Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Collaboration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Academic Journals (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Collaboration of the week[edit]

When I set up the project page, I selected Journal of the Royal Statistical Society as the example CotW, because the investigation on WP:LOMJQ indicates that it is the red link with the highest number of uses. Does anyone have any objections to it being our first, and/or suggestions on what day of the week we have the CotW start? John Vandenberg 07:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society[edit]

Journal information from WP:LOMJQ:

  •  : Used 104 times on Wikipedia
History:

No problem with Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, though I don't think that number of uses on Wikipedia (which is presumably counting instances of wikilinked full titles, rather than unlinked abbreviations?) is necessarily the most informative metric. I'm not sure what I'd suggest, as raw impact factor would clearly bias towards review journals such as the Annual Reviews series.

However, I do wonder whether it's useful having a collaboration to start individual journal pages? I'd imagined such collaborations would be used for general pages (such as impact factor, though that looks in reasonable shape) or in an attempt to create a set of high-quality articles that might be suitable for submitting for Featured Articles review. In terms of new articles, it might be more useful to make a hitlist of the top 500 missing journals (by some metric or other) and encourage project members to create short articles on those journals in their subject areas, ie a drive format rather than a collaboration. Espresso Addict 15:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We have a list at Wikipedia:List_of_missing_journals/Queue, and the simplest thing is for people to take those in their subject area. Another good way to collaborate might be to concentrate on the journals of a single society. The major nonprofit journals are the ones we need most. DGG (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing that we're all already doing the former -- the question is how to motivate everyone to even greater efforts! Espresso Addict 00:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
No there hasnt been any activity behind WP:LOMJQ for a long time. Before doing drives, it would be good to find or write a good article. Then we can use that to illustrate what a good article looks like. The "104" is from the number of google hits of the phrase "Journal of the Royal Statistical Society" (over six months ago). John Vandenberg 09:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I cobbled together a history and put up a stub based off information on Jstor -- add it to your watch lists and let's start improving! If we can find anything interesting about these journals, we should aim to submit our CotW's to DYK. Also, as mentioned above, I'd really like to get Nature (journal) up to featured status and input from everyone here (let's do it at talk:Nature (journal) though) would be greatly appreciated! --JayHenry 16:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be useful to discuss (probably on the talk page rather than here) how to handle journals with complex histories, and multiple journals in a single article. I have no idea what should go in the infobox for a start! I agree we should submit it to DYK if an interesting fact can be uncovered -- it would get a lot more visibility for this project. Does anyone know about the history of mathematics or statistics publishing? At 1838, it seems to stand a good chance of being the oldest of something... Espresso Addict 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On 24 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

I submitted a hook at the last minute and we made it. Hooray! --JayHenry 20:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! John Vandenberg 21:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Week Two[edit]

Time for a new collaboration of the week. Or perhaps we should change to collaboration of the fortnight? Since there's not very many of us, it'd probably be good to just have somebody pick the COTW and notify everyone here. I personally don't think we need much discussion. In addition to COTW (COTF?), I think it'd be really great to focus on one of the WT:WPAJ#High-priority articles, and have an ongoing FA drive, but we don't want to over-extend ourselves. Also, would it be worthwhile notifying more people of this project? A mini-recruitment drive? I think more people would be interested in this project if they knew about it. --JayHenry 21:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Just rolling out the project template on relevant article talk pages should draw in interested editors. What else did you have in mind? (Well done on the DYK, by the way.) Espresso Addict 22:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Of the "High-priority articles", I prefer that we work on the articles that need the most work, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences appears to be the "worst" of them so unless anybody objects in the next few hours, I'll take JayHenry's advice and make it the second CotW.
Personally, I would rather we keep running CotW as a weekly burst of energy. To account for the low number of project members, we should pick the CotW a week in advance so that we can "advertise" the upcoming CotW to other Wikipedians who are more focused on the journal we are improving. We want other projects to be watching the improvements, to hopefully join in, and ideally to carry on the efforts we start. If we can have one DYK per week, new members shouldn't be hard to find. Picking a journals in different academic field each week will also help.
For collaborations that require a lot of careful work, such as a bringing an article up to GA or FA, I think a CotM would be more appropriate. We should start the planning for one of those soon.
So, can someone else suggest a journal for next week and do some advertising throughout the week ? John Vandenberg 13:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Could we do an astronomical journal next week? I mentioned MNRAS before, but any of the old, venerable and major astronomical journals would do. Let's hope we have a Category:Astronomy journals... Carcharoth 15:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Two that caught my eye were Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and Astronomische Nachrichten. That last one has a ready-made DYK hook, as it is "the oldest continuously published astronomical journal". We could ask people at Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science to join in. Carcharoth 15:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Could I put a biology/biochemistry journal in the queue? Cell and/or J Biol Chem are both very highly cited journals with only tiny stubs. Agree that we should involve WP History of Science as they are likely to have more access to historical material on journals/learned societies, and advertising the collaboration to the relevant subject WP would seem a great idea.
Re DYK, it will be hard to get the required 5-fold text expansion of articles that are longer than very small stubs, and finding catchy hooks about journals is quite tricky. I have given it a go with IJSEM; it'll be interesting to see whether anyone selects it. Espresso Addict 20:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On 2 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Congratulations! :-) Carcharoth 15:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Planning ahead[edit]

I have selected Astronomische Nachrichten as it has a DYK hook ready to roll; and Journal of Biological Chemistry to follow that. By then we will have done a few different scientific fields, so it would be good to line up a few journals in the social sciences and literary fields, or maybe we could tackle an important topic that is relevant. John Vandenberg 12:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done some initial stuff at Astronomische Nachrichten, and I hope to track down some important discoveries that it published in its early years. One thing I'm not sure about is the open access thing. If someone could check. It seems to be delayed access, but I'm not sure. The history of publication is also confusing, with the number of issues varying over the years. I hope to be able to add a little bit about that at some point (the publication history should be available all the way through). The exact years when the different companies and organisations published it would be nice as well, but I'm leaving it for today. Carcharoth 19:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I have left a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Collaboration‎. I am going to work on Astronomische Gesellschaft for a bit to work out their involvement in this journal. John Vandenberg 03:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Nominations for future CotW: