|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
Less precision should be unilaterally assigned the term "review journal" by Wikipedia?
It seems "review journal" over the years has become used more and more to designate a particular breed of journal, one (especially in the hard sciences) containing specifically review articles. But in certain social sciences--eg history, where its oftener the case that some brave new path under review as produced by a lone historian consolidating his research/view into a book-length monograph--the practice is that journals containing distinct review articles along with a select series of book reviews of these books by historians are called review journals (which book reviews, of course, are produced by a fellow historian' assessing the book/research's place within the field as a whole).
In light of the fact that our Wikidefinition of Review journal is unsourced due to a dearth of published material containing a def of the term, it's important Wikipedia remain as circumspect as possible and out of the forefront in popularizing any particular understanding of the definition for the term not directly supported by reliable sources. Let's tweak the term's definition a bit for more precision of the term's use in general practice even tho this def. arguably would be a looser one.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- In order to avoid repetitiveness: see discussion at Talk:Review journal. --Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia and WPdians are not RSes. Please provide a source for your view that the current definition, used in the article, is correct.
- Eg see here: Political Justice in a Republic by JP McWilliams Jr (1972, Cambridge Univ Press):
Redgrave [Information Systems] will publish a new review journal in American history and related disciplines which will carry timely, in-depth review-essays of scholarly and non-fiction trade books and of reprints, teaching and research materials. Reviews in American History contains 160 pages per issue....
- Wikipedians are indeed no RS. That includes you, though. The article is the result of a long-standing consensus involving multiple editors. To change that unilaterally you will need a better source than a promotional announcement. --Randykitty (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)