Talk:Frontiers in Psychology

The claim that three editors "resigned from the journal"

I have removed this statement, originally added by Robofish, from the Controversy section regarding the Recursive Fury article: "Three editors resigned from the journal in protest of the retraction of the study." I'm not sure whether the people named in the citation were actually editors of the journal. But the larger problem is: the statement depended on a blog post, see WP:SPS. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• And I have put it back. Some all blogs are RS and this one seems absolutely reliable and notable (one of the top 25 blogs in 2011 according to Time Magazine). Frontiers have a weird journal structure, with each journal having dozens of "review editors". Especially Björn Brembs is an OA advocate of some stature, by the way. I would certainly consider his blog to be authoritative on the subject of OA publishing, so if you like we can add his own blog post on this affair to the article, too. --Randykitty (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed a few blogs are reliable, and Wikipedia:Verifiability describes those exceptional circumstances: certain newspaper and magazine blogs, and articles by "an established expert on the subject matter". I don't see how that's the case here. However, rather than merely removing again, I've changed to wording that lets readers know the source so they could evaluate for themselves. Rather than "Three editors resigned from the journal in protest of the retraction of the study", it's now "A blogger named Graham Readfearn reports that three Frontiers editors resigned in protest of the retraction of the study." (Notice that I also removed the words "from the journal" because there's no evidence that they were editors of Frontiers in Psychology.) Is that getting close to an acceptable compromise? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Promotional content

So not only did this edit and its even more concentrated restoration here remove sourced content, but it added the following promotional content about which I want to say two things:

The 2015 Journal Citation Reports found Frontiers in Psychology to be the world's largest and second most cited psychology journal, with an impact factor of 2.463.

References

First of all, looking at the source, it does not say that JCI found FP to be " the world's largest and second most cited psychology journal". JCI just gives the IF as far as I know, and the journal itself made these two claims. Second, this kind of promotional content cannot be sourced to the journal itself. Jytdog (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

These are fair points. The JCR publishes a wide range of data including IF as well as number of publications per year, so it is trivial to compare these to other journals in the category to confirm the statements from the third-party source. Just because it is positive does not make it promo, though I acknowledge that citing the journal blog is not ideal (the JCR source is not publicly accessible; and you can find an even more hyperbolic version on Nature (journal) that cites their own journal blog in the same way). I have gone ahead and added the formal third-party source, but this has again been reverted by Alexbrn. I really don't want to continue an edit war here, but I am genuinely trying to bring some balance to the highly negative presentation of this article. I appreciate your help in finding consensus. geordie (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• 3rd insertion. Which ranking parameters in JCI are you using to support each of a) "world's largest" and b) "world's second most cited" claims? Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The basic scales: number of articles published per year and number of citations per year. It should be noted that these are quantitative, not qualitative statements (i.e. no one is claiming that this is the "best" journal, or even that being a large journal is necessarily a good thing). geordie (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)