Talk:IOP Publishing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I work in IOP Publishing's Public Relations department and I'd like to make some factual changes to the IOP Publishing page and its associated pages.

However, as I have a conflict of interest, I would therefore like to ask editors for advice.

Is it acceptable for me to make multiple factual edits directly on the IOP Publishing page and associated pages?

I would like to discuss a specific IOP Publishing associated page with editors to check that I am following the correct Wikipedia protocol.

Inverse Problems

1) I would like to replace the listed 2010 impact factor with the most recent impact factor result from 2011.

2) 'External links' section - we migrated our Electronic Journals service to IOPscience in 2007 and therefore the 'IOP Publishing Electronic Journals' titled link is wrong. When clicking on the link you will see that the URL redirects to the IOPscience service. I would like to amend the title to read 'IOPscience'.

3) Again, in the 'external links' section, there are two Inverse Problems weblinks, one of which links through to Headingley Vehicle Signs - this is incorrect and should be removed.

4) Also in this section, there is a heading titled 'Institute of Physics', which links to http://www.iop.org/. While IOP Publishing is a subsidiary of the Institute of Physics, it would be factually correct to replace the existing weblink 'IOP Publishing' with a link to http://ioppublishing.org/.

Please can you confirm that it would be acceptable for me to make edits 1) and 2) myself and list edits 3) and 4) on the talk page of Inverse Problems?

I very much want to ensure that I am following Wikipedia's rules and that the editors are happy with edits to the IOP Publishing pages.

Many thanks Physics114 (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have reliable, third party, sources for the changes you wish to make, per WP:RS and WP:Verify?--ukexpat (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with you updating existing links yourself when they are broken, but I would question whether our article needs the quantity of external links in the body that it currently carries. Links to community websites are the sort of thing I would expect to find on the organisations official website, and a link to that is all that is really needed in a Wikipedia article. I agree with ukexpat that independent reliable sources are required to verify facts. Certainly these are required for impact factors (which I do not currently see in the article, by the way, so it would not be a replacement as you characterise it) and nobody would be willing to add them for you without sources. Currently, the article carries no valid references at all and is open to an editor nominating it for deletion. SpinningSpark 17:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I have just realised that you were not discussing this page, but the Inverse Problems page and I have now seen the impact figure in the article. Otherwise, my comments above still apply. SpinningSpark 17:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you ukexpat (talk) and SpinningSpark for your help. Firstly, if I have third-party sources for the changes I wish to make, should I make these changes myself or should I post my suggestions to the talk page for an editor to review? Secondly, should I add in sources to the IOP Publishing page myself to help avoid the page being deleted? Physics114 (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
It depends very much on what exactly you are adding. Fixing broken links and updating existing statistics from a reliable source are pretty uncontroversial actions as far as I am concerned. The article already states where the impact factor figure comes from; if that is the source you intend to cite then that would be ok as well in my book. As a general rule, if you are not sure how your edit is going to be received then you probably should not be doing it. Leave a note on the talk page instead, but be aware that for rarely visited articles like this it can take a long time for anyone to pick it up. If necessary, you can use the template {{request edit}} which will add the request to a patrolled list.
By the way, saying statistic x is currently value y is a bad way of presenting information in an encyclopaedia. It will rapidly go out of date. Far better is to say that the impact factor was x in 20yy. This information will not age, and it continues to state the historic notability of the journal even if the impact factor subsequently collapses to zero or the journal goes out of print altogether.
By by the way, please do not use my signature to refer to me. I would prefer that my signature is only seen on something I have actually signed. Thanks, SpinningSpark 19:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Books Publishing section[edit]


This entry is factually incorrect - IOP Publishing withdrew from publishing books in 2005 and sold the books division to Taylor and Francis in 2005 [1]. IOP Publishing launched its ebook initiative in 2012 [2].

Would it be possible to change this section to read something like: "IOP Publishing sold the books publishing division in 2005 to Taylor & Francis to focus on its resources on the journals portfolio; however, since then the publishing landscape and demand for ebooks has changed dramatically and IOP Publishing launched an ebook programme in 2012." Physics114 (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I appreciate you using Request Edit, but it looks to me like a good candidate for a merge with Institute of Physics. The current article is filled with directory and trivia information and could be summarized in one good paragraph or sub-section over there. I don't know enough about these sorts of articles to judge though. CorporateM (Talk) 17:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
    • CorporateM asked me to take a look at this, since I've worked a good deal here and elsewhere on this sort of subject. I will comment on other aspects also.
  1. First of all, I think IOP publishing should be a separate article. It's a major enterprise in its own right, and people here interested in it are not that likely to be interested in the society otherwise; conversely, people coming here for information about the Society will probably be looking for information about what its professional designations mean. (It is becoming common practice here to merge articles on individual professional qualifications given by a society into the article on the society).
  2. In terms of content, there's a good deal more that can be said, and a number of sources about various aspects of the journals program, I'd suggest the ed. above look for them--I will look as I have the occasion. I would suggest adding sections for the conference series, one for the publication for other societies, and one about the publication of the translated journals. The list of journals published is not advertising, but basic content, especially because not all of them have articles. Personally, I think all the journals they publish notable, and we should write articles for the others (or article sections on the society page if its for an associated society--If the society happens not to have an article, this is a good occasion to make one.) At that point, the Category:IOP Publishing academic journals will serve the purpose, but I think they could be appropriately still included here, though not in one academic list but in sections, with some additional information. Giving additional information is the advantage of a list over a category. . (Qy. to Physics114--which of its journals are not in JCR? and is there some reason, like their being too new?. I ask because any journal in JCR is considered notable here.)
  3. I'd add a section on its history, including the year it first became available on line, and the year the full backfiles became available (and a indication if the backfiles are on another site, such as JStor) . Earlier titles not now published or changed should be included--there needs to be a section somewhere on the history of J Physics and Proc Phys Soc., and this might be the place for it. . The history of its electronic publishing should be included.
  4. I do not see anything I consider trivia, except possibly the section on the websites. It needs to be rewritten. It's promotional language to say whom it is published for. Rather, the information should be given about its contents -- this is basically a rewording.
  5. This page, the page on the society, and each of the pages on the journals, needs some additional work. Suitable content for a journal page should include list of every editor in chief--partly because being ed. in chief of a major journal is considered proof of notability under WP:PROF , and we should have eventually articles on every one of them as individuals. An article about a journal can also contain information about the Open access availability, if relevant; the circulation, if there's a published source for it, The Impact factor should indicate not just the number but the rank in the JCR subject field(s).(Include the year so it can be updated.) Now that 5 yr impact factors are available, they can be included also. It is also possible to include a list of the 3 or 4 most influential articles, getting citation figures from Web of Science. The language needs adjusting: it should not be oriented towards the scientist looking for a place to publish, or the librarian looking to see what is worth buying, but the general reader here who sees a reference to an article in a journal and wants to see something about the journal, often to judge how authoritative it is. Myself, I'd include base subscription prices, but there is considerable resistance here about it, so I'd avoid giving values. A general figure showing the range can sometimes be included, especially if the price has a third party source because it was discussed by others. Most important, though this is hard to avoid in journal articles, it must contain no text from the web page description of the journal. That is a copyright violation, and needs to be rewritten. Even if you are prepared to donate copyright according to WP:DCM, it is likely to be unsuitably promotional, such as a list of every possible subfield that it might be of interest to.

Let me know if I can give any assistance. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. We would have a very different outlook on company articles. Since it appears valid as a separate article, I've made the correction. The sources didn't look very good at a glance, but since the current allegedly incorrect content had no sources anyway, I would consider it an improvement. Physics114 if you want to continue improving articles in other areas where you have a COI, DGG has offered a good roadmap. CorporateM (Talk) 21:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks to you both for all of this information, it is very helpful. I just noticed that the books section has been modified incorrectly (my full comment above has been copied and pasted)- please can this rectified? Can I also check that it will be ok for me to make the suggested edits personally (i.e. I don't need to post to Talk)? I may have further questions as I go through the detailed bullet points. I hope that is ok. Thank you Physics114 (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)