Talk:Journal of Health Psychology
|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Academic Journals||(Rated Start-class)|
The section "Providing a forum for international scholarship" seems rather POV, with a number of uses of expressions such as "best", "most respected", etc. While probably true, this seems rather subjective, and difficult for anyone to verify. There's also a potential vanity issue here, as that section was contributed by the editor of the journal (David Marks). Dsreyn 13:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
"Psychological approaches to health, illness and health policy" vs "healthcare journal"
Hello Crusio, thank you for your enormous work WP journal articles. However, I have misgivings about your recent change to the lead sentence of the article Journal of Health Psychology. There are many health-related fields besides healthcare - for example, health promotion and illness prevention, which are major concern of fields such as public health, and often health policy. "Care" very commonly connotes reaction after illness has occurred, when one must take care of an ill patient. Consistent with this interpretation, the page healthcare journal only mentions the professions of "doctors" and "nurses" by name, and says nothing about concern for prevention.
Therefore, it seemed a shift in meaning when you changed the opening sentence of Journal of Health Psychology from "is an interdisciplinary, international journal that deals with psychological approaches to health, illness and health policy" to "is a peer-reviewed healthcare journal that covers all aspects of health psychology". That is, by making "healthcare" central to the characterization of the journal's mission, you seemed to be doing more than a "cleanup" (your change-log description), but also a shift in meaning. (And this change did not seem appropriate)
What do you think? I am inclined to shift the language back towards the original, but perhaps you are aware of additional considerations. (note: I am putting this on the talk page of both you and the journal) Regards -- Health Researcher (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I removed the unsourced material, and replaced it with sourced content. I also added references, abstracting & indexing, and information to the infobox. The content of the article did not reflect the description of the journal according to the site. I changed it to broad topical coverage that I found at one source. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Further reading section
I restored the book to the 2005 edition, because this edition is listed in over 300 libraries according to World Cat. The 2011 edition has undertermined notability. Furthermore, I agree that the 2005 edition is a related book - but it is not really necessary in an academic journal article. However, because the 2005 edition is carried in so many libraries, I am not removing it. And I am not contending that it should be removed. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)