Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Dots and No dots?

I took a look at Chemical Vapor Deposition (journal) and created the Chem. Vap. Deposition redirect. A second maintenance template also wants the Chem Vap Deposition (without the dots) redirect to be created. I saw nothing in the instructions that says anything about this, so is this a mistake? or should we create the redirects without the dots, too?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  11:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: The infobox only needs the dotted abbreviation [anyone can easily picture the dotless version]. But the dotless abbreviation is a likely search term and are rather other used as a matter of style, so both redirects need to be created. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Headbomb! And for the purpose of categorization, we can then assume that the "dotless" version cannot be sorted to Category:Redirects from ISO 4, and instead must be considered an
Of course, that is probably something that most editors won't know to do, and we probably don't want to make the instructions too wordy and hard to handle.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  21:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Why can't we assume that? It's what we did for years without issue. They're a stylistic alternative, not a different standard. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't have much of a problem with it if nobody else does; however, in the instructions at the category, trouble has been taken to stress the importance of being careful with the dots:
Also verify that the dots are appropriate. Cell Biochem. Biophys. refers to Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics whereas Cell. Biochem. Biophys. would refer to Cellular Biochemistry and Physics which is a either a non-existent or different publication entirely.
So there might be some confusion because of that. If editors are okay with it, then so am I.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  06:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that the "R from modification" rcat is a better fit for the sans-dots, and it would be easy to implement for future redirect creations via the new, preloaded infobox template. The bigger issue would be whether a bot should go back and change the rcats on the redirects previously created czar 07:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
It's a much worse fit as they became nearly untraceable. {{R from modification}} contains a plethora of other crap, {{R from ISO 4}} only contains (or ought to contain) ISO 4 redirects. If a specific template needs to be added to them, it should be {{R from ISO 4 (dotless)}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Tracability is more important than the fact that were categorizing non-ISO 4 codes as ISO 4 codes? Who cares about tracing the incorrect codes anyway? Isn't the main idea for them to exist as search aids? After all, they are not ISO 4 codes and should not be sorted to that category.
Here's an example: the Millennia redirect targets Millennium as its {{R from plural}}; however, the Millenia redirect, which also targets Millennium and is a good search term, is tagged with {{R from misspelling}} and definitely not with {{R from plural}} − it's not a plural, it's a misspelling. And in like form, Chem Vap Deposition isn't an ISO 4 code, it's an {{R from modification}} of the real ISO 4 code.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  09:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
It is an ISO 4 code. Just one without dots. To quote from the standard "Full stops shall only be used to indicate an abbreviation. Full stops may be omitted from abbreviated words in applications that require limited use of punctuation." [emphasis mine].
And yes, traceability is important. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I see your point; however, that just verifies why the dotless versions are good search terms. It certainly does not confirm that the dotless versions are ISO 4 codes. If the dotless versions were to appear in the standard list of ISO 4 codes, then they would be ISO 4 codes – if they do not appear there, then they are not ISO 4 codes. Please show where Chem Vap Deposition appears in any list of ISO 4 codes.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  23:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I just literally quoted you the standard. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Then perhaps I misunderstand it?... "Full stops shall only be used to indicate an abbreviation. Full stops may be omitted from abbreviated words in applications that require limited use of punctuation." Wikipedia is not an application that requires limited use of punctuation, is it? So the omission of full stops is not necessary here. So if the dotless versions are not in an ISO 4 listing, then how can they be considered to be ISO 4 codes? And you have yet to explain how going dotless may adversely affect the journal name, like the example given on the category page: Cell. Biochem. Biophys. vs. Cell Biochem. Biophys. What page would the "Cell Biochem Biophys" (dotless) redirect target if there were articles about both of those journals?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Applications that require limited use of punctuation could be anything. A way to save space, a style decision, etc. Typical use would be in the reference section of a certain journal, which decides the dots are superfluous and ought to be omitted. As for the second part of your post, I have no idea what you're even referring to with me "having to explain how going dotless may adversely affect..." I don't recall making any such claims. But this is still immaterial to the main point: dotless ISO is still ISO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

And it's because of the existence of those limited-use apps and the blip about them in the standard that make the dotless versions good search terms; however, neither the apps nor the blip in the standard justify calling them ISO 4 codes. They are code modifications similar to misspellings and should not be treated as something they are not.
As for the "dotless confusion", I explained above... from "the instructions at Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 redirects, trouble has been taken to stress the importance of being careful with the dots:"
Also verify that the dots are appropriate. Cell Biochem. Biophys. refers to Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics whereas Cell. Biochem. Biophys. would refer to Cellular Biochemistry and Physics which is a either a non-existent or different publication entirely.
So I ask again, which page would you make the "Cell Biochem Biophys" (dotless) redirect target if there were articles about both Cellular Biochemistry and Biophysics (ISO 4 code Cell. Biochem. Biophys.) and Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics (ISO 4 code Cell Biochem. Biophys.)? Don't you see how confusing and misguiding it can be to call the dotless versions ISO 4 codes? They are not on any ISO 4 code list, so I'm afraid they do not qualify as true ISO 4 codes – no more than "ca.t" is a correct spelling of "cat" nor "(name)@gmailcom" is a correct email address.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  09:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
There is no Cellular Biochemistry and Biophysics, so the question is moot. If there was the possibility of having the same abbreviation in either format, they would be distinguished with a parenthetical statement like Open Med and Open Med (Wars). You can scream to the winds that Open Med (Wars) is not an ISO 4 code, but the ISO 4 standard is crystal clear that it is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
"Scream to the winds?" lol – funny as your username, Headbomb! A page title is either in an ISO listing or it isn't. If it isn't, then it should not be sorted to the category. It's really that simple. Seems it is you who are "screaming to the winds". Why are you so invested in categorizing redirect page titles incorrectly?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  13:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Those are ISO 4 abbreviation, per the standard, and are categorized correctly. It's you who somehow insists on not categorizing them as they should. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
You and I will have to "agree to disagree" then, and hope that others will include their opinions and comments about this. IMAO, you misinterpret the following blip in the standard:
Full stops shall only be used to indicate an abbreviation. Full stops may be omitted from abbreviated words in applications that require limited use of punctuation.
That blip does not give Wikipedia nor anyone else the authority to call dotless modifications of ISO 4 codes actual and real ISO 4 codes. Only those codes in the ISO 4 listing should be sorted to Category:Redirects from ISO 4. Dotless variations should be sorted to Category:Redirects from modifications. czar has already weighed in on this, and it would be good to hear from more editors.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
No, what that "blip" does is make dotless codes ISO 4-compliant codes. The ISO decided that for itself, we didn't need to do so, it's written black on white. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
And where does it say that – exactly? Where does it say, exactly, that dotless variations are ISO 4 codes?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
"Full stops may be omitted from abbreviated words in applications that require limited use of punctuation." That's where it says it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
You seem to keep totally forgetting the second half of that sentence.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  09:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Your argument that a standard-compliant abbreviation ceases to be standard-compliant when the conditions of compliance to that standard are met is complete nonsense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
As is your argument that Wikipedia is an application that has limited-use punctuation?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  00:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Redirects are for likely search terms. Wikipedia doesn't have to be where the "limited space application" applies, although those are very often used in Wikipedia (WP:CITEVAR applies here). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes thank you, they are "search terms", and nowhere does it say that the dotless variations are true ISO 4 codes. They are as you say "search terms", and search terms belong in a different category, in this case they belong in Category:Redirects from modifications.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
It says so directly in the standard. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
And around and around we go. The standard certainly makes no such claim in the blip you keep quoting, so where in the standard does it "directly" say that the dotless variations are ISO codes?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
"Full stops may be omitted from abbreviated words in applications that require limited use of punctuation." - Taken directly from the ISO 4 Standard documentation. Now stop your WP:TE/WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT/WP:DEADHORSE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll be glad to stop, Headbomb. Just trying to help. I came here with a question and instead of finding help, I found an editor who is so invested in this idea that they cannot and will not accept another editor's interpretation as even remotely, let alone possibly, correct. Be well.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid other editors don't care, both options are perfectly fine ;) The formal question is whether under applications that require limited use of punctuation you can qualify redirecting users that didn't use dots for whatever reason, which you can (as demonstrated above) argue either way (by the way, what do you mean by ISO 4 listing? all lists I've seen are inconsistent with ISO-4 in some cases). But! Don't take the ISO-4 standard too seriously, there are many imprecise corner cases, obvious bugs (for just one example, the LTWA uses a few language codes that do not exist at all) and blatant impracticalities. I've never used rcats, so I have no idea what would be actually more useful for Wikipedia, my guess is whichever is easier to apply now. Is either of you ready to concede? If not (seriously?), ask for a bot that changes them all to {{R from dotless ISO 4}}. Tokenzero (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I made {{R from dotless ISO 4}}:

{{R from dotless ISO 4|''{{-r|Chem. Vap. Deposition}}''|demo=yes}}

The rcat is currently a subcat of Category:Redirects from modifications and not a subcat of Category:Redirects from ISO 4. {{R from ISO 4 (dotless)}} is an alias. That's my vote. Wumbolo (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, maybe editors should care? The ISO 4 code category gets inflated with dotless ISO 4 versions – for each valid ISO 4 code in the category there is one dotless version that should be in a different category. So if there are 5,000 entries in the category, then 2,500 or half of them are needlessly cluttering up the category.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  09:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I already know that you believe they should be in a different category, please. Is it OK for you if they are put in {{R from dotless ISO 4}} (a subcat of Category:Redirects from modifications)? @Headbomb:: same question. It is OK for me. Tokenzero (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Just as a curiosity, why did you think an extra category and rcat were needed? The dotless versions are just search terms, so they would be right at home with thousands of other search terms in Category:Redirects from modifications. I know you're trying to help; however, I really don't see a need for the extra categorization.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I've tweaked the templates, and put the category as Category:Redirects from ISO 4. Otherwise it makes everything much harder to patrol/review/browse, and causes categorization headaches with abbreviations such as Cell Host Microbe which is the same ISO 4 abbreviation in both dotted and dotless variation. If somehow a dedicated Category:Redirects from dotless ISO 4 if desired (please no), that category should be a subcategory of Category:Redirects from ISO 4, not Category:Redirects from modifications. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: It looks like there's a need for a maintenance category including both variants, because for every journal we want to have a redirect from dotted ISO-4 abbreviations as well as from dotless variants, because these are often used (example 1, example 2, example 3 – all mention ISO or the LTWA). This category is never used as references for checking what the recommended ISO-4 abbreviation is (the infobox is for that). Would it be OK for you if this maintenance category was named Category:Redirects from ISO 4 for short, but had a description clarifying that it should include not strictly standard dotless variants too? Note that if dotless variants conflate different titles, then the ISO-4 abbreviation should include a qualifying element anyway, so this is not an issue; quote from the standard: Abbreviated titles are considered identical when they are composed of the same letters or characters irrespective of diacritics or other punctuation. Identical abbreviated titles should be distinguished by adding a qualifying element in parentheses. Tokenzero (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The quote is from a section on what to do when an ISO 4 code (with dots) can be used for two different journals with similar titles. My question is what to do when the titles are so similar (such as those given in the examples I've shown above that come from the category page) that the dotless version might apply to two different journals. Which journal would the dotless redirect target? or would we make that dotless version a two-dabs disambiguation page?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Per the standard (as quoted by Tokenzero above), neither dotted, nor dotless versions will ever apply to two different journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
The quote is from paragraph 4.9, "Distinction and clarification". In this case the standard shows specifically what to do when an ISO 4 code must be used for two or more different journal titles. Identical abbreviated titles should be distinguished by adding a qualifying element in parentheses. Examples:
Titles: 
                 Expérience et innovations en éducation
                 Experiencias e innovaciones en educacion
                 Experiments and innovations in education
Abbreviated titles:
                 Exp. innov. éduc. (Ed. fr.)
                 Exp. innov. educ. (Ed. esp.)
                 Exp. innov. educ. (Engl. ed.)
 Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: you're supporting the claim "dotted versions will (never) apply to two different journals" but previously you were asserting the same for dotless versions. Wumbolo (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean, Wumbolo.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  07:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: I'm not sure I understand your question. If there were journals with names Cellular Biochemistry and Cell Biochemistry, their abbreviations would be considered identical abbreviated titles (w.r.t. ¶4.9), because they have the same letters [...] irrespective of [...] punctuation. So the only strictly correct ISO-4 abbrvs would be abbrvs (for either journal) with parentheses. I believe there should be a disambiguation page, like Ann. Phys., unless there's a clear primary topic and a hatnote would suffice, like Open Med. (apply WP:TWODABS here). The disambiguation page does not get an rcat anyway. The page Ann. Phys. (Berl.) should of course be categorized as an ISO-4 redirect, and Headbomb claims it would be comfortable to have it in a maintenance category together with Ann Phys (Berl) (whatever we call that category). Finally Ann Phys should of course redirect to the disambuig page or the primary topic page, and I'm not sure if it's more comfortable for editors to consider it in a category separately or together with all dotless ISO-4 redirects. Exactly the same applies to Cell vs Cell.. Tokenzero (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I see your points and agree.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  07:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Centre for the Mind

This Wikipedia article, Centre for the Mind does not qualify for notability based on news sources - see Google News. Then I noticed on its web page it claims scientific accomplishments and works published in academic journals [1]. There are a number of hits on Google Scholar, but only one with the exact nomenclature [2].

There are some works authored by the center's founder, Professor Allan Snyder. I don't know whether to credit these toward "Centre for the Mind". Then there are these specific journal articles, [3], [4], [5] and [6]. Then there is this page on their website which lists a bunch of journal articles [7].

I have no idea how to gauge this for the notability of this topic. Maybe some editors here can take a look at this and tell me what you think. It looks they have been publishing since 1997 [8]. Any thoughts would be appreciated. I also posted on DGG's talk page (see diff here). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Question

Should we create ISO 4 redirects to pages that are both on an organization and the journal it maintains? So, for example, if Random Organization X maintained Journal of Random Statistics, but only Random Organization X has a page, should I redirect the ISO 4 name of their journal to the page about Random Organization X? If so, should I tag it with ISO 4 category? Thanks! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

RfD for Foobar (Journal) redirects

See above discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal

Hi, I'd like to suggest a page about WikiJournal of Medicine. I'm involved in the project, so to minimise any COI in writing a Wikipedia article about it, I thought I'd post about it here. I think it is sufficiently notable to warrant a stub/start article.
Mentioned in academic literature:

  • Shafee, Thomas; Mietchen, Daniel; Su, Andrew I. (2017-08-11). "Academics can help shape Wikipedia". Science. 357 (6351): 557–558. doi:10.1126/science.aao0462. PMID 28798122.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  • Shafee, Thomas; Masukume, Gwinyai; Kipersztok, Lisa; Das, Diptanshu; Häggström, Mikael; Heilman, James (2017). "The evolution of Wikipedia's medical content: past, present and future". JECH. 71 (10). doi:10.1136/jech-2016-208601. PMID 28847845.

Mentioned in general press:

Would anyone be interested in putting something together? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Doubled ISO 4 template

In looking at IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, there are two identical stacked ISO 4 template warnings, but I don't see anything in the article source that would cause that. It looks like a bug. I tried to fix the abbreviation, but I apparently didn't get it right. In the wild, the journal is abbreviated as IEEE Trans. on Professional Communication. --Mark viking (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mark viking: You got to create the redirects too. The links for that are provided in the templates. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Ah, I see--the purpose is to encourage us to create redirects. I thought it was complaining that the abbreviation didn't exist in some sort of ISO 4 database. It would be more clear for the template to say "The redirect <abbrev redlink> does not exist. Create the redirect and purge this page to make this template go away." I also see that the templates were not identical--one had periods after the abbreviated words and one did not. Thanks for your help! --Mark viking (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red November contest open to all


Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest

Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: November 2017 WiR Contest

Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: WikiProject Women in Red

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Experimental Mathematics (journal) ISO tags

The article now has two ugly ISO 4 abbreviation maintenance that seem to have been automatically created (I assume by something to do with the inbox template). The correct ISO 4 abbreviation is 'Exper. Math.' and I have already created a redirect. However, the maintenance tag did not disappear. The other tag has a suggested abbreviation 'Exper Math' which is incorrect. How do I get rid of these tags? Where is the relevant documentation? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The correct ISO 4 abbreviation is Exp. Math. (as the tool in the template mentioned), which I've updated. Then, as prompted by the template, both Exp. Math. and Exp Math were created. Once they are created, you can WP:PURGE/WP:NULLEDIT the page and the maintenance templates go away. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I see, OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
For once the ISO seems to have given this one the correct abbreviation (that is, the one MathSciNet uses). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, I am still confused. I have just created a new journal article Bulletin of Mathematical Sciences. It immediately had two ISO 4 tags, 'Bull. Math. Sci.' (the correct abbreviation) and 'Bull Math Sci' (an incorrect one). I have created a redirect for the former and did a null-edit on the article. The first tag has disappeared, but the second one did not. Why? How do I get rid of it? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Both are correct. The ISO doesn't require dots. If you want to get rid of the second one, create the second redirect. The links are provided in the template. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, OK thanks, I had figured that the template wanted both redirects and I had created the second one as well. Nsk92 (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

A tool for searching the LTWA

I've made a simple webpage to make searching the List of Title Word Abbreviations easier. Tokenzero (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Tokenzero (talk · contribs) That is fantastic! Would there be a way to pass a search key via an API to your website and make an automatic query? Something like [9]? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for "International Journal of Geographical Information Science" we get presented with

Words Abbr. Languages
-graph- -gr. eng
internation- int. fre, eng
journal j. fre, eng
geograph- geogr. fre, eng
information inf. mul
scienc- sci. fre, eng

If possible, I would suggest presenting things in order (I think it generally does so, but the -graph- match is presented out of order) and keep the capitals if they were given.

Words Abbr. Languages
Internation- Int. fre, eng
Journal J. fre, eng
Geograph- Geogr. fre, eng
-graph- -gr. eng
Information Inf. mul
Scienc- Sci. fre, eng

However, when you search for something like "New Journal of Physics", it would be nice if it presented things like

Words Abbr. Languages
New New eng
Journal J. fre, eng
of — eng
Physics Phys. mul

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I added the search API and fixed the ordering. Keeping the capitalization and adding things not on the list requires a bit of rewriting, I'll try that in the evening/tomorrow. But to avoid misleading I'd keep the table unchanged and just put a full probably standard abbreviation as a line below (with a warning on possibly unhandled corner cases like in vivo). Tokenzero (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Awesome, the "probable" abbreviation would do just as well. I'll add the link to the templates right now! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
In "https://mimuw.edu.pl/~mw290715/iso4/index.html?search=Revue_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9coise_de_linguistique_th%C3%A9orique_et_appliqu%C3%A9e", it somehow misses "Revue", "Québecoise", and "Appliquée", which should match "Revue-", "Québecois" and "Appliqu-". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
They should be there if you turn off english only: [10]. I left english only on as default, since otherwise it's much slower, it hangs for several seconds. For Québecoise the LTWA has Québecois, without a dash at the end, which is why it didn't match. I changed so that matches allow an e/s/es/n at endings (I'm not sure how to handle cases like priorities (not in the list) vs priority (in the list without dashes) in general). Tokenzero (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah I see, brainfart there. Glad to know it all works when you pay attention :p Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
There's only an orthopsychiatri- -> orthopsychiatr. rule, consistent with the general rule: Words from which only a single letter would be dropped are not abbreviated. Tokenzero (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... wasn't aware of that rule. Makes sense though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I mean, I suppose that could always be coded, but GIGO concerns are rather high. If you can code it, it'd at least be worth looking into. For now, I've added a link to the infobox telling users to look it up when |abbreviation= is missing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid the error rate could be too high (especially for non-English titles), but I did a dump of all journal infoboxes, so I will be able to tell more soon. The task is too heavy for invoking in a template, I believe; there's ~50000 patterns to check, ~1000 of which can't be excluded just by looking at first letters. But a bot should be easy. Tokenzero (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Even better might be to check it against each article's Wikidata entry, and eventually pulling from Wikidata within the infobox template. Still, the bot/hardcoded version will be less fallible than human editors, if indeed ISO 4 only follows simple rules. I know I corrected at least a handful incorrect abbreviations in the 100+ entries I recently checked in the effort mentioned above. A bot could also run periodically to check for new/changed entries. Alternatively, it might even be possible to build the code as some kind of regex checker within the Wikidata parameter itself... so no human intervention is ever needed/allowed. czar 04:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup

It's still work in progress but looks promising: among a sample of 1926 (out of 7344) infobox journals, 531 have an empty abbreviation parameter, 907 have exactly the one guessed by the bot, 487 have something different. The mismatches are listed here. The bot is mostly right, some example problems where the bot is wrong (some fixable, some hard – require human intervention):

  • many non-English titles (mostly fixable, I just need to enable them and provide lists of articles/prepositions; accents should already work, see e.g. Dædalus, which was the most painful part; one hard problem is that I can't always rely on the language parameter, e.g. Annalen der Physik publishes only in English now).
  • dependent titles (mostly we could just cut anything after a colon, but see e.g. portal: Libraries and the Academy; also I don't cut the words 'Section' etc.; in general it seems hard to identify dependent titles; also the single-word-title rule is applies wrongly to them).
  • proper names (e.g. Dalton Transactions should not abbreviate Dalton, despite the -ton rule for cities; that's of course hard).
  • overlapping patterns (probably fixable; e.g. health has a rule for not abbreviating, but is now matched by the pattern heal- -> heal.; Another example is oceanography matching ocean- and -graph-, metallurg- matching metal-, or New Zealand matching -land).
  • comments in parentheses (fixable, by just ignoring them; but generating comments is of course hard, e.g. Annals of Physics and Annalen der Physik should both have a comment according to ISO-4, since they're different journals abbreviating to the same Ann. Phys.).
  • random bugs (fixable; e.g. of is often preserved, dunno why; québécoise is again wrong).
  • weird omissions in the LTWA (e.g. it has a rule chimi- -> chimi. for fre,ita,rum, but not for lat (latin); similarly ficti- and portug- in French but not in English; should we follow the LTWA to the letter here? Another kind of example is abbreviations for all kinds of -engineer-, but not for microengineering. For politi- the LTWA is explicit in saying this should not be abbreviated).

I'll fix some errors this week, then I guess we can run a bot to generate and add all missing ISO-4 abbreviations (and those obviously wrong, like all caps or dots missing). For others what would be the best? Split the list into 100s and somehow add links to apply an automatic edition when a human reviewed it? Tokenzero (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

For mismatches, I've created {{ISO 4 mismatch}}, while can be used as below [see code]:

Pagename |title= |abbreviation= |bot-guess= Verify
ACM Transactions on Graphics — ACM Trans. Graph. [Edit]

ACM Trans Graph [Edit]

ACM Trans. Gr. [Create]

ACM Trans Gr [Create]

Verify

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Update: The full abbreviations are now shown in the online tool (now also on GitHub). I've fixed the most common bugs and made a new list of mismatches: out of 7352 infobox journals, 1739 have no given abbreviation, 4303 have the same as guessed by the bot, 1310 have something different (in which case apparently the bot is right about 90-95% of the time). (This now takes <5 minutes to compute). Now I suggest the following: I can write a bot (using pywikibot and mwparserfromhell) that actually fills an abbreviation-bot= parameter (or do you prefer bot-guess=?) in each journal infobox. You could then make this appear when no abbreviation is given and handle mismatches somehow (auto-include it in a category, display some text suggesting a change and allow clearing the parameter when the bot is wrong). (For redirects, I could later write a bot that does them automatically for all articles where the bot guess is equal/the only one available.) Tokenzero (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@Tokenzero: could you make the mismatch list use {{ISO 4 mismatch}} template? Feel free to tweak the template as needed though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Done. I had to limit to 100 rows as the parser complains about expensive templates (CPU usage ~1s per 100). What next? For fixing the infoboxes, do you think editors should just go through a list like this, or should I write a bot that fills the new parameter? For redirects I believe everything could be automated when the abbreviation parameter is the same as the bot guess, because then it is almost certainly correct, and it would handle most of the job. Tokenzero (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Do you do category scraping to generate the list, or is it based on datadumps? I think mismatch cleaning is something that needs human review (e.g. Dalton Transactions ISO 4 is Dalton Trans., but bot guess is Dalt. Trans.), rather than a bot project, but certainly creating having a bot create redirects when there is a match between the infobox abbreviation and the bot guess would be very nice. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I scraped it once (from the API generator listing pages transcluding Infobox Journal; the categories have quite a few journals without infoboxes). The scraping takes ~30min (with the API, delays, and maxlag recommended for bots). Yes, I agree it needs human review. My idea was to maybe fill a new, hidden parameter in the infobox, so that when there is a mismatch, the infobox template would show a small question mark or a full ambox like "The abbreviation in Infobox Journal might be non-standard, a bot suggested: Dalt. Trans.. Please verify what it is the correct ISO-4 abbreviation. If the automatic suggestion is wrong, set abbreviation-bot=false." This also makes editing a bit easier, as the suggested fix would be right below the abbreviation parameter. On the other hand the editor should look elsewhere anyway, at least to see the list of matching patterns. And looking at the list gives a good overview of typical mistakes on both sides. So I'm fine with just the list. Tokenzero (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm almost sure maxlag only matters for edits, rather than queries. I'm also almost sure you can bulk query as well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tokenzero: could you update the tool to strip colons? E.g. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter yields "J. Phys.: Condens. Matter" but it should yield "J. Phys. Condens. Matter". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure? The standard says The punctuation which occurs in the full title shall be retained in the abbreviated title with the exception of commas and full stops (periods); (as well as Special characters or symbols appearing in the original title shall be retained unchanged in the title abbreviation, except the ampersand "&" and the plus sign "+" which shall be omitted when they are used for the conjunction “and”.), and the section on dependent titles only mentions skipping the Part, Section, etc. words (which I probably should do...). Tokenzero (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox journal

See Template talk:Infobox journal#Associated society parameter, which I was hoping to induce more participation in. Everymorning (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

http://beallslist.weebly.com/

Someone (which I strongly suspect is associated with this project) re-uploaded Beall's original list. While it's best to cite the archive version, this is a good mirror that we can use. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (2nd nomination)

Doug Weller talk 13:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Predatory publishers, fake conferences and academics who find them a way to succeed

I've raised this at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Predatory publishers, fake conferences and academics who find them a way to succeed. To make it easier, here's what I posted there. I hope interested editors will respond there.

At World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (WASET] an attempt by an editor to speedy delete it, then an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (2nd nomination) and discussions raised at RSN and NPOVN spurred me and other editors to look for current sources. Some of these sources discuss OMICS and Allied Academies, recently acquired by OMICS along with Future Medicine.

These have sparked a number of articles in the mainstream media and complaints by academics, while at the same time some academics are cooperating.

A study reported in the Japan Times[12] by James McCrostie looks at fake conferences in Japan. McCrostie discusses submitting fake papers generated by SCIgen to fake conferences all of which were accepted. It also discusses both the cost to attendees for these conferences (which are cheap to run) and the damage that can be done to reputations.

The New York Times published an article last month[13] called "Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals". It also discusses aspects of predatory journals such as using names almost identical to prestigious ones, the fact that many or most don't have paper publications or do serious reviews, etc. And the fact that publishing in them is a way for academics to get promoted. "Many faculty members — especially at schools where the teaching load is heavy and resources few — have become eager participants in what experts call academic fraud that wastes taxpayer money, chips away at scientific credibility, and muddies important research." Senior academics publish in them -- 200 McGill University professsors, for instance.[14]

They also run fake conferences where by paying a hefty fee an academic can be listed as a presenter even if they don't attend. It's also easy to become an editor of a fake journal. A fictional academic with ludicrous credentials applied to 360 open-access journals asking to become an editor, with 48 accepting her, 4 making her editor-in-chief.[15][16] See also this article.

There are now more predatory conferences than scholarly ones.[17] Many of these are run by Waset: "research into Waset, which is registered in the United Arab Emirates, shows that it will hold some 183 events in 2018, although these will cover almost 60,000 individual “conferences” – averaging 320 at each event. Conferences are scheduled almost every day up until the end of 2030." These take place in small rooms with multiple conferences held in each room but few attendees, although many will have paid a large sum to attend.

An article last month in Die Zeit[18] says the ownership of WASET is unknown, and "website of Waset does not give an address anywhere. Interested parties can only fill out an anonymous form or send an SMS - with the United Arab Emirates dialing code." "The purpose of a waset conference is to extend the CV by a conference as well as a contribution in a scientific journal. Because every lecture is published in an online publication, which is also published by Waset. Over 40,000 articles are said to have come together since 1999, according to the website."

There are more sources of course, I could go on and on. And warnings from academics.[19][20][21][22]

This raises serious issues from Wikipedia. The obvious one is that it is now very difficult for most editors to distinguish between reputable journals and predatory ones, especially when the contributor seems "normal". My other issue is whether Wikipedia or the WMF has a role to play in the fight against these. Maybe we don't, I'd like to think there is something we can do. We do have Predatory open access publishing which oddly doesn't linketo Predatory conference. Perhaps one of the relevant wikiprojects should set up a working party to improve all the related articles?

Mild rant over. Please read the sources, they are pretty alarming and go into much more detail than I can here. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Basic and Applied Physics

This AfD is probably pertinent to the crew here. XOR'easter (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:AALERTS need some help on Community Wishlist Survey

Many of you use Article Alerts to get notified of discussions (PRODs and AfD in particular). However, due to our limit resources (one bot coder), not a whole lot of work can be done on Article Alerts to expand and maintain the bot. If the coder gets run over by a bus, then it's quite possible this tool would become unavailable in the future.

There's currently a proposal on the Community Wishlist Survey for the WMF to take over the project, and make it both more robust / less likely to crash / have better support for new features. But one of the main things is that with a full team behind Article Alerts, this could also be ported to other languages!

I feel this is particularly important to this project, since journal articles aren't heavily patrolled and we have lots of people with agendas both trying to promote predatory non-notable/ and squash out notable quack journals. I know I can't imagine the project with the alerts. So if you make use of Article Alerts and want to keep using it, please go and support the proposal. Thanks in advance! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

ISO redirect creation

We've got plenty of work to do in Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 redirects! I've made instructions to make this stupid easy to do. You can easily create several 100s of redirects per hour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Going to ping everyone on this

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't find any info on which words should be omitted, e.g.: "and", "of", and less obviously, "Series". By the way, this database provides ISO-4 abbreviations for many journals (including non-medical).Tokenzero (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tokenzero: As far as I can tell, all articles (e.g. the), prepositions (e.g. of, in, on), and conjunctions (e.g. and) should be omitted. Also the NLM databases provides NLM abbreviations/journal codes, which are often but not always ISO abbreviations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb: I added a link to the actual text of the standard to ISO-4, it's actually more readable than I thought (though a summary on ISO-4 would be useful). You're right, they omit articles, conjunctions, and prepositions. They also omit generic part terms like section, series, part, unless "required for identification". For example apparently Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A should be J. Comb. Theory A (without Ser., without a comma), so the "ISO abbreviation" specified by NLM (next to their own abbreviation) is technically wrong too. Tokenzero (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 redirects is now empty! Thanks to everyone who helped. Now remains Category:Infobox journals with missing ISO 4 abbreviations and Category:Infobox journals with missing Bluebook abbreviations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Removing pointless italics title templates from articles with a bot

See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JCW-CleanerBot 3, please comment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

Since the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics is a journal publisher, this AfD looks relevant here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

TokenzeroBot (talk · contribs) and ISO redirects, step 2

@Tokenzero: would it be possible for TokenZeroBot to add |abbreviation=FOOBAR to certain members of Category:Infobox journals with missing ISO 4 abbreviations

For now

  1. single word titles such as Foobar [or Foobar (magazine/journal)] can simply get |abbreviation=Foobar added to the infobox
  2. Likewise for The Foobar [or The Foobar (magazine/journal)], minus the 'the'.
  3. Anything where the ISO website returns an exact match for the journal such as Foobar Barfoo being abbreviated Foobar Barfoo
  4. Anything where the ISO website returns an exact match for the journal such as The Foobar Barfoo being abbreviated Foobar Barfoo

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, this should be easy enough. See my talkpage for discussion of any technicals. Tokenzero (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

How do we classify book series?

A while ago I created the entry for Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change. I called it an academic journal in sociology. But now I realize it is not a journal but a book series. It is an important distinction (for example preventing it from being indexed in SSCI). FYI, I've asked the editor about the indexing of this and he told me "Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change is a cloth book platform. Over 40 years, we’ve published 41 volumes as books that are also available online to subscribing libraries, like journals. This causes some confusion. RSMCC is listed in the Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index (BKCI). On ISI as a whole, the only place that RSMCC is officially indexed is on this BKCI. But, BKCI lists individual volumes as books, and only lists any citations if they are made to that book as a whole. So this list works for books that have a single author, but not for research collections like RSMCC where people would cite individual papers within the books. So this is not good, either. As you say, the best place to be indexed for these individual article citations is on the Thomson Reuters Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), which is for journals. Unfortunately, RSMCC articles are not listed here. The main reasons are that historically the series only published annually and the SSCI requires at least 2 volumes per year…" Anyway, I changed the lead to from academic journal to book series, but I wonder how we can square this with our notability criteria and category system (since Category:Monographic series doesn't have any subcategories)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The general concept is not "journal" but "serial" -- any continuing publication. If they are numbered, what libraries do with them is primarily a choice where to put them--in the periodicals section so they can not be checked out, in the books section so they can. If they ate in the books section, it's equally valid to put them together or scatter them by subject. Often, their primary reason for the existence is that publishers hope to get libraries to subscribe to the who set. SCI and SSCI have been inconsistent over the years, and so are most sources. But in terms of categories, we should just add the subcategories we need to monographic series, or create a supervening cat for serials, or which journals is a subclass. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC) .
For academic researchers rather than librarians, another distinction is that in many cases journal papers count more than book chapters for merit and promotion cases. So I have heard of cases where some people list Lecture Notes in Computer Science, for instance, as a journal, even though it's really a book series, because they get more credit that way. (I think that's dishonest, but I've only heard of this second-hand so there was nothing I could do in protest.) So that's another issue that could cause confusion. Anyway, to get back to your actual question: we have Category:Series of non-fiction books and Category:Monographic series depending on what kind of books the series publishes (monographs vs lecture notes/conference proceedings/edited volumes/other). In the particular case of Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, it seems to publish primarily edited volumes, so I'd use Category:Series of non-fiction books for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree altogether with their lesser importance (in almost all cases), andI normally remove them from publication lists in WP articles, unless there's nothing else--and if there';s nothing else, I wonder about WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

We need YOU!

Hello WikiProject Academic Journals,

Unregistered editors cannot create articles on Wikipedia, but they can use the articles for creation process to submit drafts that registered editors can either accept and publish or decline. WikiProject Articles for creation is looking for experienced editors who want to partake in this peer review process. If you have what it takes to get involved, then please take a look at the reviewing instructions. To discuss specific AfC reviews, do so freely on the designated talk page.

There is currently a backlog of over 1000 drafts (0 very old).

If you know an editor who may be willing to help out, please use the template you are currently reading {{subst:WPAFCInvite}} to draw attention to this WikiProject. Many hands make light work!

Worldbruce (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Editors willing to review a variety of drafts are especially welcome. If you're interested only in reviewing certain topics, that still helps. At least 5 pending drafts are about academic journals (are in the intersection of Category:Pending AfC submissions and Category:Draft-Class Academic Journal articles). Over 2000 pending drafts have not yet had a WikiProject added, so there may be more drafts about journals. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Current Pediatric Research nominated for deletion

See WP:Articles for deletion/Current Pediatric Research. I would like to see other knowledgeable editors weigh in on this discussion. Everymorning (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Should content from predatory OA journals be removed on sight as always unreliable?

You may be interested a discussion I started here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Morgan & Claypool

Draft:Morgan & Claypool needs some better referencing to demonstrate notability. This is an academic publisher in the sciences mentioned in ~300 articles. They're most known for their monographic serials in computer science (short ebooks + print on demand; widely collected by academic libraries). I started the article because was reminded of them by a redlink of another article draft I started; full disclosure, I'm writing a book with them, so it would be better for somebody else to have a look if of interest. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I added a bit and did some copy-editing. XOR'easter (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Citation metrics

This discussion appears to have project-wide implications. P Lease participate. --Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

IF: year published or year data is from?

I happened to notice an impact factor out of date and changed it to the 2016 list (released last year). In the infobox I put 2016. Then I noticed that there are other articles where the IF is given as 2017, which I would have thought impossible. So now I'm confused! What is the standard for impact factor? Do we say the year the data is from (e.g. 2016 for the most recent figures) or the year published? {{infobox journal}} is ambiguous on this point. Thanks! Julia\talk 14:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Year data is from. E.g. the 2016 Impact Factor is published in 2017. 2016 goes in the infobox. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. I will correct the ones that say 2017 in the infobox. There are over 40 with this mistake—what do you think of changing the infobox parameter description to make it clearer? I'm not suggesting everyone who put 2017 searched for the correct year to enter, but if they had they would have been confused. Julia\talk 09:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

Deletion discussions of academic journals could use some more input from knowledgeable members of this project. By watchlisting Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Article alerts it is easy to stay informed about ongoing debates. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Algebraic Combinatorics (journal)

Following the discussion here, I've created a draft article Draft:Algebraic Combinatorics (journal). Any input would be welcome. (It has recently published its first issue; I have been waiting until it has an ISSN.) --JBL (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTALBALL to me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, I wish you both had weighed in on the earlier discussion, instead. The article has two in-depth sources related to the founding of the journal, one of which is an article in Inside Higher Ed (clearly an RS for this sort of thing, and an indicator of notability), the other of which is a long blog post by Timothy Gowers (on one hand, a blog, but on the other hand, a subject matter expert in both mathematics and the publishing of mathematics). As David Eppstein said in the earlier discussion, I think this makes a good (if not completely ironclad) case for notability via the third condition (or via GNG). Certainly, a published article devoted entirely to discussion of the journal is something that only a small fraction of our articles on journals have. (There is also one other source we could use but don't, here; I don't know whether it is also a solid source.) Also, NJournals 3 is very clear that age of the journal is not a factor. Could you re-evaluate (or at least give a more detailed analysis, that could be used for deciding when to move the draft into article space in the future)? Thanks, JBL (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
If anything, that's an argument about Journal of Algebraic Combinatorics's notability, not Algebraic Combinatorics's. As for when to move it? When it becomes notable. Having a handful of sources discussing what's essentially WP:1EVENT applied to a journal, rather than a person does not meet that treshold. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand your first sentence at all: the references are entirely about the new journal, they say almost nothing about the Springer journal (except that its board is quitting).
Also surely you realize that saying "when it becomes notable" without any comment on what you think that means is completely unconstructive. If you don't say something about what you feel would constitute notability in this context, it is impossible to distinguish your comments from WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Finally, it's not an accident that 1event is part of the guideline for people, not for institutions; an institution notable "only" for its founding is still notable, there is no analogous thing for people.
(I realize that this all sounds argumentative, but you have really given me nothing constructive to go on.) --JBL (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
See WP:NJOURNALS. Is it indexed somewhere selective? No. It is highly cited? No. Is it historically important? No. Does it pass WP:GNG directly by being discussed in depth in multiple sources over a long period of time? No. When the answer to one of those becomes yes, then it's fine to move, not before. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Your invocation of time with respect to WP:NJOURNALS is explicitly rejected there: "The reverse is also true, a recently established journal is not necessarily disqualified by this." (I certainly would not have tried to write an article about a new journal if the notability guideline ruled it out!) --JBL (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Headbomb that this misses NJournals completely. It's extremely rare for a new journal with only 1 issue published to pass NJournals (I don't think I've ever seen that, although I have seen cases where a jouranl got into the Science Citation Index while still in its first year). So the question is whether this passes GNG and there I'm less sure. The Inside Higher Ed article is mostly about the JoAC, but does go into some detail about AC. I have no clue whether the Gowers blog should be regarded as a reliable source or not. Perhaps David Eppstein can say something about that. I think we can accept the LSE blog as a reliable source, as it has an editorial structure with an editor-in-chief and is published by a renowned school. But it is mostly about other stuff and the story on the JoAC/AC is more used to illustrate some other issues. Together, I find this borderline for GNG, so I see both Headbomb's case for finding this lacking and JBL's case for finding this a pass. It's not the first journal where the editorial board resigns to start a new, this time OA, journal, so that probably has reduced the coverage that this event got. --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I've edited Journal of Algebraic Combinatorics and included most of the stuff from the draft into it. I propose moving the draft into mainspace, replacing it with a redirect to Journal of Algebraic Combinatorics, and add "mergeto" and "mergefrom" tags on the respective talk pages for attribution. Given that apparently several prominent people from this field are involved with AC, I'd expect it to be picked up pretty soon by Scopus and likely some other selective databases, too. At that point, notability will be unassailable and the redirect can be transformed into a more standard article. Hope this is acceptable to all. I'm signing off for the day, feel free to implement this if you agree. BTW, I've not created the redirects for the ISO4 abbreviation, as I'm not completely certain how "Combinatorics" should be abbreviated. (See also the article on the Dutch WP). --Randykitty (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. I went ahead and did that. XOR'easter (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
@Randykitty: there are links in the infobox/top of the articles to verify what the abbreviation is. The abbreviation was correct, so I created the redirects. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Randykitty and XOR'easter. --JBL (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Living review

I recently created this, as a WP:BCA. The term comes from Living Reviews journal series established in 1998, but it clearly is the same type of publication as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews established earlier. Feel free to edit and update. It could use some love and referencing. @DGG:, I feel this is up your alley. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Isn't Cochrane republished at intervals, while these are continually updated? What it seems closest to , actually, is WP. The question here is to what extent "Living review" is generic. There are a few outside their system but using the name, but very few. There are also ones that work in this manner but in slightly different ways. Yes, I needto do some checking. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Psycinfo selective?

I wanted to ask other editors in this project whether they consider PsycINFO to be a selective database. Presumably Randykitty, for instance, doesn't, since he recently prodded Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology (which is indexed in PsycINFO), but this link says that "Since first being offered in print as Psychological Abstracts in 1927 and subsequently as the electronic database PsycINFO in 1967, the American Psychological Association has chronicled issues in psychology through highly selective coverage of a wide variety of sources." (my emphasis) Every morning (there's a halo...) 16:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I think that they mean "highly selective" here as meaning that they have gone out of their way to select any journal that somehow might be of interest to psychology... --Randykitty (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh, OK, so it means that they tried to be as inclusive as possible--which is the opposite of what I thought it meant (which was that it only selected a few journals). Also this seems to indicate that they mostly care about research that's relevant to psychology, so I guess it's not selective after all. Good to know. Every morning (there's a halo...) 17:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Comptes Rendus (disambiguation)

I created this recently. I did a bunch of cleanup for WP:JCW, trying to standardize and create redirects (I probably made upward of 500 such redirects) for the various Comptes Rendus out there.

If you know of other Comptes Rendus, please add them there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Dispute at Frontiers Media

Main page: Talk:Frontiers Media § Removing of journal list

Two editors keep removing the list of Frontiers Media journals on the article and refuse to give their reason for the removal on the talk page. An outside opinion would be welcomed here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I have no firm opinion on this, so I won't participate in the discussion. However, I have stopped the edit warring by protecting the page for 24 hours. If the edit warring starts again after that period expires, blocks will be in order... --Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Are these notable?

Headbomb brought the following articles to my attention:

Between the three articles, there are no claims of notability and no independent sources (the third article has no sources at all, the first two each have a single source which is in both cases a list maintained by the published of all the journals in the series). I would like to hear the opinions of this project about what the grounds are for believing these articles satisfy WP:N and WP:RS. --JBL (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

  • To start with the latter one, apart from one journal, these all seem to be defunct. But notability is not temporary, of course. I checked two (Current Opinion in Investigational Drugs and Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics) and they used to be indexed in Index Medicus (see here), which is pretty good evidence of notability. As it stands, the article is quite uninformative, I'd say, but perhaps it can be fleshed out if sources can be found on their folding, for example. The Elsevier Current Opinion journals are still very much alive and the series is still expanding. Even though only some have articles, my hunch is that all but the latest ones meet NJournals. However, I don't think there are any sources on the series as such. Basically, the same goes for the LWW series. However, this goes for almost any publisher-specific journal list that we have (List of Elsevier periodicals, for example, where the only "sources" are the homepages of redlinked journals). I'd go even farther. This goes for the vast majority or perhaps even every single journal list on WP. See, for example, the List of history journals which mostly duplicates Category:History journals. It has a huge list of references, which basically is one big linkfarm with ELs to the journals' homepages. And, mind you, that's one of the better examples of journal lists. Most entries in Category:Lists of academic journals have not a single reference and just duplicate their respective categories with at most an introductory line saying "This is a list of foo journals" (for the benefit of those readers who cannot read the list title, I guess). Those lists are also a bitch to maintain with all kinds of COI editors trying to insert their pet non-notable journal (I just notice that the first entry to List of medical journals is an EL to an apparent predatory publisher). If it were up to me, I would get rid of each and every one of them. In the past I have indeed tried to get some such journal lists deleted, but that has proven absolutely impossible, LISTN notwithstanding. So I've removed them from my watchlist, which did wonders for my blood pressure, and only sometimes stumble on one and then if I feel like it take a big broom through it. In summary, while the above three lists have their weaknesses, we have far worse things that could use our attention (I'm not trying to make a OTHERSTUFF argument, just an argument about efficient use of precious editor time). --Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll point out that I share most of RK's annoyances with lists of journals (which invites EL spamfests from a lot of non-notable predatory crap), but those mostly applies to the list of journals by fields/topics (e.g. List of physics journals). This can usually be solved by applying a WP:WTAF mindset, rather than an "everything that ever existed" approach.
For lists by publishers, those can usually afford to be comprehensive, save perhaps for Elsevier or similarly comparable publishing giants, since they are better defined sets and much easier to control. Whether or not such lists are warranted mostly depends how notable the publisher/series is in general and how many entries there are in it (smaller lists usually are incorporated in the publisher article). For standalone lists, this is a case where the lists inherits the notability of its individual journals. If most are notable, so is the series. If most aren't notable, then it's likely not a notable series.
Entries like BMC series, Frontiers in ... journal series, Current Opinion (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins), Current Opinion (Elsevier), Current Opinion (Current Drugs), all of which feature multiple notable journals have the benefits of letting us more easily apply WP:N/WP:NJOURNALS to individual journals since there's a central lists where we can put information about the less notable ones.
For the Frontiers series, we used to have such an entry until it was redirected/merged with the publisher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frontiers in... journal series

Please participate here. This could possible affect several of our Category:Academic journal series articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The general hostility of that discussion has been remarkably high (I am reminded of Sayre's law). I would like to apologize if I have contributed to that atmosphere, and I will be taking advantage of the "opportunity" that work deadlines are giving me to step away from wiki-stuff for a few days. I sincerely hope that editors not yet involved can bring some outside perspective and help things cool off. Cheers! XOR'easter (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@DGG, Randykitty, and Everymorning: you normally comment on these cases, you don't have to, but your feedback is usually both varied and insightful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


WP:JWG and editor COIs

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide#Journal conflicts of interest. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Monitore Zoologico Italiano

Newly created Monitore Zoologico Italiano is an awful mess of redlinks and changes of director, not to mention it having various names over the years, for which I added a reference, but note that Unione Zoologica Italiana has a different name for it from 1902. That article also uses the word 'replaced' rather than saying 'changed name'; I don't know if you would consider that significant. I bolded the names I added, but stopped short of creating redirects and inbound links when I realized how confusing this was becoming. Not sure how best to handle this, particularly whether current or original name should be the main article, or indeed if they should all have their own article. Derek Andrews (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences

When is a journal predatory? And if it is, can we still have a draft of it, even though it'll probably never become notable? Knowledgeable editors are invited to give their opinions either way at this MfD. --Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Newly rejected draft

I just came across Draft:Journal of Spine Surgery (JSS), which was rejected by an AFC reviewer just a few days ago, and wanted to bring it to the attention of other editors here, in case any of them think it's notable/worth improving. Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Springer Nature suggested changes/COI

I would like to propose a few changes to Springer Nature. As I am working in the Communications team at Springer Nature, I’m aware that this constitutes a COI. For this reason, I have created a new version with suggested changes in my Sandbox to be found here: User:Birgit_at_Springer_Nature/sandbox/Springer_Nature. I would like to ask the community to review the suggested changes and, if approved, to mirror the changes on Springer Nature. I would appreciate your help in enriching this page with updated information and references. Kind regards, --Birgit at Springer Nature (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Birgit at Springer Nature. The best thing to do is to post this request at Talk:Springer_Nature, as I see you have done, but with the addition of the edit request template code, as explained at Wikipedia:Simple COI request#How to create a request. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Cordless Larry, many thanks for this tip. I appreciate you taking the time to respond here. I have added the code in my request now at Talk:Springer_Nature. --Birgit at Springer Nature (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I've accepted the changes. One question for Birgit at Springer Nature (talk · contribs), is Springer Vieweg the same thing as Springer Vieweg Verlag? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Headbomb, that is great news! Many thanks for your help in approving my suggested changes. Regarding your question: Yes, Springer Vieweg is indeed the same as Springer Vieweg Verlag. I must have missed that this article exists already. Would you be able to change this accordingly, i.e. change the code to Springer Vieweg? Or is there anything I can do to help?--Birgit at Springer Nature (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Bluebook journals

As a follow up to this discussion and this discussion, I got myself the 18th and 19th bluebook edition, and created a list of journals with Bluebook abbreviations. I've created redirects for all abbreviations that had a journal entry (or a journal redirect entry).

All redirects can be found in Category:Redirects from Bluebook abbreviations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Cabell's list access

See this request at TWL. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:PCW discussion at WP:BOOKS

Please comment there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing

Any opinions on whether this stale draft on a 2017 Springer journal might be notable? Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope. That's a clear fail of WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Archives of Pharmacal Research

I recently created Archives of Pharmacal Research and I'm not sure what the right ISO4 abbreviation is: the NLM catalog entry [23] suggests it's Arch. Pharm. Res., but the tool automatically suggested on the article page right now (because the abbreviations haven't been turned into redirects yet) indicates it's Arch. Pharmacal. Res. Which one do other editors think is right? (I'm not sure so I haven't created either yet.) Update: I created Arch Pharm Res (with and without periods) as redirects but haven't tagged them as ISO 4 redirects because I'm not sure if they are yet. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Valid ISO-4 would be "Arch. Pharmacal Res.", with Pharmacal not abbreviated (no dot after it), as the tool suggests. This is because "Pharmacal" does not match anything on the LTWA List of ISO-4 (probably not by omission, but because it tries to make abbreviations unambiguous and there are many other words with pharmac-). The NLM often has an incorrect "ISO-4 abbreviation", but there's a discussion about adding another infobox parameter for their "NLM abbreviation", which may be popular/useful enough to be worth adding (I have no opinion here). Tokenzero (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, now that I looked at it more, there's actually a LTWA rule abbreviating "pharmacy" to "pharm." and the standard does specify (3.5) that derivatives should be generally abbreviated in the same way as the root word (and they give an example of "physics" and "physical" being "phys."). So now I believe your "Arch. Pharm. Res." is the right ISO-4 and the tool is wrong (since it can't handle derivatives). Tokenzero (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
That's most likely because "Pharmacal" isn't a proper word, or a very unusual one. The word you form with Pharmacy is Pharmaceutic/Pharmaceutical (Pharm.), or Pharmacology (Pharmacol.). So while it's related to Pharmacy, and kind of means the same thing as Pharmaceutical, you can search the LTWA (http://www.issn.org/services/online-services/access-to-the-ltwa/) with "Pharm" and you'll see all the variants, but Pharmacal isn't one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

If anyone who can code Lua modules cares

See Template talk:Infobox journal#Need parameter Medline_abbreviation for the dozens of journals where it does not match ISO 4. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent overhauls to the infobox

Please see the above link. There's also an RFC on abbreviation usage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Journal of Injury and Violence Research

Do other editors think that the Journal of Injury and Violence Research is notable? No impact factor and not indexed in any databases that seem to be clearly selective enough to meet NJOURNALS, so I would guess that it isn't, but of course I want to know what other editors in this project think too. Every morning (there's a halo...) 02:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Index Medicus is selective. It'd be a pass for me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge of open access journal

Beland has recently carried out a complete merge from open access journal into open access. This has been discussed once or twice before with the conclusion not to merge, but the last time seems to have been several years ago. I do not have a strong opinion about this, but I thought others might want to discuss it. --JBL (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

If it helps I can explain a bit about what happened. I don't have a fundamental objection to having an article "open access journal"; people have pointed out it's one of two ways to achieve open access in scientific publications. But as it happens something like 90% of the content of open access is actually about open access journals. This resulted in a ton of overlap, for example the history section in one article would have events A B C D, and the history section in the other article would have events B D E F. Now there's one article that has A B C D E F. It's possible to recreate "open access journal" but it should not just have B D E F again; it should either have A B C D E F or a one-paragraph summary thereof with a link to the other article. I did retain links to specific types of open access journal which I haven't checked for overlap. Open access is currently uncomfortably long (and has been for a while), but I'm working on shortening it significantly by reducing repetition. If some material must be moved out due to length, I would suggest, though, that splitting off "open access journal" while conceptually natural, is not the most natural way to split up the article without creating excessive cross- referencing. I would start by creating History of open access, which would be fairly independent. -- Beland (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science (MJLIS)

I noticed this abandoned draft Draft:The Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science (MJLIS) and wondered whether the journal might be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It is. Updated and put in the mainspace. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:International Journal of Management, Economics and Social Sciences

I'd welcome an expert opinion on this journal; it is included in a list of predatory journals[24] and the website seemed a little 'off' to me, but the creator has objected to the classification and cited its inclusion in several indexing services I've never heard of. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I've declined it. None of these indices are selective in the sense of WP:NJOURNALS. Well written for a draft however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Espresso Addict (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Perspectives on Terrorism

Hello again, could I request that someone checks whether this online-only, open-access journal is actually indexed by Scopus? Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Yep, see here, since 2017. You can check this without needing a subscription at the search page here. (For some reason, the first time I click this link I go to a login page, but when I close that and click the link again, I go to the search page...) --Randykitty (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It's really weird. I access it directly from home and most of the time it goes directly to the search page, but then occasionally to the login page. Same with links to journal source details. --Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Landslides (academic journal)

Hi all. I created and submitted a draft for the journal "Landslides", which is one of the leading journals in Earth Sciences and Engineering focusing on natural hazards, and surely the leading journal on landslides. It is published since 2004 but surprisingly it did not have a wiki article on his own. Please feel free to improve it. Cheers! Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:JDVI (Journal of General-Procedural Dermatology & Venereology Indonesia)

I wonder if this journal Draft:JDVI (Journal of General-Procedural Dermatology & Venereology Indonesia) is notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This RFC is about whether it is acceptable/useful in articles on OA to include galleries of cover images of journals (insofar acceptable due to copyright issues). Input from knowledgeable editors is welcome. --Randykitty (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/International Journal of MCH and AIDS

This AfD could use the input of knowledgeable editors. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Notification of new AfC drafts

Just an FYI:

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Declined the first two WP:TOOSOON, accepted the third one (after a major spitshine). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate ISO abbrevs

Apparently both Science Education (journal) and Science & Education both have the same ISO 4 abbreviation (namely, Sci. Educ.). What should be done with this redirect? It's currently a redirect to the latter journal, but should it be converted into a disambiguation page or something? Maybe one of the ISO abbrevs is wrong somehow? Every morning (there's a halo...) 02:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

We should find what is the actual ISO abbreviation for both journals. One will usually have a city in it, e.g. Sci. Educ. (Camb.) or something. Usually the old one has no city, since it's the first one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Guidelines and bibliometric information

Hi. I saw this edit and I'd like to know where is written that we only insert in these articles bibliometric information related to IF. I think I will write more articles about journals, like one every 6-12 months, so I'd like to have more details. I took a look in Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide before commenting here and it said nothing about inserting only the IF. I's possible I didn't pay enough attention, of course. Actually, reading the sentence journal is indexed in selective bibliographic databases in its field, or has an impact factor I was not imaging wikipedia so IF-centric. Than I read Do not give a list of past impact factors, but only the most recent one and I was hopeful that a more recent data (2017 instead of 2016) gave a better picture.

To be fair, there aren't a gazilion of metrics (as stated in that object) in my experience, so this specific limitation to the IF is quite unexpected. The user did a good job of expansion so (s)he knows his/her business, but I am surprised that metrics such as SCIMAGO IF are voluntarily ignored, they provide a quite balance picture in the end. Maybe years ago IF was the only solid alternative, but the situation has quite evolved. I always look at all the data when i hear fo a journal for the first time.

Considering how short these article ares, I personally think that we should put more standardized links to metric websites, in the interest of the readers, but in any case I don't mind. Can we however just be sure the guideline is written accordingly to the current standard? And if it is, maybe I did not see it because this passage can be written a little better. Thank you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Actually, there are quite a large number of metrics. The Journal Citation Reports alone lists total cites, IF, 5-yr IF, Immediacy Index, and a few others. Scopus lists CiteScore, SJR, and SNIP. GScholar lists h-indices. There's ResearchGate and Index Copernicus (the latter one more bogus than real) that produce statistics. And for every single metric we can find a journal's ranking in its category. All these metrics are updated yearly. All of it can be sourced. It's already a pain to update just the IF in all our journal articles each year (which is why many articles still have the, say, 2010 IF; see Category:Articles with outdated impact factors), imagine the amount of work if we would list all these different metrics. Now look at journals' websites. A very few (mostly very high-IF ones) do not list any metrics. Some list Scopus metrics. And every single one that lists metrics lists the Clarivate IF (if they have one). Authors (and readers) are not different. When did you ever hear someone say "I submitted my last paper to Journal of Foo, because it has a very high CiteScore" (or h-index, or SNIp, or...)? Exactly. All that people look for is the IF. The latest one (no one cares about last year's IF). So for the practical reason that it is impossible to keep all those metrics up-to-date and the fact that readers are interested in the IF, that's the one we list. Once things change in real life, we can revisit this, but for the moment, this is the situation we have to deal with. --Randykitty (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
When did you ever hear someone say... I did hear that. When you have a selection of options you use other metrics. Last time that a similar discussion occurred was I think last year. One grant had a specific subset of suggested publications, so in a specific area we used the best metric to select the best option out of it. Even if the IF of the best journal in that table was not great we used the other factors to opt the best one. In any case, as soon as you efficiently link to wikidata (did enwiki invest efficiently on that side?), the yearly update is not a big issue. I still think that they are not a lot of them, especially for example if you decide about a standardized external link where most of this information is combined. They are the same order of the list of archives that it seems you put.
In any case can someone tell me where this style request is written? Am I right when I say it's not in the guideline at the moment? it's never an optimum when you don't link a guideline or a pivotal old discussion. --Alexmar983 (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
For metrics, we typically only list the most recent IF (2-year), and sometimes the SCImago Journal Rank (usually in cases were there is no IF). Other metrics aren't very relevant. There is some guidance in WP:JWG, which mostly says put the IF, simply because very few people are compelled to add anything beyond the IF. I suppose we could expand the guidance to say only include IF and sometimes SJR if there's no IF. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
So in the same guideline I link above, it is not written there that the other bibliometric information should be removed. I was adding because it was making the stub more complete. I don't understand why call it a stub (I put the template based on similar cases, and it was kept) if the other possible information to insert is not ok. It kinda lacks some general perspective. I am also curious because we now talk about expanding or improving the guideline, so are we starting a discussion or are we referring to those previous discussion(s) cited in the object of the edit. can someone link them, I really want to learn something on this topic.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Previous discussions are in the archives of this page (or linked from there if on other pages). --Randykitty (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Randykitty this is a wiki not the DMV where it is fine if give a formal reply, that is not the core of cooperative environment. I understand they are somewhere in the archive, I have asked if you can tell me more, thank you. You cited those discussions so you know much better when they occurred, right? it takes to you one fifth of the time to find them, and I would say approximately the time of these comments where I presume you write down a duplicate of what was discussed in the past. Now, in the wiki spirit they should have been linked from the guideline years ago, but at least can you show them now? I can put them in the guideline myself especially if they are robust, coherent and confirmed over the years by different group of users. Also, as an expert users you know that with these things you just don't stop at one discussions, it is much better to have them all. Since you were here, it's much easy for you to know how many they are and don't stop before coollecting all of the most recent one. In any case while I searched myself before asking (something I do to improve the double-validation) I found this one. This is very recent and in that situation you appear to clean up the article as you did in this case, but the users User:David_Eppstein and blocked user User:DavidMinerck show some interesting views that are very similar to mine, in that occurrence you don't link or cite any previous discussion but you give your reasons. Wouldn't that be much easier to link to those project discussions? So , let's start now, shall we?--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's not that simple. Some of the discussions were on this talk page and are in the archives (search for "metric" or perhaps also "impact"). But several discussions took place at article talk pages and in that case, all that may have been placed on this talk page is a short notice without actually mentioning the subject ("there's a discussion at page xxxx that may be of interest to members of this project"). Despite numerous discussions, practice has not changed and only the current (2-year) impact factor is listed for the moment. Let me summarize the points once again. 1/ There are many metrics to gauge journal performance. All are updated yearly. For all of them, rankings of journals (generally in several categories) are available. 2/ To list all metrics with their rankings for all available years is unfeasible and not really of interest to almost any reader. A selection has to be made. 3/ This selection should be the same for all journals. Otherwise this opens the door to promotional editing where publishers/editors will just choose the particular metric which puts their journal in the best light. 4/ The choice of metric to display should be based not on WP editor preference but on current practice in the real world. The article on the impact factor contains some references documenting the use of the IF. 5/ Far as I know, there are no (or very few) sources discussing the use of other metrics (by authors/readers, not by the databases that produce them). Conclusion: there are good reasons to limit the listing of metrics to the impact factor. Like it or not (and, for the record, I don't like it), the IF is by far the metric that decides where authors are going to submit their work and also the metric that is most often used to evaluate the work of academics. As long as this is the case, WP should conform to this usage. Once the real world gets past its IF addiction, we can adapt, but that doesn't look to be happening anytime soon. --Randykitty (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • How about this for a compromise: Scopus puts all of its metrics online and freely accessible (This is a new development, can't recall exactly when they started doing this, but after most of the previous discussions on metrics). Headbomb, what do you think of adding the Scopus ID to the infobox so that when you click on it, you go to that page? The Scopus ID can be found by searching for a journal here. For example, Astronomy & Astrophysics has a Scopus ID of 26750 (which should be linked to https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/26750 where all Scopus metrics and rankings can be found). This would be a one-time thing to add, Scopus updates itself. --Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
me too. Please notice however that this is just a evolution of metrics that is constant and should be monitored in 2 or 4 or 6 years in any case. As I said in my first comment here I personally think that we should put more standardized links to metric websites,. So of course I agree with this option but this is part of a process, in some way. We are discussing this right now but I am suprised we didn't since the first passage. Why was is it unusually hard? This is something that shows IMHO how "self-referencing traditions" are not the perfect pillar. Updating guidelines with linked recent or key discussions is necessary to get a constant monitoring, improvement and update of the quality of the content.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I was writing yesterday and I stopped but before I resume the discussion above, please just let me recover few points:

  • All this was handled in a bizzare way. Relatively disorganized layers of usages stratified despite also some objections, no proper summary, no clear explanation in the guidelines is not the best scenario. Also, most of these articles are stubs, we could write something more but we don't.
  • people should know what goes beyond an IF when describing a journal, and probably some researchers should as well especially those who claim to be multidisciplinary and international. I worked in various fields, in countries centered on European, Asian or American journals, and I find myself looking for a new journals for more "exotic" publication in a new field every 2-3 years. The use of quartile for example can be crucial in making the best plan. Like now, I am thinking of a draft about classical culture, using just IF tells me nothing.
  • It's noteworthy that the tendency of writing the excessive case (sorry for the original wirter, it's not personal) was also emerging To list all metrics with their rankings for all available years is unfeasible and not really of interest to almost any reader. Agree, but who wants that? Maybe the same people who try to write a list of almost all the archives that index a journal I suppose :D. Seriously, all available years? All metrics? The world has more nuances than going from one to all in many fields, and we can stop just because of a "traditial usage".
  • I don't get in the end this "tradition". I get the suorces. Other metrics are not the all same, and they are discussed. They have reason to exist and it's still strange to me as a strategy to cut them completely in almost all the cases.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Precision and Future Medicine

Could someone please look at Draft:Precision and Future Medicine? I didn't create the article in article space because I wasn't sure that the journal was notable. It isn't listed in Worldcat, but it's published by a university, and the two editors appear to be productive researchers. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academic_journals)#Dictionary_definition_of_guideline

Please comment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

2017 IFs

The 2017 IFs are online. I have edited the appropriate tracking categories and the infobox template accordingly. Headbomb, could you be so kind to check what I did, editing templates is not really my forte... Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Randykitty: It's all fine. If you could update Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Resources#Abstracting_and_indexing_databases_(with_some_preformatted_references) to make use of the modern information, that would be great. (Clarivate, rather than Thomson Reuters/ISI for instance). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks. And  Done --Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd happily help to update the journal pages with the new IFs but sadly I don't have access to the official site to retrieve the info. Is there a pdf of the list of ISI journals with their new IFs somewhere, or can anybody extract this info from the website and put it on file? Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Here is the full list of the new Impact Factors, happy to share it! https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326008448_2018_Journal_Impact_Factors_Updated_June_27_2018_JCR_JIF_IF_PDF_download_available

Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Expansion of Academic journal

I recently expanded the academic journal article, adding information on history/growth. Sourcing seems spotty in parts, so extra eyes would be good. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This could use more feedback. If you haven't commented, please do! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot requests#Redirects of OMICS journals

If you have comments for this bot request I've made, please follow the link. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medio Ambiente y Urbanización

This AfD could use the input of some knowledgeable editors (just re-listed with scant participation). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:AMIH (Acta Microbiologica et Immunologica Hungarica)

Another editor created Draft:AMIH (Acta Microbiologica et Immunologica Hungarica). Could an experienced editor please take a look at the draft? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Eastmain: Spitshined and moved to mainspace. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Add academic journals to WP:VITAL

SeeWikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Add: Academic journal + others for the dicussion. Please participate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Participation is low so far. Comments would be very appreciated here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Public Affairs Education (journal)

This AfD could do with some more input from knowledgeable editors. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behrooz Astaneh

The article about Behrooz Astaneh, the editor of the Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences, is at AfD. You may want to bvisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behrooz Astaneh. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:American Journal of Educational Research and Reviews

Another editor created Draft:American Journal of Educational Research and Reviews. I do not know whether the draft should be accepted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The indexes listed in the draft are not selective and do not pass WP:NJournals. But more seriously (as I also stated in an AfC comment) this publisher, eSciPub, is one that has been listed by Beall as predatory and we should not accept an article that doesn't mention anything about this problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree that the draft should not be accepted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

American Scientific Publishers, Journal of Biomedical Nanotechnology, and Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology

Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology is published by American Scientific Publishers, which is on Beall's list. Wikipedia has an article on the journal, but not the publishing company. I have tagged the journal article for notability, and would like to ask other editors whether it should go to AfD.

International Journal of Ecosystem is published by Scientific & Academic Publishing, which is also on Beall's list. No article for either one. Should a redirect be created for each of the publishing companies that would point to Predatory open-access publishing, or would that just be inviting litigation?

I first heard about the two journals through a draft biography for a Canadian academic that lists him as an editorial board member for the two journals. See Draft:Arzu_Sardarli. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Journal of Biomedical Nanotechnology is another title published by American Scientific Publishers. It claims to be peer-reviewed, but if it is published by a predatory publisher, the article should be deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I ahve joined these two items as it concerns the same issue. Both journals are notable, because they are in highly-selective databases, such as the Science Citation Index, meaning that the experts who do the selection for those databases were satisfied that the peer-review processes of these journals is adequate. I checked their impact factors and even the rather high one of the Journal of Biomedical Nanotechnology checks out. The only thing we can do is to cite the inclusion of the publisher on Beall's list, as we have done with some Pulsus journals, for example. As for the academic, he also proudly lists being on the board of the International Journal of Ecosystem (sic!). Insofar as non-notability can be proven, this goes a long way... As for the question about the redirect, that would pose a problem, I think. Probably best to leave it red-linked untill the time they do such stupid things that this would make them notable (like OMICS and Pulsus). --Randykitty (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Social Problems and WP:NACADEMIC

Two articles on editors-in-chief of Social Problems that I created (Becky Pettit and Pamela Anne Quiroz) have recently been tagged for notability by an IP. The IP's argument is that Social Problems is not a major enough journal to allow its editors-in-chief to meet WP:NACADEMIC#C8 (e.g. this edit summary). I wanted to see whether other editors agreed with this argument. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 14:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Archives of Scientific Psychology

I noticed that the page Archives of Scientific Psychology was accepted through AFC in 2012--before the first issue of the journal had even been published! The journal does not appear to meet NJOURNALS, as it has no impact factor and the databases it is indexed in don't seem selective enough (DOAJ and PsycInfo, for example). Do other editors think it is notable enough for an article? IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 17:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current Opinion (Current Drugs)

One of our journal series / WP:SIA is at deletion, again. Please comment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Mathematics Education Research Journal

Possibly of interest to this project: Draft:Mathematics Education Research Journal Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I've had it on my watchlist for a while now. Once I find a moment, I'll help the editor who created it. The journal meets NJournals (it is included in Scopus), but the current draft is not acceptable (it even contains material copied directly from the journal's own website, perhaps not enough to be speedily deleted as a copyvio, but not acceptable anyway). --Randykitty (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archives of Scientific Psychology

This AfD has not many participants yet and would benefit from the participation of knowledgeable editors. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Predator spotting?

Can anyone explain this edit - particularly the auto-warning in the summary, "(Tag: Citing predatory open access journal".

I can see one journal being added, <ref name="bhb09">{{cite news | url=https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/271285/1/bizer-heath-berners-lee-ijswis-linked-data.pdf | title=Linked Data – The Story So Far | first1=Christian | last1=Bizer | first2=Tom | last2=Heath | first3=Tim | last3=Berners-Lee |authorlink3=Tim Berners-Lee | journal=[[International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems]] | volume=5 | number=3 | date=2009 | doi=10.4018/jswis.2009081901 }}</ref> [1] but no reason why International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems should be suspicious.

Or is something else on the page triggering it? @Jpbowen: – any ideas? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bizer, Christian; Heath, Tom; Berners-Lee, Tim (2009). "Linked Data – The Story So Far" (PDF). International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems. Vol. 5, no. 3. doi:10.4018/jswis.2009081901.
My guess is that this is a journal published by IGI Global, which is not a super great amazing awesome publisher (see deletion discussion). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, what? JzG sledgehammering an edit filter into place just because of his own personal biases? (look at the deletion and salting) Like we've never seen that one before! 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
It does seem incredible that a journal with authors like Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the web (without whom Wikipedia would not even exist in its current form), is "banned" on Wikipedia. Where was this discussed (please send a link if available) or is it unilateral action? It seems to be bordering on censorship! The published paper is behind a paywall (not open access) but the submitted version is also on the University of Southampton open access website. Perhaps the University of Southampton should be banned for being associated with such a journal too! —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I note that neither the International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems nor the publisher IGI Global are on Beall's list of predatory journals and publishers. The journal is indexed by a number of respected journal indexes. This publisher may not have the highest reputation but it does publish academically respectable papers. As such I believe neither the journal nor the publisher should be banned outright on Wikipedia. Perhaps an independent Wikipedia administrator could investigate and take whatever action they deem appropriate. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The journal isn't banned outright, it's just flagged as a thing to watch and you need to confirm that you did mean to link to it. It's possible the filter needs to be tweaked though, as my understanding is the shit practices of IGI Global seemed to be focused around books over journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connections (journal)

Except for the nom and one IP, there has been no participation in this debate by knowledgeable editors. Additional comments needed! Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 59#Brainstorm: Useful "pseudo article" categories.. or something

Please comment there. This concerns predatory journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

RFDs in need of participation

Please see J Endocrinol (journal) and Evol Dev (journal). They interfere with our WP:JCW compilation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@DGG and IntoThinAir: might have insights here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Journal of the American Pharmacists Association

@DGG: can you figure out what exactly the history of those journals are? They seem interlinked to a previous publication (Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association), but in two distinct eras or something. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

it may take me a few days--I'm away from my usual resources.Remind me on Monday. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Will do. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC):::@DGG: Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
DGG, any update on this? Also see the below section. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


I clarified the publications, approximately--there are a number of additional intermediate title changes that I will fill in if I have the opportunity. I also brought the current publications of the Association together as American Pharmacists Association#Publications. I have not yet made the necessary redirects.
The difficulty with these is that OCLC does not give the history--I use the Princeton catalog when I can, but Princeton does not have a medical school. LC adopted the obnoxious practice many years ago of giving only earlier and later titles, not the complete history, (it did make made sense with printed catalog cards, where otherwise the entire set had to be reprinted every time the title changed, but it's been obsolete for half a century now; Libraries change very slowly, and LC slowest of all. . And for this one, the LC catalog does not give all the links. I'll try to fill in from NLM or elsewhere. (There are similar problems with a great many of our journals entries--it would take about an average of an hour to clear up each of them, and it should probably be done it Wikidata.) DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Taylor & Francis, Predatory open-access publishing, and Critical Reviews in Toxicology

A newbie editor is adding stuff to these articles (and in the case of the journal, removing sourced info) that in my opinion is not supported by the sources. In addition, they are using a source ("Dolos list") that as far as I can see is not an RS. I have reverted already a few times, so I am leaving this for the moment. They refuse to discuss this on the talk pages of this article and my attempt to engage them in constructive discussion on their talk page (User talk:Scientificrigor12) has failed. Perhaps I'm too harsh here, especially because it's a newbie. Some other opinions of knowledgeable editors are welcome. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Sharing a table from 1665

Adrien Auzout's "A TABLE of the Apertures of Object-Glasses" from a 1665 article in Philosophical Transactions, showing a table

I posted this illustration in several articles.

I wanted to share here because I thought it was interesting. It is old, it is from an early academic journal, it shows that formatting data into tables in articles was established as a custom at the start of academic publishing, and it also shows that scientists have been using the word "table" to describe this sort of data presentation from the beginning. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Nice. Here's a tabula from 1643 by Giovanni Battista Riccioli, you can search for more in the structural maps. Nemo 20:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Notification of journal in Draft

FYI: Draft:Cahiers Agricultures was submitted to AfC 15 November 2018‎ still waiting for review. Cheers KylieTastic (talk)

 Done - Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

More journals waiting for AfC reviews

Hi again, just notification of more journals I found in the AfC backlog

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medieval Worlds

This AfD was relisted and could benefit from some wider participation by knowledgeable editors. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Academic journals of Brazil

This category has a subcat Category:Category:Academic journals published in Brazil. There are cats like that for some other countries, too. Does anybody here have any clue what the difference between these two cats is? Are there "journals of Brazil" that are not "published in Brazil"? --Randykitty (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

International Journal of Geology and Earth Sciences

I am the publisher and Managing Editor of International Journal of Geology and Earth Sciences

My journal website is www.ijges.com.

I would like a wikipedia article about my journal.

Does my journal meet the requirements.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by IJGES (talk • contribs) 18:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The journal doesn't seem to be indexed anywhere selective, and doesn't seem to pass WP:NJOURNALS, so I would advise against creating such an article. Also your username violates our username policy, you should request a rename if you plan on editing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Removal of self-sourced information at MDPI

Please participate at Talk:MDPI#Self-sourced content. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Mankind Quarterly

There is an edit war going on at this article (under discretionary sanctions, no less) about whether this (admittedly crappy) journal should be described as "peer-reviewed academic journal". Some editors want to remove this as "puffery", but in my eyes, neither "peer-reviewed" nor "academic" are badges of honor, but just neutral descriptors. Being a "peer-reviewed academic journal" does not guarantee that the peer-review is actually good or that the academic stuff is not perhaps in the realm of fringe or even pseudoscience. More opinions of knowledgeable editors are welcome at the article's talk page (but I'll understand if nobody wants to get their hands dirty at this rather disreputable rag...) --Randykitty (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Genomics journals

Should the category Genomics journals that I recently created be in the category Genetics journals? Or is genomics not a subfield of genetics? IntoThinAir (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Whether genomics is a subfield of genetics is an interesting, somewhat philosophical question. But in practice, Category:Genomics is a subcat of Category:Genetics, so the journal cats should probably follow that convention. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 06:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I consider genomics a subfield of genetics (like almost all "omics" fields, it's basically a superfluous neologism, but that is my personal pet peeve). Apart from that grumble, I agree with Mark. --Randykitty (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:JWG#COI

I added a section on COI to WP:JWG. Feel free to tweak. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Predatory Journals

Just got this email - obviously sent to emails in alphabetical order including these 3: "doug, doug, dougd," Call for Papers in International Journal Vol. 9 Issue 1 UGC approved Journal in: Management, Commerce, Economics, IT, Engineering and Social Science Authors are invited to submit papers for the upcoming Issue -January-2019.

International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences(ISSN: 2249-7382), IF: 6.939

Journal of Advance Management Research(JAMRI)SSN: 2393-9664 , IF: 4.598

International Journal of Research in Engineering and Applied Sciences(ISSN: 2249-3905),IF: 7.196

International Journal of Research in IT and Management (ISSN: 2249-5894), IF: 6.505

International Journal of Research in Finance and Marketing(ISSN: 2231-5985) , IF: 6.397

International Research Journal of Social SciencesISSN(2249-2496), IF : 7.081-UGC Approved

International Research Journal of Management, IT and Engineering ISSN(2249-0558), IF: 7.119- UGC Approved

Journal of Management Research AnalysisISSN(O): 2394-2770,ISSN(P):23942762, IF:4.878, UGC Approved An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journals.)

Journal publishes original papers, review papers, conceptual framework, analytical and simulation models, case studies, empirical research, technical notes, and many more... Submit Your Research Paper to editorijrim@gmail.com along with Copyright Form. Submission date-25th January-2019 On-line Publication: 30th January-2019 To know more about journal or submission guidelines, kindly visit our website: www.euroasiapub.org 1. Printed copy within 15-20 days after publication 2. Open access facility 3. Publication at right time 4. Tracking facility for your print copy 5. Flexible payment mode to pay your publication charge. 6. Free Publication E-certificate and Soft copy of Published paper 7. Response will be given within 12 Hrs 8. Publication on Demand within 24 Hrs "Thesis and Book with ISBN and Publish it Internationally" Call for Book / Thesis / Dissertation www.euroasiapub.orgeditorijrim@gmail.com Formation of Contain and ISBN for Book: (Online) within 10 days Electronic Book/Thesis publication Do you want to publish your Book/thesis as an online book publication? With our Book/thesis publishing services, we provide you with a professional looking thesis which will be made available online for worldwide visibility. 1. EARDA is open access publisher and your thesis will be available to anyone in the world to download / read for free directly 2. Your thesis will be accessible from Google Scholar and etc. 3. Our publications are online and therefore there are not any limitations on the number or size of the pages. 4. Each thesis will receive an ISBN number.

You are requested to forward the information to all of your Research Scholars, professors, Scientists, Colleagues, and Universities.Thank you in advance for your kind support--EARDA Editorial Support Team

Flexible payment mode? Suggests steep fees. Should I have posted this somewhere else? Doug Weller talk 18:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested page move

There is a requested move at Talk:Environs (journal) that would very much benefit from your input. Please come and help! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  20:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

List of neuroscience journals

I recently created List of neuroscience journals and I want other editors to expand it. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 15:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Randykitty (talk · contribs) could certainly help here, if he didn't self-block himself. You could ask at WT:MED however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Can we add Neurobiology of Aging to the list? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurobiology_of_Aging 107.146.153.76 (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Open Agriculture journal

Can I add Open Agriculture journal to Open access journals category? User:Floraljay ( talk ) 10:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Case reports journals

There's a CFD to rename the category (which I accidently made via twinkle, rather than get it speedy renamed like it should have been), but that somehow morphed into a discussion to delete the category. Please comment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Help talk:Citation Style 1#RFC on publisher and location in cite journal

I don't think that this discussion, which is highly relevant to this project, has already been mentioned here. DGG, I'd be interested in hearing a librarian's opinion there. --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

CfD: Academic journal categories containing exclusively redirects

There is a discussion concerning container categories for predatory journals. Please participate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Note, this would affect tens of thousands of redirects. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Wikipedia:JCW/CRAP

There is a discussion concerning whether or not WP:CRAPWATCH and WP:JCW/CRAP should be allowed to be shortcuts to the our crapwatch list to detect predatory journals and other crap citations. Please participate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:JWG update

I overhauled the guide with a much better (I feel) general structure and clearer guidance on redirects and finishing touches (Old version). Comments welcomed at WT:JWG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Journal creation

I don't really know how you prioritize your journal article creation, but consider creating some (see WP:JWG for help) for

  1. Amino Acids (journal)
  2. Animal Conservation (journal)
  3. Anthropos (journal)
  4. Austrobaileya (journal)
  5. Biocontrol (journal)
  6. Biogerontology (journal)
  7. Biological Control (journal)
  8. Cunninghamia (journal)
  9. Environment and History
  10. Environmental History (journal)
  11. Extremophiles (journal)
  12. Film History (journal) / Film History: An International Journal
  13. Gene Therapy (journal)
  14. Genus (journal)
  15. Human Gene Therapy (journal)
  16. Indonesia (journal)
  17. Lipids (journal)
  18. Marine Biodiversity (journal)
  19. Marine Biology Letters
  20. Marine Ecology (journal)
  21. Memory (journal)
  22. Microbial Ecology (journal)
  23. Mycorrhiza (journal)
  24. Neoplasia (journal)
  25. Neoplasma
  26. Philippine Studies (journal)
  27. Polymer (journal)
  28. Research Policy (journal)
  29. Sedimentology (journal)
  30. Sociobiology (journal)
  31. Sports Medicine (journal)
  32. The Gerontologist / Gerontologist (journal)
  33. The Muslim World (journal)
  34. Weather (journal)
  35. Wildlife Conservation (journal)

Those are currently the journals listed in WP:JCW/TAR that look like they exist (e.g. Amino Acids), but don't. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I run across this issue a lot, when the capitalized version of a broad topic exists, so you think it's the journal on the topic--nope, just a capitalized redirect to the topic itself (e.g. Ecological Psychology). I'm never sure if I should convert the capitalized version into the journal article or just make the journal article at "capitalized version (journal)" (I've done quite a bit of both). IntoThinAir (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Personally I prefer Research Policy (journal) + Research policy (journal) tagged with {{R from miscaps}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I faintly recall that a while ago some editor moved a number of articles from "Foo Foo (journal)" to "Foo Foo", even if there was an article on the field ("Foo foo"), arguing that the different capitalization was enough disambiguation. I think Headbomb's solution is clearer, just a capital letter difference is too subtle for me. BTW, there are journals in this list that have the word "Letters" in their title (e.g. "Marine Biology Letters (journal)"), they don't seem to need the "(journal)" disambiguator, or am I missing something? --Randykitty (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Brainfart for that one. Fixed.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

ISSN Resolvers

Hi everyone!

Over at Wikidata, the ISSN property has 4+7 resolvers ("formatter URLs"), i.e. sites where you can find info about particular ISSNs.

Can someone provide guidance on the coverage of these sites? Or maybe there are other sites that are better?

It would be best if you can do it at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P236#too_many_resolvers, but here will also be ok. Ping me and I'll help turn that info into Wikidata statements. --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand anything or care much about Wikidata, but from the looks of it would could possibly update {{Infobox journal}}, {{Infobox magazine}}, and {{ISSN}} (as well as {{cite xxx}} templates) to use the issn.org resolver (e.g [27]) instead of OCLC's crappy one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interface: A Journal for and about Social Movements

This AfD cold use some more participants (and note the argument given in favor of OMICS). --Randykitty (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:SOURCEWATCH Launch

See this Signpost article that was published today. This has been the results of nearly 9 months of efforts. I'm going to @DGG, IntoThinAir, Randykitty, Jonesey95, JzG, John Vandenberg, Ocaasi, David Eppstein, Steve Quinn, Daniel Mietchen, Rachel Helps (BYU), Phoebe, and Anne Delong: on this, since you all might be interested in this project. Feel free to share the article (and the WP:SOURCEWATCH link) to relevant people and communities you may know! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Hijacked journal#bad reverts

There's a discussion about the terminology in use at Hijacked journal, and whether it refers to the perpetrator or the victim of the hijacking. Please participate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

A grossly incorrect claim here. Butler (the first source) does not use the word "hijacked" and Jalalian uses the word in a different sense than one editor "knows is correct". The posting here, buy making a strawman argument, is helping no one. And I stick by Beall's usage of the word, which seems fine. But should Wikipedia alter the meaning of words found in the sources cited? By the way, canvassing is supposed to be "neutrally worded" in the first place. The question as posed here is not the question at the article talk page. Thank you. Collect (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
My only words here are there's a discussion happening about what terminology to use in the article. Keep the discussion on that talk page please, and dial it down by like 12 notches. Others will soon participate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Alas, when a misstatement appears, I tend to demur. I really should approve of such, I suppose. Meanwhile EdChem examined the sources and gave a quite clear opinion and statement at WP:RSN. Collect (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Minor correction, I posted my opinion to the article talk page. EdChem (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Mea culpa. Three or more discussions at once is tricky at times. Collect (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

New AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Asthma & Allergy Educators. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

New: WP:JCW/PUB

This is a compilation of journals, arranged by publisher (from most to least citations). It's very early, and needs a ton of cleanup, but the results are interesting. For example, if you're interested in AMA journals, you can search (with quotes "American Medical Association"), and find the JAMA journals consolidated under one heading.

Again, there will be lots of false positives, but they can be suppressed exactly like those from WP:SOURCEWATCH can be suppressed. See WT:SOURCEWATCH#FAQ (Q4 and Q6) for details on how to do that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced message from Today's article for improvement

While doing some maintenance work I came across this misplaced message sent by MusikBot that was erroneously posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide (which doesn't link to anything). It was posted on 00:05, 17 July 2017‎ (UTC). Though it is almost two years old I figured I'd forward it to the proper address before I delete that page. Here's the message that never arrived, not to my knowledge at least. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!


Hello,
Please note that Editor-in-chief, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Knoema up for deletion

This is a huge repository of data and statistics. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

List of academic journals by impact factor

My university doesn't subscribe to the Web of Knowledge, and I can't find a list of SSCI etc. journals ranked by impact factor. But, in fact, can such a list by subject to copyright? In light of Wikipedia:Copyright in lists I'd think that the answer is no as they likely fall under "estimates which are based on a repeatable calculation, such as trend analysis or interpolation" or "forecasts using standard repeatable methods, such as net present value calculations". And if so, maybe we could try to create such a list here? Granted, it may not be updated too often, but even a list from 'few years ago' would be quite useful to most scholars (example, myself :D). I would be willing to help work on rendering such list(s) in wikiformat, to put my wikitime where my mouth is, but as I said, I don't have access to the underlying data. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I distinctly remember seeing years ago that (then) Thomson Reuters sued some website for publishing a list of IFs. In fact, the IF is calculated not using the raw data of the citation indexes, but using a separate database of curated citations (hence the common complaint that IF calculations cannot be reproduced). Maintaing such a list would be a significant effort, too. I have access to the JCR and it allows one to download the IFs of all journals (sciences AND social sciences together) in an Excel file. I always download that when the new IFs come out in summer, that way I don't have to login and search each time I want to check an IF. Send me an email address and I'll email you the list (and then the updated one that should be released soon). --Randykitty (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The only thing that could really be done (from a technical perspective) is a compilation of |impact= / |impact-year= based on the infoboxes. This might have some value to quickly review at a glance old impact factors and review the impact factors for inconsistencies. There would be some value in that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. Any chance you could create such a list using a bot or such? And should we have a wider WP:RFC on whether such a list would be a copyvio or not? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I can't, but WP:BOTREQ is that way. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Notification of pending AfC drafts

Assistance from subject matter experts in chipping away at the backlog of pending drafts would be appreciated:

Thanks. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

A possible Science/STEM User Group

There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 02:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

A proposal for WikiJournals to become a new sister project

Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:

  • Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example)
  • From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (example)
  • Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example)

Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project

From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.

Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 11:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 1#Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN

Please comment. The outcome of this discussion could greatly impact our ability to cleanup articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Istorija

Would Istorija, a history journal from Lithuania, be considered notable? http://www.istorijoszurnalas.lt/index.php/IS (can be translated with Google Translate). It claims to be indexed in Clarivate Analytics Master Journal, Historical abstracts, C.E.E.O.L. (Central and Eastern European Online Library), CSA: Sociological Abstracts, CSA Worlwide Political Science Abstracts, MLA: Modern Language Association International Bibliography, EBSCO Publishing: Academic Search Complete, EBSCO Publishing: TOC Premier, EBSCO Publishing: Current Abstracts. ISSN 1392-0456 eISSN 2029-7181 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • IMHO this is promising, but not yet there. EBSCO databases are not very selective, nor are the other listed ones. It is indeed in the Clarivate Master Journal List, but that just tells us in which Clarivate databases this journal is indexed. All of those databases are highly selective, with the unfortunate exception of the single database that this journal is indexed in (the Emerging Sources Citation Index). At this point I think it's too soon. --Randykitty (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Being a 61 year old journal (since 1958), it's probably OK, but it's also kind of borderline on indexing alone, and the website seems dead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Medical Journal of Australia

A rep of the company that publishes MJA has made some suggestions on its talkpage. I've gone mthougth and implemented the bits that I think are notable and edited for tone. I'd love another pair of eyes to check over the bits I've put in and omitted. Also, there are a few famous papers from the journal.[1][2][3] I noticed that there's a list in Genes, Brain and Behavior. is this something that's useful to more broadly implement, or a bit of an anachronism? I can imagine it changing frequently for some journals (I feel like long-term there'd probably be a automatable wikidata solution though). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi, I've seen your edits, good job! We do often include a list of papers, within reason. Most often those are the papers that have been cited most (3-5 papers). You are right that this causes a maintenance problem, because which papers are most cited may change over time. More rarely, there are independent sources that comment on a paper and its importance for the journal (or the other way around). That would be the case of "famous" papers, they would be selected because there are sources directly about those particular papers (so not just simple citations). --Randykitty (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I also just decided to look at the most cited papers list on the GBB article. I see that there are 3 papers each w/over 350 citations, but I also checked WOS just now and it turns out that there is a 4th paper in the journal w/over 350 citations on WOS (see here). I'm thinking the article should perhaps be updated to include this paper as well if we're gonna keep to the seemingly arbitrary 350-citation threshold. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the idea was to present the three most cited articles, the 350 is not a threshold but just an indication how often those articles had been cited. For some journal that publish many papers, a threshold of 350 would result in a humongous long list. For those journals, the three most-cited papers would have many more citations. --Randykitty (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Marshall, Barry J.; Armstrong, John A.; McGechie, David B.; Clancy, Ross J. (1985). "Attempt to fulfil Koch's postulates for pyloric Campylobacter". Medical Journal of Australia. 142 (8): 436–439. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1985.tb113443.x. ISSN 1326-5377.
  2. ^ Cade, John F. J. (1949). "Lithium salts in the treatment of psychotic excitement". Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 33 (5): 349–352. doi:10.1080/j.1440-1614.1999.06241.x. ISSN 0004-8674.
  3. ^ Wilson, Ross McL; Runciman, William B; Gibberd, Robert W; Harrison, Bernadette T; Newby, Liza; Hamilton, John D (1995). "The Quality in Australian Health Care Study". Medical Journal of Australia. 163 (9): 458–471. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1995.tb124691.x. ISSN 0025-729X.

Chemistry: An Asian Journal

I'm having trouble getting the correct ISO 4 abbreviation to enter onto the journal template, and would appreciate someone who's more familiar with the system to fix that. Thanks. Ngchen (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ngchen: what was the issue with it? There was nothing wrong with the ISO abbreviation (the NLM one was wrong however, which I've fixed). I also created the relevant redirects. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
There was a box that popped up informing me that a bot (I presume) was unable to find the ISO 4 abbreviation in some presumably master list. But anyway, if the problem is fixed, then we don't need to worry about it. Cheers! Ngchen (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, no that was box asking you to verify that you had the right ISO 4 abbreviation, and if the abbreviation was correct, to create the relevant redirects. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

New JCR data released

The 2019 JCR info has just been released; see here. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Looks like everybody interested in IFs is looking right now, because the site is incredibly unresponsive. Takes ages to look up even a single journal, if the site reacts at all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randykitty (talk • contribs)
      • IDK but I know you can usually find information about a given journal (at least IF, maybe not ranking) from the journal's website. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
        • If it's a reliable publisher, I usually don't even bother checking the JCR. I've never seen one of the large publishers present a wrong IF. I have downloaded all IFs in an Excel file, if you send me an address, I can email you the file. It cannot be put online, of course, for copyright reasons. --Randykitty (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Is Biological Psychology a neuroscience journal?

I just added the psychology journal stub template to Biological Psychology because it has "psychology" in its name. But it was not in the "psychology journals" cat or any of its subcats AFAICT. So is this a neuroscience journal (as indicated by its current cats and by the piping of the link for the title discipline, "biological psychology", to behavioral neuroscience) or a psychology journal or both? IntoThinAir (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Biological psychology is an interdisciplinary field with psychology on one end and physiology/neuroscience on the other. Unless these journal cats need to be mutually exclusive, I think it would be reasonable to categorize it as both as a neuroscience journal and as a psychology journal. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Adding "psychology journal" is not unreasonable given its title. --Randykitty (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

How should impact factors be used to describe journals in a field

Input at Talk:Health_informatics#JMIR_mention would be appreciated. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Controversy at The Lancet

Please see this and other edits there. Input from knowledgeable editors requested. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems overly reliant on primary sources. Not convinced this is very notable. Bondegezou (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
This issue has been published in Taiwan and foreign media. Taiwan medical association, which stands for all physicians in Taiwan, and the vise president of Taiwan, who stands for the official POV of Taiwan, are also included. There's by no means a minor or insignificant POV. Randykitty demands this issue to be talked about a year from now to be file-able [28] is also double-standard compared with the events in 2014 and 2010, which were added in a few months and a few days since occurred.--111.243.232.158 (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Storm in a teacup. WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS. Concerning the other events that were added, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Randykitty (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

"Journals of country X" vs "Journals published in country X"

I was just looking at Category:Academic journals by country, which is filled by categories such as Category:Academic journals of Australia. A subcategory is Category:Academic journals by country of publication (filled with cats like Category:Academic journals published in Brazil). Does anybody have any idea what the difference is? Are there journals of Australia or Brazil that are not published in Australia/Brazil? (Of course, given how international academic publishing is, most of these cats are questionable anyway, let alone that "country" is a defining characteristic for most of these publications, but that's another discussion). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

There are thousands of journals published by scholarly societies, but often they're actually outsourced to a legacy publisher. In the first category you linked, for instance, we find Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, which is actually published with T&F, so presumably in the UK.
I agree that country information contains a lot of noise and scarce value but it's a filter used often. Nemo 18:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
T&F has offices all over the world and it's anybody's guess where a particular journal is being published (most likely at different places: publisher in X, desk editor in Y, typesetter in Z, etc). But that's not really my point here: What is the difference between a "journal of Australia" and a "journal published in Australia"?? Should we just merge those two category trees? --Randykitty (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Infobox script

Just a heads up, I made a request to have an automatic infobox filler at WP:SCRIPTREQ. Hopefully, it'll work great. Will keep you posted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Is EconLit a journal?

Since EconLit is a database of academic journals, not an academic journal itself, I was surprised that it was tagged with the economics-journal-stub template and in the category economics journals as well. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not a journal, but it's journal-related. So the tag may not be 100% accurate, but it's not too awful either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I see the category was removed. Would it make more sense a level or two up, like in Category:Economics publications? XOR'easter (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Infobox journals with missing former name redirects

We now have a category to keep track (some of) of the missing redirects for former names of journals. Those interest in helping to clear the category can check the details at Template talk:Infobox journal#Former names. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Journal infobox within article

While thinking about "biannual" etc (see above) I looked at Category:Biennial journals and found that one item of the then four is Feminist science fiction. This is an article about a topic, not about a journal. But buried within it at Feminist science fiction#Femspec there is a section about a journal, Femspec, complete with {{Infobox journal}}, and it appears that the infobox generates the category. Is there a way to suppress this? I've added the category tag (and several others) to the redirect at Femspec, which seems more useful, but the article on the genre remains in the category.

I see from its history that there was originally a standalone article on the journal, created in 2005, but in 2009 it was "boldly merged" into the article on the genre, with no further explanation and without there having been any previous discussion to suggest deletion or merger.

Perhaps the solution is to demerge the journal and hope that it can stand alone again? Or, otherwise, is there a way to suppress the infobox-generated category from this article. It's unlikely to be the only case where a journal is described within a wider article, though it presumably doesn't happen often.

And such are the time-sinks you get into when you start to discuss "biannual". Fun, isn't it! PamD 09:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

And as a beautiful illustration of my point about "biannual" etc ... when the infobox was added in 2016 to Feminist science fiction, and ever since, it has included "frequency: biennial". It is actually a "bi-annual" journal, as stated in their "about", though a subscription is for "two issues of the journal (these might not be received or published in the same calendar year)". Just illustrates the scope for confusion. PamD 09:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Bi-annual may have a recognizable meaning but the normal nomenclature would be semiannual. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
There's plenty of journals in pages of an associated association. It's often the solution when the association is notable but the journal is not, by itself. The text in the article ranges from an entry in a list of titles like here to full sections with infoboxes and stuff (dunno whether this particular case is notable enough for it's own article). I personally think it's ok to have the full article categorized as .. academic journal ..., though indeed it seems that usually only the redirect (from the journal title to the association) is. Tokenzero (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@PamD: This shouldn't happen. I thought I had bypassed these cases (e.g. anything where Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Archive 5) specifically since that category should appear on Femspec and not Feminist science fiction. I'll take a look. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
There, should be fixed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Biannual?

Should we use the term "biannual" or "2/year" (and similar) in infoboxes to show the journal's frequency? Is the possibility of confusion with "biennial" so great that we do the reader a service by using "2/year"? Yes, we have established category names such as Category:Biannual journals, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should use those words in the quick-reference reader-facing infobox.

I can't find a policy or guideline instructing the use of the one or the other wording.

I suggest that we should use "2/year" and "6/year" rather than "biannual" and "bimonthly", as I think it would benefit readers. I don't feel strongly about "biennial", as it's only in use on 4 titles (one of which has led me down a rabbit-hole ... see next section), but "every 2 years" would be clearer.

Looking at Category:Semi-monthly journals I see that of the 4 under "A", 3 say "24/year" and one says "semi-monthly", so practice is not consistent.

There is some discussion at User_talk:Headbomb#Biannual?, but this wider forum seems more appropriate. PamD 08:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

And see below for an example of confusion. PamD 09:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
And the sole item in Category:Quinquennial journals is the Notre Dame Law Review, the subscription page for which states that "The Notre Dame Law Review is published five times annually". So confusion abounds: we should say "5/year". The infobox appears to have been incorrect since it was added. PamD 09:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
That's a WP:SOFIXIT situation. Which I did. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
More strangeness: the sole item in Category:34 times per year journals appears to be published 20 times in 2019. PamD 10:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
And there are 5 journals in Category:Triennial journals. Four are explicitly "3 issues per year", ([29], [30] [31] [32] and the fifth is a bit vague but appears to produce 2 issues in a year. "...ennial" appears to offer great scope for confusion. PamD 10:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have corrected the category for Femspec, both as a redirect and within Feminist science fiction (see below), but have left the other incorrect or doubtful frequencies unchanged. PamD 10:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, all WP:SOFIXIT stuff. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

I suggest that we describe frequency of journals as:

  • daily
  • weekly, or n/week
  • monthly, or n/month
  • annually, or n/year
  • every 2 years

These terms are unambiguous. Most other variations are prone to misreading, misunderstanding, or misuse. Using biennial/biannual is almost on a par with avoiding describing a date as 6/11/1952. November to me, June to many other people. Just avoid it.

Just to look at a comparable topic, I had a look at {{Infobox newspaper}}, but frequency is subsumed into "type" eg "Daily newspaper". Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Learning resources refers to the publication frequency as "Publication schedule (daily, weekly, twice weekly etc)" without suggesting "biweekly". PamD 10:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC) Struck accidental "avoiding" PamD 22:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

And neither Wikipedia:WikiProject Magazines/Writing guide nor {{Infobox magazine}} has anything to add on frequency. PamD 10:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose dumbing of an encyclopedia. Bi- = two, Semi- = half. This is not "simple english". Proposed versions are not really less confusing to the eye. This is "academic journals" after all. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • That the terms are misused doesn't mean that they are ambiguous. That's said, I'm not against having an explanatory note, e.g. Bimonthly (6/year), Triennially (every 3 year), Semimonthly (24/year), Biweekly (26/year). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support They are ambiguous according to several different dictionaries and writing style guides 4 5 6 7. I actually can't find a single dictionary that would not mention two possible meanings (even if one is preferred) and a few (off-wiki) style guides discourage using bi- variants. Also it's not dumbing down if PamD could, right of the bat, find several inconsistencies that can be attributed to this issue; these terms are ambiguous to actual wikipedians. They were ambiguous to me: it still makes no sense to me that categories use bimonthly or bi-monthly for every two months, but biannually for twice a year. Personally I prefer every two months and twice a month, but anything unambiguous would be better. An alternative solution would be to at least prefer writing something unambiguous like 'n/year' in the infobox parameter and make the template display it however you want (e.g. {{finedetail|bimonthly|every two months}} or bimonthly). Tokenzero (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I checked some of the major book-form style guides and most don't mention the issue (some use bimonthly without discussing it), but let me quote one that does. Fowler's "A Dictionary of Modern English Usage" (1926): bi- prefixed to English words of time gives words that have no merits & two faults : they are unsightly hybrids, & they are ambiguous. [...] Under these desperate circumstances we can never know where we are. There is no reason why the bi- hybrids should not be allowed to perish.. ;) Tokenzero (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • And the Guardian style guide, a good guide to clear modern (British) English, says:
biannual or biennial?
As no one can agree which of these means twice a year, and which means every two years, it’s best not to use them at all; “twice a year” or “every two years” are unambiguous.
The same applies to bimonthly and biweekly: say “every fortnight”, “twice a month” or “every two months”, and so on. It’s remarkable that no one has sorted this problem out; nearly a century ago, HW Fowler was already calling it “a cause of endless confusion”

PamD 22:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. I don't have a strong opinion here, so I guess I am partially supporting and partially opposing. In relation to academic journal publishing, I have not encountered any inconsistencies in usage. That is, biweekly means once every two weeks, bimonthly means once every two months, biannually (and semi-annually) means twice a year, biennially means once every two years, triannually means three times a year and triennually means once every three years. All of these terms seem to be widely used by libraries and academic journals themselves. Newspapers, as far as I know, are never published less than once a month, so they live on a different time scale and maybe standard usage is different there. I also would like to preserve our category structure for academic journals in Category:Academic journals by publication frequency, which is internally consistent and precise (each category page, such as Category:Biannual journals, explains exactly what the category means). But, Wikipedia being a general public resource, there is also something to be said for eliminating ambiguity, as PamD's proposal tries to do. I should say, however, that I strongly dislike the "n/year" format for indicating frquency, even though I am probably guilty of having used it in the past. Using abbreviations, especially involving special keyboard symbols, is aethtetically and stylistically unappealing, IMO. I would prefer more explicit verbal descriptions such as "2 times per year", "9 times per year" or "once every 2 years" or "once every 2 weeks". I would also be happy with a combined approach that Headbomb suggests above, where we use the descriptor from our category structure followed by a verbal parenthetical disambiguation if needed. E.g. something like:
  • weekly
  • biweekly (once every 2 weeks)
  • semi-monthly
  • monthly
  • bimonthly (once every 2 months)
  • quarterly
  • triannually (3 times per year)
  • biannually (2 times per year)
  • annually
  • biennially (once every 2 years)
  • triennually (once every 3 years)
  • n times per year [for all other cases]

At least that's my current thinking. Nsk92 (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If we're to change anything, I'd rather we get consistent across all categories in Category:Periodicals by frequency and use names when possible. However, like Nsk92 above, this current usage is consistent and unambiguous in library sciences. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Of course a lot of the use of "biennial" will be in gardening literature, the plants you sow one year which bloom the next and then die (as opposed to annuals and perennials). Just to complicate that ngram. PamD 19:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • A quick recap: 1. Just a moment ago, all the entries in Category:Triennial journals and Category:Quinquennial journals were wrong (relative to the category description), 2. Just a moment ago, Category:Bimonthly newspapers had the opposite meaning (before Headbomb unilaterally changed it without any discussion). 3. DIYeditor was unfamiliar with (the intended meaning of) biannually, 4. Ceyockey was unfamilair with biennially, 5. I thought biannually vs biennally was the other way around (and I keep having to use artificial mnemonics to remember). So clearly the terms are ambiguous to editors, please stop pretending otherwise. Even if they were unambiguous in a subset of the publishing industry (which excludes dictionaries, target audiences of style guides, and newspapers?), it would qualify as jargon, which should be avoided (MOS:JARGON, WP:SLANG). Yes, bianually can and should be at least replaced with semiannually; the problem is with bimonthly, biweekly, biennially, triannually, triennially. Can someone give me a reason not to use every two years, every two months? It's really not that long and it's recommended by many (off-wiki) style guides. Tokenzero (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • And what the heck @Headbomb:? You can't change how words are used by people just by overwriting them unilaterally. And if you do so, please take some care to make the paragraph sensible. Currently it reads Some newspapers are published two or three times a week and are known as biweekly publications. Some publications are published, for example, fortnightly (or biweekly in American parlance). Tokenzero (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Publisher

This is not the first time I've run into this issue but I wanted some clarity on this especially unclear situation: is Developmental Neuropsychology a Routledge journal or a Taylor & Francis journal? As in, should the publisher be listed and categorized as Routledge or T&F (or maybe both)? I went with Routledge (a subsidiary of T&F) based largely on the journal's NLM Catalog listing here but I am now unsure of it because I know the NLM Catalog entries are often inaccurate and I couldn't find much else that says the journal is published by Routledge. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Routledge is an imprint of T&F. If there's a distinction between the modern day Routledge and T&F, it's a very trivial one. All Routledge journals now are hosted on the T&F platform. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I would go with the principle of least surprise here. Going to primary website, it says Taylor and Francis Online, and the "About the journal" tab doesn't mention Routledge. For a journal with an impact factor, we can probably trust the primary site to tell the truth about who publishes the journal. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Routledge is operated as a separate imprint from T&F (cf Cell Press or Academic Press and Elsevier or BMC and SpringerNature). Even though fully owned by T&F (which in turn is fully owned by Informa), it operates rather independently. If you go to the homepage of the journal and look at the cover, it prominently proclaims to be published by Routledge. For once, the NLM (which indeed is quite often wrong about things like this) is correct by putting "Routledge" as publisher here (and the Library of Congress does the same). --Randykitty (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The confusing thing is, of course, that the journal's website is part of the Taylor & Francis website, and its homepage has Taylor & Francis branding everywhere without a trace of the word Routledge (except on the image of the journal cover). So I guess I'll keep it listed as Routledge. But does that mean that Category:Routledge academic journals shouldn't be a subcat of the T&F cat, since the two are (kind of) independent? IntoThinAir (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Automatic short description

Is there a way that {{Infobox journal}} could be modified to automatically generate a short description in the same way that, for example, {{Infobox album}} does? Pinging Headbomb. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@IntoThinAir: Probably. I just don't know what should go in a short description, so if you have examples, or a general structure for them, feel free to elaborate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

ISO-4 abbreviation language rules

I realized I may have been interpreting the rules wrong all along. The ISO-4 standard (pdf) for abbreviating journal titles relies on the LTWA (List of Title Word Abbreviations). The list has a column "Lang.", which contains one ore more languages, often including "mul" for "Multiple languages". I thought the intention was that rules should only be applied to titles in those languages, but that doesn't follow from the standard! I now believe all rules should always be applied, regardless of what the "Lang." column contains (it only serves as an indication of where the rule came from, i.e. what meaning was intended, or which ISSN National Centre produced it). Some arguments:

  • The ISO-4 document includes an example of an "appended article": bibliotek = bibl. and biblioteket = bibl.. The LTWA includes a rule bibliotek- bibl. lit,rus, but biblioteket is Swedish. So unless this LTWA entry changed, they intended the rule to apply to Swedish as well.
  • We have a fairly representative list of examples where the two methods differ. For _none_ of them I can think of a reason to abbreviate a word in Spanish, say, and not in English. For most of them not abbreviating according to all rules looks like nonsense. In particular I now believe words like 'atmosphere', 'documents', 'critique', 'contributions', 'biblical' should be abbreviated in English titles, despite the rules being spa only.
  • One example I know were the rules explicitly differ is real (actual) n.a. fre,eng vs real (royal) r. spa. But they have those parentheticals which suggest that they should be distinguished by meaning, not by language ("real" can mean either "real/actual" or "royal" in Spanish).

If you agree I'll fix instructions and defaults at abbrevIso and I'll update the mismatch lists so that I can start fixing all affected infoboxes (possibly around ~300 out of 8500). Sorry for not realizing that earlier. Tokenzero (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tokenzero: That's very possible we've been misinterpreting the rules indeed. I wonder if there's a way of contacting LTWA. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Tokenzero: Maybe try sending them an email / calling them? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I sent them an email and got a short reply that indeed, the language column only indicates the provenance of a word. I have a list of ~300 abbreviations to fix, I'll try to do that in a semi-automated way soon. Tokenzero (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Journal drafts (2019-07-22)

An easy way to get involved at AFC and review relevant drafts is to go at Template:Infobox journal, and inspect the 'what links here', filtered by namespace (select 'Draft').

This reveals the following

Help reviewing them would be great. Feel free to mark as checkY/checkY/☒N/ for Accepted/Has potential/No potential/TBD. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Most of those I already had on my watch list, I've added those that weren't included, too. My own strategy is to go to Special:NewPages, limit to draft space, and search for the words "journal" and "magazine". For many of those drafts it's just waiting until they're G13 eligible, as they are far from notable. But the above list has several that are listed in Scopus or even have an IF and therefore clearly meet NJournals and were nevertheless rejected by editors who obviously had no idea about how to handle academic journal articles. Still, none of them was ready and all needed lots of work to become an acceptable article. When I've time, I'll have a closer look at those that are notable. --Randykitty (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I've marked my assessment of where things stand. Red ones are hopeless IMO. Yellow ones have at least some merit, and could probably be merged somewhere if not accepted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Journals indexed in Scopus may be more likely to be predatory (by some measure) than the average, so that's hardly a significant criterion. High impact factor also tends to correlated with low academic quality. Nemo 16:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The main difference is likely the inclusion of Hindawi, Frontiers Media and MDPI journal in Scopus. Together, those are 413 journals that would be deemed 'predatory' by thinking Beall = Predatory, rather than Beall = Questionable. This does show Scopus to be somewhat less selective than WoS, but these three borderline publishers are more questionable than predatory. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Nope. These three were not the culprits in that one study. Inclusion in Scopus or WoS just gives no information whatsoever, I advise against considering it for anything other than a sign that the publisher cares about international promotion. Nemo 17:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Out of 7,000 journals in Beall’s List

  • 248 in Scopus
  • 14 in WoS

Out of 599 journals in our sample

  • 131 in Scopus
  • 10 in WoS"

Given no information is given about which journals those are, and that these are comparable to the numbers I get from including Frontiers/Hindawi/MDPI (they had fewer journals back in 2012), I don't see how you can say those 248 journals aren't the MDPI/Hindawi/Frontiers one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not consider it the case that all journals that have appeared in that list are necessarily predatory. A good number of them are apparently journals which the publisher started on the optimistic position that if they made the title available, papers would eventually come. (A good conventional publisher makes very sure that they have a considerable number of papers available --usually from the editorial board and their students) before they publish the first issue, because they need to convince people to subscribe.) This has to be distinguished from the true parasitic publishers who start titles they know very well will never develop, (or where they are too ignorant to be able to tell such things) and don't particularly care.
Scopus does discriminate in which of these titles it includes. I tend to consider their choices rational, and I still would accept being indexed in there as a reasonable standard. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Indeed Beall isn't perfect, but the bigger mistake people make with Beall's list is to assume that the list provides a yes/no assessment of predatoriness, rather than a yes/no assessment of "reader/writer beware". Beall did not distinguish between 100% predatory and fishy/questionable/low quality. Frontiers/MDPI journals are mostly terrible, and you wouldn't catch me dead publishing in them. But at the same time, you can't dismiss a study purely because it's in Frontiers/MDPI, unlike something published in a SCIRP/OMICS journal which are universally terrible. Knowing it was in Frontiers/MDPI would have me triple check it before citing them, and only as a last resort. But I wouldn't blacklist them by any stretch. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not my experience that MDPI journals are mostly terrible, while for instance I keep finding horrifying crap published by Elsevier. Of course all publishers make mistakes, but problems with MDPI are largely a myth. We need to be evidence-based, see https://danbrockington.com/2019/12/04/an-open-letter-to-mdpi-publishing/ Nemo 13:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Clearly you have never read Entropy (journal). See also [33]. They're not universally useless, but it's a very dodgy venue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Journal of Asian and African Studies help

@DGG: on this one. Background

From the Sage website, it seems like Sage acquired Journal of Asian and African Studies in 2002, and continued publishing it under the same name.

From the Brill website, it seems like Brill published Journal of Asian and African Studies until 2001, then it renamed it Asian and African Studies and continued publishing it under a different name since 2002.

WTF is going on here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Sadly https://journaltransfer.issn.org/ only has data from 2013.
When journals are transferred, the original publisher often retains some rights over the archive. Maybe they have agreed to use a different name in following years to reduce "confusion"? Nemo 13:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Beall's (new) list is possibly down

I added a link to Web Archive to the article for those who are looking for it. WP:CITEWATCH and WP:CITEWATCH/SETUP have been updated to point to the archived pages when available. The publisher/journal/hijacked lists were archived, but it seems the vanity press page was not. Or at least I can't find an archived version of it.

This would really suck if the updated list was permanently down, rather than a temporary hiccup. This happened in the last few hours. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

It's fine to reference archived versions from pages discussing the list itself, but for other purposes it's better to just stop using a discontinued and outdated resource. It's like checking the weather on last year's newspapers before deciding whether to go out with an umbrella. Nemo 14:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
There's no other source that remotely compares to Beall's list. As long as any statement is dated 'appeared on Beall's list before it was taken down in 2017', it's fine to use as a source for the fact that a publisher was listed on Beall's list. Also a great resource to fight predatory citations in general, both in and off Wikipedia, provided you don't leave your brain at the door and assume the list is perfect, and remember that some of those listed will merely be questionable rather than predatory. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Maybe. The DOAJ is a work in progress but it's already more comprehensive (in terms of journals and publishers examined, whether included or rejected) and way more systematic. It's also easier to check, for instance you can programmatically query the Unpaywall API to know whether a specific DOI was published in a DOAJ-listed journal or not. (At least for publishers using CrossRef.) Nemo 18:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Blacklists are better than whitelists when it comes to hunting down crap. Something absent from DOAJ could mean it's crap, but it could also mean they just never bothered to apply for inclusion in DOAJ, or that the journal is too new for it, or a million other reasons that don't imply crapness, the chief reason being simply that the journal isn't open access. Access to Cabell's list would be fantastic, but it's also prohibitively paywalled. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
We also have the Nordic lists on Wikidata, by the way. I have little hope that Cabell's list will be any better than what we had before: the first studies published about it did not find it performed spectacularly better than anything else, and being paywalled means it avoids wide scrutiny.
Yes, thousands of OA journals have not yet applied to DOAJ, and what's worse DOAJ doesn't examine closed-access journals, many of which are predatory; but then, thousands if not millions of book publishers, news publishers and websites are used in references without ever having been examined by a committee. In short, there's plenty of work to do, and it's ok to do what we can, there will always be more... Nemo 09:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Never heard of closed access journals (I assume that subscription journals are meant) being referred to as "predatory". As for the Nordic lists, Norway has a small population and while its universities are generally of a very high quality, it is important to note that, given the size of the academic communities there, these lists are compiled by very few people. --Randykitty (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
DOAJ is specifically concerned with open access journals. Predatory publishing is a feature of open access publishing because of the author pays model, which incentivizes lax reviewing standards. Closed access journals are subscription based, which incentivizes proper peer review, so predatoriness, as the term is generally understood, is not something that you have to worry about in subscription journals. Subscription journals can still have problems, but they will be of a different nature. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I've known some subscription journals with remarkably low standards of peer review. I've also known quite a few that I would class as predatory--with the victims not being the authors who thought they were paying for an article in a journal that would be rejected, but the libraries and universities that paid the subscription--and subscriptions are always paid in advance), sometimes for "volumes" that would be published as single issues, or even that would never be published at all. I should look to see what we say in the articles on some of them. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Just FYI, I have found one page (but no more) on the weebly Beall's list site that is currently still live: [34]. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
If it's really gone, that's too bad. I saved local copies of publisher/journal for my own use in case of this sort of eventuality but didn't bother with hijacked/vanity, so unfortunately I can't help in any recovery efforts. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

There's a Google cache version that lists the following as vanity presses:

XOR'easter (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

It's back up now! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

And apparently we should replace the weebly link with a link to the "more permanent" URL beallslist.net. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

FYI, Nature's criteria for "predatory journals" clearly apply to Elsevier. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03759-y Nemo 15:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It clearly doesn't. But sure, keep twisting things to suit your viewpoints. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, what nonsense. I don't recognize Elsevier in this either. --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caucasian Journal

This AfD just was relisted for a second time, but apart from the nom there are no other !votes. Interested editors are invited to give their opinions. --Randykitty (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 2#Bunch of journal/magazine people categories

Please comment at the above link. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:JCW/DOI

Thanks to the efforts of JLaTondre, we now have a new section to our WP:JCW compilation: Journals organized by DOI prefixes. The gist of it is that to each DOI prefix corresponds a publisher/imprint, so this (more or less) organizes our cited journals by those publishers/imprints. Note that a publisher may have multiple DOI prefixes associated with it.

The compilation will be particularly useful to gnomes that like to make sure the correct journals are cited, or those that want to make sure that specific publishers/imprints are covered adequately on Wikipedia. For example, 10.1073 covers PNAS, but you will notice many entries aren't actually PNAS. Those can then be cleaned up to either use the correct DOI (if |doi=10.1073/... is incorrect), or the correct journal (if |journal=Not PNAS is incorrect).

Cheers. If you have questions, feel free to ask! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Daniel Mietchen: you might be interest in this in particular. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Nice indeed — thanks! -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Montana magazine styling dispute

Please comment at Talk:Montana (magazine). Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

What section title says basically. The List of entomology journals page uses a lot of ISSN links using the Template:ISSN template, especially when there are both print/online versions. Having learned recently that Template:ISSN link exists, I was wondering if it'd be okay to switch to using that template instead or not. I tried asking at the list page's talk page but got no response, so I've taken the question here instead. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Eh nevermind, maybe I should just be WP:BOLD and do it anyway, at this rate. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Physics (1964–1968)

I posted an inquiry over at WikiProject Physics and am cross-listing it here. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

European Journal of Paediatric Neurology

I created an article on the European Journal of Paediatric Neurology. I think it's notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia Project Grant Proposal on *Disinformation*

I'm proposing a Wikimedia Foundation Project Grant to study *disinformation* and provide actionable insights and recommendations.

Please check it out and endorse it if you support it.

Meta:Grants:Project/Misinformation_And_Its_Discontents:_Narrative_Recommendations_on_Wikipedia's_Vulnerabilities_and_Resilience

Cheers! -Jake Ocaasi t | c 20:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Archive_5&oldid=1212161721"