meet our inclusion criteria. There's no deadline, sooner or later somebody will come along and either enter sources establishing notability or propose the article for deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thank-you for your response. I'm disappointed. Mostly because I spent so long researching and editing - but I am sure that's the case for all wikipedia declines. I was looking at other journals only for tips and tricks, not to pit them against my work here. I guess what I can't figure out is how an academic journal would ever qualify since they feature other peoples' work and rarely the other way around. Hickeygamez (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• That's why we have NJournals: it documents the fact that some databases (like Scopus, for example, extensively vet a journal before including it. Therefore, we interpret such an inclusion as an independent relable source documenting that a journal is notable. This way, more than ten thousand journals qualify for inclusion (we still don't have articles on many of them). Databases like DOAJ don't count, because they are not selective enough. DOAJ strives to include any open-access journal that is legit, no matter how otherwise insignificant. In contrast, in order to be included in Scopus or the Science Citation Index, a journal has to be shown to have a significant impact on their field. --Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thank-you. That is helpful. What about a database like https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/ That database seems to be closer to Scopus than DOAJ. CMEJ is only listed in one line on Erudit, but seems to have a "coming-soon" description: https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/cmej/ Hickeygamez (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• As the first line on their website says: "Discover the list of scholarly and cultural journals disseminated by Érudit and its partners (NRC Research Press, Persée, Centre for Digital Scholarship)." So they are selective in the sense that they only include journals published by themselves and their partners, but not selective regarding impact/notability, because they include all journals of the mentioned publishers. --Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Are you sure? https://apropos.erudit.org/en/publishers/erudits-editorial-policy/ that policy statement seems like it is more selective. Can you undo the "REJECT" button from the article if I promise not to submit it until it meets your criteria?? Hickeygamez (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm sure. Those criteria have nothing to do with the journal being influential/notable. Hence, I see no reason to come back on the "reject". Sorry... --Randykitty (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• My reason for requesting the undo reject is because I think, given more time, I could prove its notability. I don't want you to just accept it, I'd be happy to go back to the middle "decline" stage.Hickeygamez (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hickeygamez: The criteria for notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word is related to real-world impact/attention, not reliability/legitimacy (which it may well be, I'm no medical professional here, so I'll let other be the judge of that). The two will often be related since nonsense journals are rarely impactful or have any attention given to them, but we do require independent sources to have taken note of the journal in some way, or have some way to attest to the impact. Most often, this will be through indexing in selective databases like SCOPUS or have an impact factor. But it could also be that the journal has been the focus of (independent) press coverage or was recognized for specific achievements by independent organizations (like winning a prize for innovation in a specific area of publishing). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thank-you. I guess I think https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/cmej/ proves its notability. It is a selective database, though just not as selective as SCOPUS I don't think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89rudit Hickeygamez (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)