Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Academic Journals (talk)
Resources (talk) Writing guide (talk) Assessment (talk) Notability guidelines (talk) Journals cited by Wikipedia (talk)

This is a bot-generated list of academic journals cited on Wikipedia using the "journal=" parameter of the various {{cite xxx}} templates of Wikipedia. The list is organized both alphabetically and by popularity, and is additionally broken down into groups of 250. Due to a lack of advanced filtering, the lists will include several books, magazines, websites, and other non-academic periodicals. The list is organized in several ways

A comprehensive alphabetical listing

Containing all |journal=... entries

Several lists of widely used ('popular') entries, organized by certain criteria

Most popular entries (i.e. which |journal=... entries are most used)
Most popular missing entries (i.e. which |journal=... entries are most used and don't have corresponding articles or redirects)
Most popular targets (i.e. regroups all entries that redirect to a certain target together, e.g. The Astrophysical Journal + Astrophysical Journal + Astrophys. J. + Astrophys J + ApJ + The Astrophysical Journal Letters + ..., as well as likely typos, and orders the targets by popularity)

A list of questionable journals, which may or may not be reliable

This is mostly based on Beall's List, with all the caveats this entails. This is currently under development and not finalized. Could be expanded through Cabell's blacklist eventually.

This list is useful for discovering journals of interest for WikiProject members and will also facilitate cleanup efforts. However due to the lack of advanced filtering, as well as mistakes and misuse of citation templates, many entries on this list will be neither notable nor reliable. The presence of a source on this list should not be considered an endorsement of the source by this WikiProject and caution is advised.

Reading the data[edit]

  • Title (bold link) : page existed at time of database dump
  • Title (bold underlined link) : page existed, as a disambiguation page, at time of database dump
  • Title (italicized link) : page existed, as a redirect, at time of database dump
  • Title (italicized underlined link) : page existed, as a redirect to a disambiguation page, at time of database dump
  • Title (regular blue link) page did not exist at time of database dump
  • Title (non-link) : title contains invalid characters for a Wikipedia page title

A red link mean the article currently does not exist. This is either because the corresponding article has been deleted (in this case it will have some formatting), or did not exist at the time of the dump (regular red link).

Interpreting the data[edit]

All numbers should be taken with a huge grain of salt for several reasons:

  • A large number of citations does not necessarily imply notability; sometimes a journal will have been cited to support a single fact on many similar pages, or perhaps even by a bot auto-generating content. Conversely, a low number of citations does not imply non-notability.
  • Likewise, a large number of citation does not necessarily imply reliability; sometimes a journal will have been cited because they were involved in controversies. Conversely, a low number of citation does not imply non-reliability.
  • Citations not based on templates, such as "<ref>J. Smith (2010), ''Journal of Foobar'' '''13'''(7):28–31</ref>" are completely ignored by the compilation.
  • It is quite common for a citation to be copied from one page & pasted into another - this may make any given typo or formatting error seem more common than it really is.
  • The same article may be cited multiple times on the same page, using a different template each time. This may make a journal/abbreviation seem popular when in fact it is only used on a few unique pages
  • Many editors misuse the citation templates, creating all kinds of weird things that would never actually be searched for.
  • The list, like Wikipedia's linking system, is case sensitive. However, Wikipedia's search function is not case sensitive so unusual capitalizations don't really need redirects.
  • Entries like "The Astrophysical Journal" and "Astrophysical Journal"; or "Phys. Rev. Lett." and "Physical Review Letters", are counted separately, even though they refer to the same journal.

Thus, most current red links should probably stay that way. A huge sea of red does not reflect a failure of this WikiProject, but rather poor template usage by thousands of editors across Wikipedia.

Creating new articles[edit]

Redirecting[edit]

Feedback[edit]

Suggestions for improving the bot are highly encouraged. Please leave comments on the talk page.