Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

BioScience needs attention

BioScience has been languishing for years with no infobox or independent sources. Someone should really fix that (I'd do it myself but I'm sick of doing it for lots of other journals). Jinkinson talk to me 01:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• With the few active editors here, this is to be expected. I bet there are dozens of journal articles like that... I have been offline almost all weekend, so I have a backlogged watchlist. If I have a moment, I'll give it a try. But usually, I leave such articles alone unless there is a compelling reason (like someone PRODding it or taking it to AfD. There's just too much work to do... --Randykitty (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Total free access to Royal Society History of Science journals for 2 days on March 25th and 26th !!!

As Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the National Academy for the sciences of the UK, I am again pleased to say that the two Royal Society History of Science journals will be fully accessible for free for 2 days on March 25th and 26th. This is in conjunction with the Diversity in Science Edit-a-thon on 25 March. The event is held by the Royal Society and there are currently a couple of places available, as well as online participation which is very welcome, as are suggestions for articles relevant to the theme of "Diversity in Science" that need work, and topics that need coverage.

The journals will have full and free online access to all from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 25th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 26th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old. They are:

• Notes and Records: the Royal Society journal of the history of science
• Biographical Memoirs of the Fellows of the Royal Society

The RS position is a "pilot" excercise, running between January and early July 2014. Please let me know on my talk page or the project page if you want to get involved or have suggestions. There will be further public events in May, as well as many for the RS's diverse audiences in the scientific community; these will be advertised first to the RS's emailing lists and Twitter feeds. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Nursing and nursing journals

Hi, I have started a discussion about the categorization of nursing journals here and the input of interested editors is welcome. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Taylor & Francis 2013 Impact Factor

I am having trouble finding the impact factor for some T&F journals. However, I have discovered a PDF for 2013 impact factors and other information. Of course, this is still the 2012 impact factors.

And, here is the 2012 edition of this PDF - [1]. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Historia

I believe that our dab page Historia is missing fr:Historia (revue), which is Historia (Q3138323), claiming a 1909 year of commencement. The French Wikipedia page uses ISSN 0998-0091, added back in 2006[2].

As far as I can see, that ISSN 0998-0091 is wrong, and it is allocated to a book series by the same/similar name published from Perpignan, France. bibliothèque de l'Institut de recherche et d'histoire des textes (Q16338024)'s record calls it Collection Col.leccio Historia, and Stanford SearchWorks has two records which include that ISSN.

There is also Historia (Q15750593), which is included in the ERA journal list (as a 'C' ranked journal in 2010), and whose ISSNs given are 1270-0835 and 1625-6581, which report it was published by Éditions Tallandier (Q3237900), 1956-, 1995- and 2000- in various records, with one note that says "Mensuel. / Fait suite à [continues]: Historia. Historama." and the another also mentions ISSN 0018-2281 and ISSN 1283-453X. This and that say it commenced in June 1955. This has the very informative note: "Suite de : Historia, Historama. = ISSN 1255-8230 qui est une fusion de : Historia (1956) = ISSN 0018-2281 et de Historama, Histoire magazine = ISSN 0752-3408. - A comme supplément(s) : Le Point Historia = ISSN 1969-9859" [Continues Historia, Historama. ISSN 1255-8230, which was a merge of Historia (1956) ISSN 0018-2281 and Historama, Histoire magazine ISSN 0752-3408. Supplement blah blah ]. It seems the merge happened around 1995.

After consulting this, I am basicly ready to conclude that Historia (Q3138323) = Historia (Q15750593), it has had many different names over its long history, and someone needs to write it up , as the French article isnt very informative.

One issue is that Historia (Q3138323) is listed as published by Sophia Publications (Q16336113), where as Historia (Q15750593) is published by Éditions Tallandier (Q3237900). According to fr:Artémis (holding) and [3], they are both controlled by the Pinault family. My guess is Sophia was created during a restructure of Tallandier Éditions. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The Courtland Journal

This newspaper is at AFD. Although not an academic journal, the AFD discussion centers (among other things) on the possible use of this newspaper as an academic source, so this may be of interest to some editors here. --Randykitty (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Philatelic journals or Philatelic magazines

There's a discussion over the proper name for the category Philatelic journals editors here may be interested in. --Randykitty (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review Request: Psychological Injury and Law (Journal)

If one or more of you would take a look at Psychological Injury and Law (Journal) I would greatly appreciate it. I am on the Board of Directors of the professional society that sponsors the journal and I am an occasional editor and one-time author in the journal. I therefore tried to be extra careful about WP:NPOV. If you see anything that looks slanted, biased, promotional, etc., please have at it! Many thanks - Mark D Worthen PsyD 17:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Markworthen: I reviewed the article and tweaked it a little, although you'll need a member of the WikiProject to assess it. I took out a section header since it created a lede that wasn't really a lede. As the article develops I think there might be a more intuitive way to break up the text and then you can write an over-arching summary to be your lead paragraph. As time goes by I'd also like to see more independent sourcing, as a lot of this is based on the journal itself and the publisher. Thanks for posting here since you have a conflict of interest. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: - Your edits made a lot of sense to me, and I appreciate your advice re: how to improve the article further. I will be on the lookout for info about the journal from sources other than ASAPIL and Springer. I was surprised at how much of the article was deleted by Randykitty (diff), but she is a very experienced editor who concentrates on academic journals, so I shall trust that she prunes prudently. ;o)

I will read more about writing good, succinct articles at WikiProject Academic Journals and learn from this experience. All the best. - Mark D Worthen PsyD 00:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Mark, here are some tips. --Randykitty (talk) 08:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Randykitty: I had read that piece but not carefully enough as I discovered some tips I can implement to improve the article, e.g., I needlessly got cold feet about a cover image. The recommended essay and peer review tool are very helpful. Speaking of helpful, your list of resources on your user page is excellent. And, I now understand the red links for as-yet-to-be-created articles (WP:REDLINK) thanks to your patient edits of my newbie mistakes. - Mark D Worthen PsyD 12:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Markworthen: Once upon a time... all of us were newbies :-) Don't worry Mark. WP can be a bit daunting at the beginning, but most people here are pretty helpful. Don't hesitate to ask here or on my talk page if you need something, if I don't know the answer, I generally at least know whom to ask. --Randykitty (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Randykitty: Thanks! Much appreciated. Yes, I have received awesome help, encouragement, and suggestions from fellow Wikipedians. And I now I know about {{ping|Username}}, in addition to {{replyto|Username}}, which I learnt from Chris Troutman! Mark D Worthen PsyD 06:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Markworthen:, I have created Psychological Injury and Law (Q16736827) in Wikidata, and added some of the information which was removed from the Wikipedia article, where possible. It is a good place to add details for things which do not yet have a Wikipedia article, such as the editor, organisation, etc, and it is also OK to all of the main editors, as each has a 'rank'. It is also a good place to collect the details where a conflict of interest is less burdensome, as you cant easily introduce bias in data, and then others can construct the prose around those facts free of suggestion from the person with the COI. Othertimes it is not an option to store details in Wikidata. e.g. impact factors are probably not able to be put into Wikidata - see d:Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2014/Properties/1; coverage in bibliographic databases was rejected at d:Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative_work#indexed in, etc. Like others here, I appreciate you notifying this WikiProject about your COI with the topic. Hopefully you create more articles about journals in your discipline area. Here are 'missing' English Wikipedia articles for periodicals, where we have an article in German Wikipedia, in French Wikipedia, or Italian Wikipedia, or Russian Wikipedia ;-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@John Vandenberg:Wow. I did not even know about Wikidata. Thanks so much for the tip and your help with the article. :o) Mark D Worthen PsyD 03:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Another interesting aspect of putting records into Wikidata is that they appear in many languages of Wikipedia after the search results. e.g. id:Special:search/Psychological Injury and Law and it:Special:search/Psychological Injury and Law and es:Special:search/Psychological Injury and Law and pl:Special:search/Psychological Injury and Law. Not all wikis have this enabled. The text appears in the language of the reader, wherever possible. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox journal embedded in an article

In order to migrate data from infoboxes to Wikidata, I need to avoid migrating template:infobox journal data when the article is about a different thing. As a result, my scripts now have a rule that if the infobox is more than 200 characters from beginning of the page content, I assume the infobox should be ignored. Below is a list of all articles with {{infobox journal}} that not on a 'journal' article.

• Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
• Chemical Abstracts Service
• UCL Institute of Archaeology
• Glasgow University Dialectic Society
• American Society of Consultant Pharmacists
• Al-Mawrid
• EMBnet
• Congress on Research in Dance
• American Academy of Political and Social Science
• ACM Multimedia - probably cant be split for notability reasons
• Association québécoise de linguistique
• Progressive Librarians Guild
• Health Physics Society
• American Society of Church History
• Communications in Statistics
• Photonics Society of Poland
• Hawaiian Entomological Society
• Kilkenny Archaeological Society
• Lithic Studies Society
• The Society for the Study of the Multi-Ethnic Literature of the United States
• Hungarian Ornithological and Nature Conservation Society (result of merge)

Australia (sublist as this is the largest cohort)

• Australia ICOMOS
• Royal Australian Historical Society
• Australasian Society for Historical Archaeology
• Melbourne School of Continental Philosophy
• Museums Australia
• Association for the Study of Australian Literature
• Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences
• Royal Historical Society of Queensland
• Historical Society of the Northern Territory

Some of those might be able to be split to separate articles about only the journal, but in many cases the journal and society are not both separately notable. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hi John, I had a look at a few. Some are legitimate journals and the infoboxes correctly placed (just not independently notable journals that have been merged with a society article, for example). For example, the Dance Research Journal in the article on the Congress on Research in Dance. Some have an incorrect infobox (like the Chemical Abstracts Service, which concerns a database, not a journal - even though there was a print edition in the past). Others (like Communications in Statistics, there are more like that) are articles where a journal exists in different series, where each series get a separate infobox because they have different editors, ISSNs, IFs, etc. Even though those journals may be independently notable (because they have separate IFs, for example) it is often better to group them into one article, because of intertwined histories (and also one gets a more "meaty" article that way, not always possible for articles on journals). The solution for all these cases is probably to list them like you did and check them before importing data. I'll go through them if I find time (currently a bit short on that...) More insidious are cases where infoboxes are incorrectly chosen. I regularly encounter magazines with a journal infobox or the other way around. --Randykitty (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Medicine (journal)

Can anybody cleanup this AfC draft before we send it into Main? I'd appreciate a check of the impact factor (best I could do was ResearchGate) and indexing (only Elsevier, really?) as well as the content (which is underreferenced and a bit peacocky). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• This needs a lot of cleanup before it would be ready for mainspace. Not sure this is actually a journal as such, seems to be an online book that is kept updated. It has no impact factor, although there is a journal called Medicine that has one (4.233), but it is published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (ISSN 0025-7974). So it looks like the article mixes up two different publications. It is also rather promotional ("An eminent board of some 35 chapter editors and over 750 authors, all experts in their specialist fields"). I unfortunately have not much time right now to look further into this. Some tips can be found in our writing guide. --Randykitty (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it's the notability that's at issue before doing a cleanup (writing guide would be great for that). It claims to be the "largest paid-for GP/hospital doctor circulation in the UK" if Elsevier media kits are to be believed. I see that the impact factor was wrong (and we do have an article on the other "Medicine"). It's an Elsevier product, published one chapter at a time so each chapter is updated every 4 years, from what I gather. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• In that case, you could try to find book reviews or independent confirmation of the circulation figures. If it is as important as Elsevier claims, there should be sources somewhere. --Randykitty (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

ORCID

Those of you involved in writing for, editing, or publishing journals may be interested in ORCID. ORCID is an open system of identifiers for people - particularly researchers and the authors of academic papers; but also contributors to other works, not least Wikipedia editors. ORCIDs are a bit like ISBNs for books or DOIs for papers. You can register for one, free, at http://orcid.org As well as including your ORCID in any works to which you contribute, you can include it in your user page using {{Authority control}} thus: {{Authority control|ORCID=0000-0001-5882-6823}} (that template can also include other identifies, such as VIAF and LCCN - there's an example on my user page). ORCID identifiers can also be added to biographical articles, either directly or via Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Medical Science (journal)

An original new way of making people think you're a respectable journal: look for a respectable title that folded long ago and claim you're the continuation and tht your new journal actually was established back in the 50s... --Randykitty (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence

As of today, I am Wikipedian in Residence at ORCID. The role is described in Announcing ORCID's Wikipedian-in-Residence. Please let me know if I can assist you, in that or any other capacity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Journal of Exotic Pet Medicine

I created an article on Journal of Exotic Pet Medicine. The impact factor seems low, but the journal seems respectable enough. If anyone can improve the article, that would be appreciated. I first encountered the journal as a reference for Wobbly hedgehog syndrome. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Academic Journals At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on notability

I have started a discussion on the application of notability guidelines to academic journals at the Village Pump here. Opinions are welcome. --Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Journal of International Translational Medicine

Could other editors look at Journal of International Translational Medicine? I am not sure that it is notable. I converted another editor's speedy to a prod to allow time for others to look at the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• If I thought it was salvageable, I wouldn't have tagged it for CSD. Apart from promotional, it was a copyvio, too, but I thought G11 was enough so didn't bother with tagging it also as copyvio... I've added a prod2, it's absolutely not notable. --Randykitty (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Journal of Financial Studies

I accepted Journal of Financial Studies. I think it's notable, but if you feel it isn't, please tag the article accordingly. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

2013 impact factors

The new impact factors are online (if you have access to the JCR, but publishers usually update their websites quite rapidly). Please also update any references when updating IFs: many articles have the IF not only in the infobox, but also in the text. The publication year needs to be changed to 2014, the title to "2013 JCR". Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

SCOAP3

There's an article to be written here. I've started it, but it could be expanded to a much better article, and likely get a WP:DYK from it if we work fast enough. Not sure about how feasible it is to take to GA (or even FA status), but this one has more potential than a lot of things under the umbrella of WP:JOURNALS. Just dropping by to let you know I'm planning on working on this one (plus member journals) over the next few days. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Mega journal nominated for deletion

If you could please weigh in here. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

International Journal of Business and Emerging Markets

Could other editors please look at International Journal of Business and Emerging Markets? I am not sure that the journal is notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Borderline at best. It's indexed in EconLit, which is not bad, but that is all. For me personally that is not enough. --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As academic journals in business go, this one seems pretty decent. No embedded advertising, no article prep fees, low subscription cost, a globally distributed editorial board, and double-blind reviews. Held in many libraries and archived via CLOCKSS. I'd be happier if I saw some impact figures, though. Editor is here on viaf.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Best practices for bad journals tied to good organizations

Many reputable organizations publish a journal of minor influence which do not meet even WP:NJOURNALS. How would anyone feel about them existing as categorized redirects to the organization's Wikipedia article?

Consider the Faculty Dental Journal of the Faculty of Dental Surgery. This organization is an influential authority on dental practices. This journal is their journal, and I presume it publishes excellent boring information which never will be critiqued in other third party sources and therefore will not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria.

Could the article on this journal persist as a redirect to the organization's article, but be categorized in Category:Dentistry journals? I presume that this journal is at least worth mentioning in that organization's article, and it probably could be listed in an article called "List of dentistry journals", but I agree it does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. However, it would be more useful to categorize it then mention it in odd places, yet categorization only happens for items with their own Wikipedia page. That page can be a redirect and still get the categorization.

Randykitty, any thoughts? You PROD'd the page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• It could meet NJournals if it would get accepted in MEDLINE, for example, or the Science Citation Index Expanded. However, until such time as a journal is notable, I don't think there is anything against redirecting to the parent organization (and it could even be mentioned briefly in that article). Also, redirects can (and sometimes are) categorized, so that's not a problem either. I would not include it in a "list of xxx journals" until it is independently notable, though. Those lists are horrible spam magnets and it's quite a lot of work to keep them clean from, for example, direct links to predatory journals. So I routinely remove entries if there is no corresponding article. The need to check every redirect would make that a bit task harder. As a general note, I think we should only make such redirects for organizations in good standing. Consider OMICS Publications, quite a disreputable publisher. We don't want to have redirects for all of their journals, I think... --Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirecting and categorizing the redirect is definitely best practice, in both minor non-WP:NJOURNALS, or in notable journals where redirects where already created e.g. Physical Review D. Taking Phys Rev D for example, you'll see it is categorized in both Category:Physics journals and Category:American Physical Society academic journals. In the case of Faculty Dental Journal, I would definitely categorize the redirect in at least Category:Dentistry journals establishment year other journal categories. I would also expand Faculty of Dental Surgery to include the information on its publications. See Ornis Hungarica and Hungarian Ornithological and Nature Conservation Society for example.

As for disreputable publishers, I sort of disagree with Randy, at least in some cases. If we have an article on a notable crap publisher, I think it would make sense to redirect for all its journals, and categorize it in the publisher category only (possibly with Category:Fringe science journals, but certainly not legit journal categories like Category:Physics journals or similar). I wouldn't do that for "spam publishers" (i.e. crap publisher with 200 journals focusing on volume), but I probably would if let's say the Time cube people has 5-6 serials under one notable publisher.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Lane's example is rather troubling. I take it as an indication that wp:NJournal needs revision, rather than that the journal's article needs deletion. If we delete articles on "boring" well-run journals, we wind up in effect promoting their competition whose sloppier policies permit the publication of more dubious content, which in turn generates the controversy we consider evidence of notability. Is that really what we want our policies to do? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well keep in mind that we do have articles on fringe journals who are notable. Notability != quality/reliability. The best example I can think of is Journal of Cosmology. They were deleted on grounds of quality and notability, but then they said a lot of really dumb stuff covered in press, and that put them over the threshold of notability. I don't see a particular problem with that, as long as we right the articles accordingly. This is why Westboro Baptist Church has its article on Wikipedia, even if it's not as mainstream as the Roman Catholic Church. The existence of either of these articles these articles does not depend on their religious dogmas being true/accepted/whatever, the quality of their charitable work, etc. Only that they are notable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not the same thing. We have articles on those fringe journals because they meet GNG, just as OMICS meets GNG because of its being so bad. Those are actually easy cases. I'm talking about journals that don't meet GNG and not even NJOURNALS, where we would among ourselves decide which ones are solid enough for inclusion (which I don't think we should do). --Randykitty (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There are several problems with what you say. First, if you look at the history of NJOURNALS, you'll see that it was not accepted as a guideline because multiple editors felt it was too permissive. True, others found it too restrictive, but I don't think that you'll get a consensus for making it more inclusive. Second, concerning the dentistry journal above, I agree that it is a solid, boring journal. In itself, no harm will come to the encyclopedia if we include an article to it. However, note that in that case we would include the article basically only based on our own (subjective) evaluation. That runs against all principles on which WP is built, and for good reason. Take Current Chemistry Letters. It's on Beall's list of predatory journals and not included in any selective database, so it fails NJOURNALS and I took it to AfD. But suppose would would admit the dentistry journal just because we feel that it is solid. Now look at the AfD. There is probably some socking going on, but at least one editor argues that it is a solid journal and therefore should be kept. Who's right? You'd get endless discussion not based on any criteria other than what a certain person feels is solid enough for WP. In short, we need criteria and I strongly feel that the current NJOURNALS is the best we can get. --Randykitty (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I share Randykitty's worries and concur with LeadSongDog's statement of the problem.

We are cataloging 6,000 journals in Wikipedia and if I had to guess, I would say more than 50% of those do not meet WP:GNG and are here for WP:NJOURNAL or even less. I personally do not think the Wikipedia article model is even useful for these journals because there usually is not not more than 1-2 facts to say about the journals beyond presenting infobox-style data about them. I often think of making a journal database in Wikidata so that when any citation is used, it can be tied to that journal as a Wikidata item, and we can get metrics about the use of journals cross-wiki and cross-language. Whatever place journals have on Wikipedia, getting data about them into Wikidata seems like their more natural place especially as technical content gets translated and people who will never read these journals still need to see data like journal affiliations, year of founding, and impact reports.

I am not eager to propose reform of NJOURNAL or exceptions to GNG. I might be more interested in joining discussions about putting this kind of information in Wikidata where it would be more useful, and imaging how Wikimedia projects could catalog an exhaustive list of journals that we scrape from every database. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like it might work. We would then only keep those articles on journals that meet GNG and the rest would be on wikidata. However, wikidata items as they are currently displayed are not for the common reader, so we'd need some kind of interface displaying those data in an infobox-like way. It might also be more difficult to keep them updated, but much depends on how things would be implemented. --Randykitty (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• BTW, the problem most of the time really is impatience. If a journal really is noteworthy, it will be included quite rapidly in selective databases. See, for example, ECS Electrochemistry Letters. It was established in 2012 and already had an impact factor listed in the 2013 JCR (published this summer). Which, as an aside, also dispels the myth that a journal must have at least 2 years of citation data before it gets included in the JCR... --Randykitty (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it isn't just me subjectively saying FDJ is relevant, rather it's a regulated professional society who publish that journal. As far as I can find, there is no such society publishing Current Chemistry Letters. Your example of the Electrochemical Society is an academic (rather than professional) but equivalently-credible publisher. The failure of wp:NJOURNALS to include the question of "Who published it" among the criteria is baffling. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't find that baffling: WP:NOTINHERITED. On my user page I have a short list of journals that were created by large established publishers and then fizzled after a short time, which shows that this, too, is no guarantee that a journal will eventually have a notable impact. --Randykitty (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It happens. It's rare, especially from the major scientific organizations (you list only 1, and only 1 from a univ. pres. The others arefrom commercial publishers, at least two of which I would not classify as first-rate. There's no point making a guideline on such a bsisis when it complicates an otherwise simple criterion. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Web of Knowledge

I have been informed on my talk page, essentially the images I placed on series of articles have been replaced. These have become orphaned non-free images: File:ISI Web of knowledge logo.jpg; File:Search result from ISI Web of Knowledge image.jpg; and File:Web of science and web of knowledge.gif.

It may be that these images are dated. However, interestingly, I did a Google search for Web of Knowledge. There are almost no hits in the first 30 slots for Web of Knowledge. There are only links to Web of Science. Does anyone know if Web of Knowledge still exists? If not then we might need to do some rewriting on Web of Knowledge and Web of Science articles. Also, I won't have time to work on these until December. Sorry. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. I may have found an answer on a Thomson Reuters' WoS page (click on link here) -- "You asked for a more intuitive search experience. And on January 12th, we unveiled an easier and more streamlined way for you to navigate our carefully curated citation index. We have improved your user experience, and renamed it. The Web of Knowledge — as you know it — is now simply the Web of Science" --Steve Quinn (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, I placed the first image mentioned above back into the article for historical purposes. It is now near the bottom of the Web of Knowledge article. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Steve Quinn Put the pictures in if they are used to discuss the subject of the article. It seems like there is some dispute about whether the product has changed name, or whether an old product was discontinued when a new one was introduced. If "Web of Knowledge" was a distinct thing, then it can have its Wikipedia article and these pictures. If it is something else now called by a different name, then maybe these pictures should be removed. I cannot say, and the sourcing seems ambiguous. What do you think should happen? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I only placed the logo File:ISI Web of knowledge logo.jpg back into the Web of Knowledge article for its possible historic value. Here is the diff. But this is just my opinion, and I am not sure a case can be made that it has historic purpose. I can fine tune the source for this file, if anyone wants more information on its source. The other files really don't seem to have further use on Wikipedia as non-free content, so I am not doing anything to stop their deletion. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, my main question is - does anyone know if Thomson Reuters still has the "Web of Knowledge"? I don't think so, according to --- this Thomson Reuters' page. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the upper right corner, you still see "Thomson Reuters" displayed. I entered the Web of Knowledge today and it still displayed Thomson Reuters. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Crossings (journal)

Could someone please review this edit to Crossings (journal)? I believe that library and society sources are appropriate for establishing #1 Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals). If the sources I have added are not appropriate (and I agree that they're minimal), let's either find better ones or PROD this article as non-notable.

I came across this in the course of updating Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/List_of_missing_journals/A-C#C and need some help to avoid edit warring. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

A few other possible sources for perusal:

• Supporting Materials and Research Techniques by Roy Schwartzman, John Fisher, Frank Baudino, Carolyn Johnson, Lori Mardis, Sarah G. Park, Connie Jo Ury, and Patricia J. Wyatt., Ch 6 of Fundamentals of Oral Communication by Roy Schwartzman, pp 163-196 http://www.fisherhouse.com/research/Schwartzman_CH06.pdf
• UMN College of Design recommendation: http://design.umn.edu/alumni_friends/documents/Electronicjournalsrevised_080806.pdf
• MST subject guide: http://library.mst.edu/subjectguides/reflib1/artslanguagephilosophy/

Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Libraries are only of limited use as sources. Making a link to a website is very easy (and doesn't cost them a dime), so may libraries or institutes have "resources" pages where they link to anything that could be of use (sometimes even to predatory open access journals). --Randykitty (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Subject guides (e.g. MST subject guide and the Boston University Library guide to museum studies) are hand-selected resources (so the cost is in time and expertise). They are not indiscriminate links to lists of free e-resources (which is where the links to predatory open access journals are likely to appear). Did you look at the book chapter above? I think it's more useful for someone (hopefully a third person) to look for more convincing signs of notability -- since the info above suggests they could be found. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't need a subscription to Scopus to check their journal listings (I'll do this in a few minutes, just back from a visit to the zoo :-). The chapter is, like the others, at best an in-passing mention.Yes, it indicates that there may be notability, but, no, I don't think ti satisfies NJournals (and let's not even talk GNG, because very few journals meet GNG directly). --Randykitty (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Too bad, it isn't in Scopus. --Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Not surprised: consider the type of journal. Can you please give me an example of a journal meeting #1 NJournals, to your personal standard? ("The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.") (BTW, is this the Scopus link, for my future reference?) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I checked the Thomson Reuters journal list (Arts & Humanities Citation Index and Current Contents). Journal is not listed there either.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I took another look at the book chapter. Sure, it's a passing mention -- in a table of recommended resources, as an example of an open access journal, in a chapter on 'how to do research'. It says "This chapter equips you to be a more effective producer, seeker, and user of information. The first part of the chapter explores the kinds of resources that can make what you say believable. The second part of the chapter guides you through the process of finding these resources efficiently." This suggests that more evidence can be found. I'm going to write the journal to ask where they're indexed (though again, given the type of journal, that's not a given). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• This Excel file contains the Scopus journal listings. The link you fund is, I think, a list of all Elsevier journals. Scopus lists many journals in the humanities and social sciences. I find NJournals#2 and #3 rather problematic. People often look at numbers of citations, but I find this very subjective, because what is "a lot" strongly depends on the field. Personally, I'd like good sources that say the journal is influential, but that makes #2 & 3 basically the same as meeting GNG. #1 is satisfied by inclusion in a database that is reasonably selective, because that is the equivalent of a reliable source stating that it is "influential in its subject area". That excludes such databases as GScholar, JournalSeek, or DOAJ, which strive for completeness, as well as a lot of other ones. Nevertheless, there are good and selective databases for almost any field (such as ATLA for theological journals). I find #1 the best criterion in NJournals, because it is the only one that is reasonably objective and it is rare that editors disagree about what is a selective database. Writing the journal is a good idea, they should know where they are listed and this would not be the first one that I see that doesn't display this info on their own website. It's been said on this page repeatedly, we really need a good guideline for the notability of academic journals, but getting such a guideline accepted by the community is in practice basically impossible. I tried to launch a discussion a while ago at the Villagepump (I think), but got the same problem as people ran into when proposing NJournals as a guideline (it's only an essay now): Many editors feel that any academic journal should be included, as many others think that only those that meet GNG should be included. I find both position undesirable. Including all means including a lot of crappy journals that have no influence at all and are completely forgettable. Including only those that meet GNG would mean that almost all journal articles would have to be deleted. The lack of a good guideline is really detrimental to this project, aggravated by the fact that usually very few editors participate in AfD debates. The subjective criteria in NJournals (2 & 3) make it rather easy for one or a few determined editors to get even the worst journal kept, whereas others sometimes take perfectly good journals to AfD because they don't recognize NJournals, wasting our time. I admit not having a solution to all of this... --Randykitty (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Hi again, @Randykitty:, thanks for the link (the journal list I linked above says "The Master Journal List includes all journal titles covered in Web of Science." -- so that's not just Elsevier publications). I agree that GNG is inappropriate for academic journals and that some journals should not be covered here. As a researcher who's studied AfD, I completely know what you mean about lack of participation. (Feel free to ping me if you see something that needs extra eyes but I don't have time to actively seek out debates; much of my time now is going to WP:AfC, partly because I see potential for improving the process, especially with the new Draft space.) NJournals seems good to me (and I'd support more formalization, let me know if that comes up again), but I do recognize subject librarian-created listings (not generic lists from library catalogs) as meeting #1 -- I think that's our main point of difference which I see we've come up against before. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Back to Crossings: I got the cryptic response that they're EBSCO-indexed at least (with the editor asking colleagues about other indexing), and found one confirmation they're in Art & Architecture Complete (I stopped there--they aren't in Academic Complete but they might be elsewhere, if you have a better place to look that up, aside from one-by-one per index/DB, let me know. I'll let you do the honors of removing the notability tag, if you think it's now justified, @Randykitty:. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The Scientific World Journal

There's a discussion on the talk page of this journal article about the appropriateness of including raw data on the numbers of items published each year. Comments from knowledgeable editors here are welcome. --Randykitty (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting discussion going on at WT:MEDRS

The discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Impact_factor_of_journals_as_the_determining_factor_in_weight Comments would be appreciated by those who know a lot about this issue. Jinkinson talk to me 02:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

other traditional citation impact metrics

please weigh in here: Template talk:Infobox journal#Eigenfactor?. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Impact Factor is a product name not a generic concept

pls weigh in here: Talk:Impact_factor#rename to Impact Factor (capitalized). Fgnievinski (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Academic journals by country of publication

I have just created Category:Academic journals published in the United Kingdom, Category:Academic journals published in the United States, and the parent category Category:Academic journals by country of publication. Please help to deploy them, and populate the latter with sub-categories for other countries. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh PLEASE... Not again. These country categories have been done away with years ago, as they are inappropriate for 90% of all academic journals. Modern academic publishing is thoroughly international. One journal I know of had the following situation: EIC in France, co-owned by an international society and a publisher in the UK (subsequently sold to an American publisher, but office handling the journal still located in the UK), editorial board all over the world, typesetter in India, printer in Malaysia, print copies mailed by a company in Singapore. Pray tell me what the nationality of this journal is. In infoboxes we routinely leave the "country" field empty. We only fill it in if the journal is published by a national society (not if it is an international society, even though for legal reasons they will be officially registered as a society somewhere). Please empty those categories and let them be deleted. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In such edge cases, it's the country listed as the country of publication on the title page. If that's not available, feel free to create Category:Academic journals with indeterminate country of publication Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not "edge cases", that's the vast majority of cases. And please also don't forget that many journals called "American Journal of Foo" or "British Journal of Foo" are often published by publishers not located in the US (like Elsevier or the Nature Publishing Group -a British publisher owned by a German company) and in addition often edited by people from other countries (and their editorial boards may be from all over, too). Having country categories just leads to endless bickering about the "nationality" of a journal and conveys no useful information whatsoever. --Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You'll find a list of journal published by the Nature Publishing Group here. Some have a country in their name ("sinica", "American", "British"). Others are explicitly "International". Acta Pharmacologica Sinica has an editor-in-chief in Shanghai, the deputy EIC is in Baltimore. The American Journal of Gastroenterology has two co-EICs, one in the US, the other in Canada. They have specific "international Associate Editors". The British Journal of Cancer has contents editors in 3 countries on 2 continents. And this for a smaller publisher (by number of journals published) which, as said, is generally considered to be a British publisher but is owned by a German company. Please also note that the last time such country-specific categories were created, they were deleted after a CfD (e.g., [4]). --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The location of an EIC (or any other person) is immaterial to the country of publication. The example you give discusses a category of "Indian medical journals", not "Medical journals published in India". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Please explain the difference, if any, between "Indian medical journals" and "Medical journals published in India"... There are other examples, but the archive only goes back to Dec. 2010, so that's not easy to find. If you search the archive of this talk page ("journals published in", "American journals", etc) you'll find earlier discussions, all concluding that categorizing academic journals by country is undesirable. And it's the EIC who determines the editorial policy of a journal, the publisher (if it is a good and respectable one) does not meddle with that. So if you think that "country" is relevant for academic journals, I think a very strong case can be made that it should be the country where the editor is located, not the publisher. Oh, wait, perhaps it should be the country where the EIC was born? Or where they did their PhD? Face it: academics nowadays is intricately international. And what about the publishers that I mentioned, things are not straightforward there either. Is Nature a British journal (that's where NPG is located) or a German one (that's where the mother company is located). Are journals originally published by Blackwell Publishing British journals? Or are they now American journals since Wiley took over Blackwell? And even though the people actually doing the publishing are still located in the same offices in Oxford? Is "Frontiers" a Swiss publisher, or a UK one (they were taken over by NPG), or, again, a German one? Don't these examples amply demonstrate that "country where published" is an absolutely uninteresting and irrelevant thing? --Randykitty (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I will be travelling the coming days until Oct 29, with only intermittent (or no) Internet access. --Randykitty (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, but I also think country categories are not needed. I agree with Randy Kitty. It is too difficult to pinpoint a country of origin because publishing and research are dispersed all over the globe. It is truly international. It's not like it was before the 1980's. We live in a global community now, especially with academic journals. Springer, Elsevier, Wiley, NPG, and others have a global reach, along with innumerable academic journal titles that each of these publish --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's another interesting example: Acta Neurologica Belgica. It is the official journal of 8 (eight!) Belgian societies, but published by Springer Science Business Media, a German company. Does that make it a German journal? No, wait, it's website says that is is published by Springer Milan, so it's an Italian journal... --Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Checking your example in the ISI Web of Science, Belgium has been given as country of publication. However, categories for countries of publication are useless as Randykitty pointed out with many arguments. At present time we have only a very few international companies such Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer and some more. Therefore we have many journals published in the Netherlands (Elsevier) and Danmark (Wiley). Since we have categories for the major companies already, the new categories for countries of publication will repeat this again. It is waste of effort. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

importance categorization

isn't it time we start categorizing articles based on the importance for this project? plenty other projects already do so. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, this project is one of the few exceptions. It makes sense, though. The vast majority of articles that fall under this project are about journals. Then there is articles on publishers and scientific societies. I think all of these have the same importance for the understanding of the concept "academic journal": "Low". Then are are a very few articles, like academic journal itself, that would have a different importance rating. Really doesn't seem worth the effort to me. --Randykitty (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Randykitty: We could assume it's low except if it's otherwise stated. Or maybe what we need is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Academia -- it's falling through the cracks of Wikipedia:WikiProject Education, Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals. Worth it? Fgnievinski (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think so. Not sure how active WP Education and WP Universities are. Not sure I understand what you think is "falling through the cracks". --Randykitty (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Just had a look at the talkpages of those two and they seems almost moribund. Combining the three in a "WP Academia" might revitalize the projects, but then, perhaps not... Perhaps you should put a note on their talk pages and then we can see what happens. It would perhaps make sense to include academics, but that would perhaps be a strange cut out of WP Biography. --Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Randykitty: I'll continue this topic here: Talk:Academia#WikiProject Academia?. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Academia?

Please see here: Talk:Academia#WikiProject Academia?. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Electrochemical and Solid State Letters nominated for deletion

Discussion is here. Contributions thereto would be appreciated. Everymorning talk to me 00:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Digital Science article request

First of all, please let me disclose my conflict of interest as I am an employee of Digital Science. I have requested an article on Digital Science here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/Companies&stable=0&shownotice=1&fromsection=D#D and I just wish to highlight this request on this talk page. Many thanks. George K Digital Science (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Another journal AFD

Discussion is here. I'm inclined to agree w/nom since it's not indexed in any of the really important databases and has no IF, but I'm not sure, which is why I haven't !voted. Everymorning talk to me 03:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Launch of WikiProject Wikidata for research

Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Academic Journals articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Fake impact factors

Please beware, see: http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/12/11/fake-isi-aims-to-trick-the-scholarly-community/ --Randykitty (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. We should see about getting a bot assist, or AWB or similar effort to look up each "journal" they have listed to see if we have a corresponding article. If so, we should be looking closely at the subject journal as a suspected predatory publisher.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

At this point, they list about 70 journals (not even close to the "real ISI"), but a bot would indeed be handy! And you're right, I didn't think of checking WP, but given that we accept a (legitimate) IF as proof for notability, some may have slipped through. There are other predatory impact measures out there, Beall has a list of them, too. --Randykitty (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Also of interest is Debora Weber-Wulff's blog. We should really reach out to her. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Do these two journals have notability?

On Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/In_the_Sea_of_Sterile_Mountains:_The_Chinese_in_British_Columbia there is the question on whether the following two academic journals have notability:

• BC Studies Home page
• Past Imperfect - University of Alberta (Homepage of this journal)

And should publications from these journals (book reviews) count towards the notability of the book? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I had a quick look. Not sure about the notability of BC Studies, but apart from that, it does look like a reliable source to me. (Note that notability is not required for a source to be reliable, those are two different concepts). Past Imperfect does not seem to be notable at first sight. I didn't search for sources, though, and given that it seems to be a very early online journal, I don't exclude that there are any and that it meets WP:GNG if not WP:NJournals. I'd be careful to use it as a source, as it was student-edited. That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't reliable, but it is reason for pause. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a more recent link for Past Imperfect. It's more up to date than the link you gave, although the last activity seems to be from 2013. It still is not indexed in any selective database, as far as I can see, so notability remains doubtful. --Randykitty (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it helps a lot. Thank you! The BC Studies profile says: "BC Studies is indexed in the Canadian Periodical Index, the BHA Index and is available on-line at bcstudies.com as well as in other on-line indexes." WhisperToMe (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I saw that, but those indexes don't seem to be the selective kind of indexes that we look for in NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

As for the Past Imperfect editorial team, this says that each issue has its own info, so I'll hunt it down. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The 2005 Past Imperfect Issue had this editorial board - Roberta Lexier was the editor. The advisory board has "Dr." titles but the staff don't. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I don't have access to Ulrich's, so I'm not sure how to find a listing of journals which would index BC Studies... WhisperToMe (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have access either. As for the editorial board/editors, we don't take that as evidence for notability of journals, although if an editor is very notable or the board contains several high-profile scholars, that definitely is an indication that there may be something more to the journal. --Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:NQ sent me an Ulrich's screenshot which had evidence of who indexed BC Studies, so I started the article WhisperToMe (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Another journal AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immunome Research. Discussion would be appreciated. Everymorning talk 23:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology

The Royal Society of Chemistry (where I'm employed as Wikimedian in Residence, to declare my interest) have a new journal: Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology [5], should anyone want to start an article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• It's generally not a good idea to write an article about a brand new journal, as it will not yet have any notability. It takes a while to get indexed in the really important selective databases and journals rarely get written about in reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Although you could create a redirect and have that redirect categorized, I'd think. Fgnievinski (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Sponsor field

Pls see: Template_talk:Infobox_journal#Sponsor_field. Thx. Fgnievinski (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

University presses or just universities?

Pls see Category_talk:Academic_journals_published_by_university_presses#University presses or just universities?. Thx. Fgnievinski (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Museums

Pls help populate Category:Academic journals published by museums. Thx. Fgnievinski (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Open access publishers

Pls see: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_8#Category:Open_content_publishing_companies. Fgnievinski (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Non-diffusing subcategory of category open access journals

Pls see Category_talk:Creative_Commons-licensed_journals#Non-diffusing subcategory of category open access journals. Thx. Fgnievinski (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Continuous journals

Pls help populate Category:Continuous journals. Thx. Fgnievinski (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

University presses: Most -- all? -- are nonprofit

Pls see Talk:University_press#Most -- all? -- are nonprofit. Thx. Fgnievinski (talk) 08:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

H-Net book reviews: okay for use in Wikipedia articles about books?

I have these two H-Net reviews of books:

• Taylor, Christopher. "Moving beyond Multiculturalism: A Blueprint for Cultural Synergy" (book review). H-Canada, H-Net Reviews. December, 2013
• Momryk, Myron (Library and Archives Canada). "Momryk on Nayar, 'The Sikh Diaspora in Vancouver: Three Generations amid Tradition, Modernity, and Multiculturalism'" (Archive). H-Canada, H-Net. April, 2005.

Do they pass WP:RS for use as sources about the respective books? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps DGG knows this resource. I'm not familiar with it. --Randykitty (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

See their review guidelines at [6]. From them, it apparently would depend on the particular review. The ones under proper editorial control are the ones which have the line "Commissioned by...". But remember that very few book reviews are fully peer-reviewed in the sense of primary research articles. Theeir review standard for "commissioned by..." is as good as the practice in any journal I know of, and better than most.

The Taylor review has the commissioned by tag, and therefore is reliable by our standards. The Momyrk review does not, but the heading indicates he may be considered an authority & I would be willing to consider it reliable enough. DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC) .

That's interesting! H-Net is the only place where I have seen "commissioned by" in book reviews. Usually I have used a book review if it's been listed in a university academic database (i.e. the University of Houston academic search engine or the University of Southern California search engine). WhisperToMe (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Medical journal is a redirect to Public health journal

Medical journal redirects to Public health journal which has a {{For}} template pointing to Medical literature § Journals. That seems backward to me. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think the reasoning is that "public health journal" encompasses "medical journals" and "nursing journals". I don't really have an opinion about this myself. Jsfouche seems to have been at the origin of this, but he seems to have left the project. --Randykitty (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's wrong: public health is only part of health care. I intended to redirect medical journal/medical journals and remove the hatnote. But now I notice that a similar edit has been reverted before: [7]. So I'll wait for clearance. Also, Healthcare journal should become a disambiguation page (nursing journal, medical journal, public health journal). Fgnievinski (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Personally I have always felt that nursing is a medical specialty and that a "nursing journal" is just a "medical journal" covering nursing-related topics. I mean, we don't talk about "surgery and medicine" as being equivalent fields either, surgery is part of medicine. Same goes for public health, it's a medical specialty... All this together falls under healthcare. But there has been disagreement about this in the past, so perhaps we should contact the nursing and medicine Wikiprojects (I don't think there's a healthcare or public health project) and ask for their opinions? --Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Nurses and doctors would most certainly disagree on nursing being a medical specialization. From Nursing: "Nursing is a profession within the health care sector...", giving weight to "health care" as the umbrella name. Furthermore, there's already a List of nursing journals distinct from List of medical journals. The categorization tree seems reliable: there's Category:Nursing journals and Category:Medical journals, separate from Category:Public health journals, all of which are members of the parent Category:Healthcare journals. So I propose the redirects medical journal and nursing journal be pointed to their respective lists, and leave the categories as they are. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, this is all systematic. The category trees and the move of "medical journal" to healthcare journal were all initiated by the same editor (and who also heavily edited the "nursing" article). I still find it weird that we have a "pediatrics journals" cat and a "pediatric nursing journals" cat, among others. Nevertheless, I can certainly live with it if others think this is better kept separate. I agree with the change of the redirects, never thought about this, but that's a good idea. --Randykitty (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• In the extreme there would be a Category:Pediatrics healthcare journals and Category:Pediatrics medical journals; with only the common name Category:Pediatrics journals, its base serves as a host for the latter and the former becomes unnecessary; but I agree that Category:Pediatrics nursing journals should be a member of Category:Pediatrics healthcare journals/Category:Pediatrics journals; I've notified folks about this inconsistency: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Nursing#Journals_subcat. I've updated the redirects; likewise for Healthcare journal/List of health care journals. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Academic journals edited by students (other than law reviews)

Please help diffuse Category:Academic journals edited by students. Maybe a bot can move only members of Category:Law journals and of its child subcats? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

New container category: Non-profit publishers

Including independent research institutes, learned societies, museums, the government, universities; please help populate subcats of Category:Academic journals published by non-profit publishers. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Academic journals associated with -- vs. published by -- learned societies and universities

Pls see Template talk:Infobox journal#Categories. Thx. Fgnievinski (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Academic journals by publisher -- commercial ones only?

E.g., should Category:IEEE academic journals and Category:Oxford University Press academic journals‎ appear in Category:Academic journals by publisher TOO, or ONLY in Category:Academic journals published by learned societies respectively Category:Academic journals published by university presses? Thx. Fgnievinski (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Category:Academic journals published by learned societies and Category:Academic journals published by university presses are subcats of Category:Academic journals by publisher. Per the usual categorization rules, we generally don't put articles (or categories) in both a subcat and its parent. So, no, they should not be in Category:Academic journals by publisher. --Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Moreover, not every journal that is sponsored by a society is actually published by that society; but the ones that are not should also not have the society category listed in "by publisher" because the society is not the publisher. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, those you refer to would go into Category:Academic journals associated with learned societies. Thanks for the clarification about Category:Academic journals by publisher. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Proceedings that are serials but not periodicals

thus also not journals (see serials and periodicals for background). e.g., AIP Conference Proceedings, Proceedings of SPIE, and possibly Journal of Physics: Conference Series (also known as IOP Conference Series). do we need an {{infobox proceedings}}? Fgnievinski (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Some of these have an ISSN and are included in journal databases like MEDLINE and Science Citation Index (and even have an impact factor). I don't think that another infobox is a good idea, the journal box has all info that these serials need. --Randykitty (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Academic journals by language

I noticed that Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale is a member of multiple language categories: English-language journals, French-language journals, Chinese-language journals. I was going to correct that, replacing the three memberships with a single one in Category:Multilingual journals‎, but I think that change would lose valuable information. Nowadays, very few journals don't accept contributions in English in addition to their primary language, so I suspect many entries in individual language categories are similarly misplaced and should in principle go in Multilingual journals. If we enforce the current categorization scheme, we'll end up basically with two very large sub-cats in Category:Academic journals by language, Category:English-language journals‎ and Multilingual journals‎. That wouldn't be very useful. Can we make Multilingual journals‎ a non-diffusing sub-category of Academic journals by language? I.e., I'd like to insert {{Non-diffusing parent category|Multilingual journals}} in Category:Academic journals by language, and {{Non-diffusing subcategory|Academic journals by language|journals}} in Category:Multilingual journals‎.

See Wikipedia:Categorization#Non-diffusing subcategories for details. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Although the above is a bit muddled, this is a discussion we need to have: do we categorize multilingual journals only in the Category:Multilingual journals, or also in the different language-specific cats? Up till now, the practice is to only categorize them as multilingual, on the (I assume) unspoken premise that an "Englis-language journal" is a journal published entirely in English. However, should we choose to interpret "English-language journal" as "a journal that in whole or in part is published in English", then it would make sense to categorize them in the specific cats, too. It's a minor point and I'm more or less agnostic about the issue, but it has been raised in the past and perhaps we should talk about the pro- and cons. --Randykitty (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• As no opposition was voiced, I've implemented the tagging proposed. Fgnievinski (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

AltMetrics are now including Wikipedia citations

AltMetrics are now including Wikipedia citations in their scoring. I'm quoted in their announcement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Watch for a spike in Pages that link to "Template:Cite journal"... (Question: is template usage trackable?) Fgnievinski (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Apps

There's a discussion at Talk:Education in Chemistry about whether or not information about the availability of a mobile app is encyclopedic or promotional and should be included in our articles on journals and magazines. More input is welcome. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

IEEE magazines vs. journals

Pls see Talk:List of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers publications#Magazines vs. journals. Thx. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Regional academic societies

Does the project have any guidance on the notability of academic societies? I recently de-prodded Florida Philosophical Association, which was established in 1955 and is associated with what looks to be a respectable e-journal (Florida Philosophical Review), and on reflection would like a second opinion on its notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure about this, but I think that besides GNG, WP:ORG is the only applicable guideline that we have for this kind of subjects. I don't think we have any guidance specific to this project. --Randykitty (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• WP:ORG is pretty tough to fulfil for an academic society. On a quick Google, I've found very many trivial mentions announcing its conference or referencing papers first presented there, several unreliable sources (conference reports in blogs), but relatively little reliable, independent, national or international coverage that's not drowned out by the other. Can anyone assist? Espresso Addict (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• DGG perhaps? --Randykitty (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• We don't have a guideline beyond WP:ORG for this, but it is a topic that keeps coming up. One possible extra piece of information that would help is that these societies tend to recognize each other. So, for instance, in a major discipline that has a recognized international umbrella organization (e.g. the International Mathematical Union), we could use as a rule of thumb that their member organizations (typically in this case, the major national mathematical society in each country) are notable, but that unrecognized or sub-national societies might not be. Similarly, some of the main national academies of their countries (clearly notable) list affiliated discipline-specific national societies that are probably still notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• That would tend to suggest all US state philosophical societies (of which there are several with articles) are not sufficiently notable, as neither the American Philosophical Society nor the International Federation of Philosophical Societies appear to be affiliated with any of them. I'm wondering if this is something that varies by discipline; philosophy is not one I'm familiar with. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't go so far as to say that it would make them non-notable, but we'd need some other evidence that they're notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

they can probably all be shown to be have RSs with enough work, but there will remain the problem of whether the sources should e considered RSs for the purpose of N, because they are likely to be purely local. For those who like to go by the GNG, one could reasonably argue that the relevant sources are or are not sufficiently discriminating. The rules are not really helpful in these matters, because they can be interpreted to get the desired result. We have so far been fairly stringent about local societies of all sorts, with a few exceptions--state fairs, state bar associations, and probably a few others. Whether this is a good idea or not I simply don't know, because I could instruct an argument that would satisfy me in either direction: there is an inherent tension between NOT DIRECTORY and NOT PAPER). DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

National lists of approved journals

I found three so far: Norwegian, Brazilian, and South African; let me know if you're aware of others. It might help in gauging journal notability. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• By the way, what category do these lists belong to? Some call themselves Category:Bibliographic databases, which is not the case, as there's no indexing and abstracting service involved; it doesn't seem to belong in Category:Bibliographic indexes either; maybe just Category:Bibliography? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Just noticed that many members of Category:Universitetsforlaget academic journals have remarks similar to "It is ranked as a Level 2 journal, the highest level in the official Norwegian ranking", thus lending weight to the assertion that selective national lists are being used to establish notability. Fgnievinski (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Some people have been heavily pushing this. Many countries have such lists, which are heavily influenced by relatively few local scientists. Personally, I don't think they're worth much... But if you don't have anything else to claim that a journal is notable, some editors think this is it. --Randykitty (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Scopus and Web of Science are known for having terribly poor coverage of non-English-language journals, so absence in these listings should not be taken as a criticism to any non-English-language journal. I assume that a journal which is notable only in France may still satisfy notability requirements in the English-language Wikipedia? Sooner or later WP:NJournals will need to be globalized. Fgnievinski (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, Scopus and WoS have this reputation, although personally I'm not sure it is merited. Both contain a large number of non-English journals. WoS' coverage is mostly in the sciences and social sciences. In those areas, it is kind of logical that many non-English journals are not included: in those fields English is the language of communication and a scientific journal in French or Spanish is unlikely to have much impact. Scopus has better coverage than WoS in the humanities (although it would be incorrect to say that WoS does not cover that area, see Arts and Humanities Citation Index) and does cover many non-English journals. I think it is fair to say that WoS and Scopus, if they are biased in favor of English journal at all, they just reflect the real-world bias against publications not in English. As a scientist, you just know that hardly anybody will read your article if it is published in English or German (two languages I have published in myself), so you certainly won't send your best work to those journals either. In any case, Scopus (and Wos) also cover journals in languages that are much more minority than French or German, such as Swedish... (Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift, for example). --Randykitty (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• These exceptions are primarily journals with either a taxonomic or an applied orientation. For taxonomy, local journals and the publications of local societies have always been extremely important, and the places where most work gets published. For applies science, the relevance of work in fields such as agriculture, or forestry or technology, or law, or business have in the past and to a considerable extent still today been primarily national.
• For the humanities, it goes pretty much the opposite way: the most important journals are usually the national ones, with a few international exceptions for the publications of the major societies. Most work in literature and history and similar fields is published in national journals--the few international ones from the countries with the strongest academic presence are the exceptions. for fields like classics and religion , the leading journals are still as much German as they are English, though most of the articles will be in English. For archeology, the literature is extremely dispersed, to the extent it is hard to do even secondary research outside the country of interest except for a very few national libraries. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

CFD discussion relevant to this project

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 3#Category:Anesthesiology and palliative medicine journals. Everymorning talk 02:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/European Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine

Is this journal notable? It's been declined twice already. However, this says the journal is indexed in Pubmed/Medline, so it seems like it might pass WP:NJOURNALS. What do others think? Everymorning talk 03:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• It's not in MEDLINE, only some abstracts get into PubMed (likely through PubMed Central, although that is not stated). Far as I can see, this is not notable yet. --Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• PS: I just see that the journal website claims that the journal is indexed in Scopus, but it is not in the Scopus journal list, so this also seems to be incorrect. --Randykitty (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Describing an article in Annals of Human Genetics

Hi. A debate is happening here about how the content of an article published in Annals of Human Genetics should be described. I'm saying we should use "academic research" to describe it, whereas another editor is suggesting "official legal work". Can we get some input on this from people who are familiar with debates about journals? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Urology journals

Should this category, which currently contains a couple nephrology journals, be split into the category that already exists and Category:Nephrology journals as well? Or is it too difficult to draw a line between these two disciplines? Everymorning talk 02:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Urology and nephrology are really closely intertwined, so it may be difficult to categorize some journals if we split this cat. In addition, with only 14 members, there currently really is no reason to split this cat. If you feel it would be clearer, we could propose renaming the cat to "Urology and nephrology journals" and create a redirect to it from "Nephrology journals". --Randykitty (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Journal articles, WP:REDFLAG and WP:NEOLOGISM

Hi. There's a request for comment here on the use of academic journal articles to support the addition of material to an article, and whether the material breaches WP:REDFLAG and WP:NEOLOGISM. Input from those with expertise on academic sources would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at the AFC Help Desk

Please see this AFC Help Desk topic where a new contributor needs help writing a new article about a scientific journal. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Seems to have been resolved, thanks to Randykitty. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft struggling to show Notability

Please see Draft:Angelicum an article about a theology journal, the author is having difficulty demonstrating notability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Journal AFD

This AFD may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Everymorning talk 14:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Partial impact factors?

An IP is trying to add some text to the article impact factor about "partial" IFs. I've never heard about this, although they just posted on my talk page two instances (both blog posts, albeit from a reputable organization and publisher) where this expression was used. Nevertheless, I am not convinced that we should include this in the article. Any opinions from other editors here are welcome. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This blog has an interesting discussion of partial impact factors. Some journals, indexed early enough, apparently qualify for an IF after only two years. My opinion is that if an independent reliable organization (e.g. Thompson-Reuters) issues an IF, even if it is this weird partial thing, then there is a reliable source for the IF and it can be included in the article. But journals calculating their own informal partial IFs--that's not reliable and independent, that's just marketing. --Mark viking (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not really the point. The IP is talking about journals that get included so early, that an IF based on (the usual) 2 years of citation data cannot yet be calculated, so only data from 1 year are used. For example, a journal XYZ that starts in 2013, gets accepted in 2014, and then receive an IF in this summer's edition with the 2014 IFs. Normally, 2014 IFs are calculated as The number of citations the journal received in 2014 to articles published in 2012 and 2013, divided by the number of articles published in 2012 and 2013. For XYZ the numbers related to 2012 will be zero (both #citations and #articles), so its IF will be the number of citations to articles published in 2013 divided by the number of articles in 2013. This is what is indicated in those blog posts as "partial IF" (as it is based on only 1 year of citation data). Thomson Reuters does not distinguish these IFs in any way, apart from the fact that you can see what happened if you look at the citation data that they publish at the same time. Hope this clarifies... --Randykitty (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes it is the point, or at least two points. First, as pointed out in the blog, one can only count 2012 in your example if it has "known zero" citations. That known zero happens only if indexing was started early enough. The timing of the indexing seems to be the key to how these two-year lag IFs are justified by TR. Second, if Thomson Reuters endorses this method of calculation, I think it is a worthy fact to put into the impact factor article--the fact is an interesting, counterintuitive part of the IF algorithm and is backed by an authoritative primary source. --Mark viking (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

As long as they are TR-backed IFs, I say we include them. Maybe with a (Partial) next to the IF.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not being clear here. Yes, as long as they are TR-backed IFs, we should include them, regardless how they were estimated. My point is that TR themselves just call this an "IF", not a "partial IF". As far as I know, they've never even used that expression. The IP editor has listed two blog posts using this expression. The question is now: is this enough to include a discussion of partial IFs and their method of calculation in the article on the impact factor with its own subheading. See this edit. --Randykitty (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I understand your concern now. That the IF can be calculated after only two years is a worthy fact to put into the impact factor article, meriting a few sentences or a paragraph. But the name "partial impact factor" doesn't seem to be widely used (in my Google search) and having a separate section for it under this name seems premature at this point. --Mark viking (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Another journal AFD

This AFD may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Everymorning talk 10:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Bot task?

Is there a bot already that helps with any of these, or could?

1. ensures each infobox journal's listed ISO abbreviation has a corresponding redirect page leading to the main article at which that infobox is found?
2. checks for "The Journal of..." vice "Journal of..." and redirects one to the other
3. checks for ampersand or "and" in journal title fields and ensure a redirect from the other spelling
4. checks for abbreviations with/without periods, capitals and redirect from each of those to the full title

LeadSongDog come howl! 02:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A couple of recent examples to illustrate,

• Adv Microb Physiol., Adv. Microb. Physiol., ‎Adv microb physiol., Adv. microb. physiol. ‎and Advances in microbial physiology should all be redirects to Advances in Microbial Physiology.
• Perspect Sex Reprod Health, Perspect. Sex. Reprod. Health, Perspect sex reprod health, Perspect. sex. reprod. health, Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health, Perspectives on Sexual & Reproductive Health and Perspectives on sexual & reproductive health should all redirect to Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health

Even when editors try to get them all, we are prone to overlook some. An automatic tool would be much better. Each should be catagorized as either {{R from abbreviation}} or {{R from other capitalisation}}.

LeadSongDog come howl! 15:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Excellent idea! It's a pain to create all those redirects by hand... The talk pages should be tagged with {{WPJournals|class=Redirect}}. I'm not very knowledgeable about bots, but perhaps @Headbomb: can provide some advice here. --Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• PS: the ISO abbreviation should also be redirected without the periods (e.g., "Adv. Microb. Physiol." and "Adv Microb Physiol"). Also, some people enter initialisms in that field (in this case: "AMP") and those should not be done by the bot and only added by hand if they really are used frequently (such as PNAS, but not the just-mentioned "AMP"). --Randykitty (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are a few special cases such as JAMA, PNAS, etc, where the initialism is the masthead title, but there's no real need for the bot to do anything different. Those few can be handled manually. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Preferred journal title capitalization

Should Wikipedia honor the journal title capitalization style preferred by its publisher? E.g., Chest is referred to consistently as CHEST [8]. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think not. The National Library of Medicine's treatment regards the allcaps version as an "Other title", with Chest as the proper title. It treats Thorax the same way. While we're on the topic, for multiword titles like this, I see that they use sentence case for the proper title while capitalizing each abbreviated word, as for

ISO Abbreviation: Thorac Surg Clin Title: Thoracic surgery clinics As a general thing, publishers like their own titles to be in a higher-case form than we would use, as it serves their commercial purposes. Similarly, we do not preserve the all-caps routinely found in the headlines of New York Times articles when we cite them. The allcaps "MAN BITES DOG" would normally become sentencecase "Man bites dog" or at most titlecase "Man Bites Dog". LeadSongDog come howl! 16:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Magazines vs journals

There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately#Philatelic magazines vs. Philatelic journals that may be of interest to participants in this project. --Randykitty (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

splitting scholarly peer review

pls see Talk:Scholarly peer review/Draft (discussions). Fgnievinski (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

merging review journal and review article

pls see Talk:Review journal#merge. thx Fgnievinski (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Another journal AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law. Everymorning talk 16:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

peer reviewed law journals?

Pls see Talk:Law review#Categorizing peer reviewed or not. Fgnievinski (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Many law reviews are student-edited, where there is a large group (usually several dozen) law students involved in editing/reviewing submissions. I would regard this as a form of "editorial board peer review". I am answering here, because th number of places where you are starting discussions keeps proliferating and I'm starting to have problems keeping up. --Randykitty (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Please keep the discussion centralized at Talk:Law review#Categorizing peer reviewed or not. Fgnievinski (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Splitting Category:Science books into Category:Scientific books and Category:Popular science books

Although strictly outside the scope of this wiki-project, I thought some of you could weigh in here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_24#Category:Science_books. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Case report

It looks like this article has become a target for stealth-spammers who have added information about numerous journals to the "Publishing case reports" section. This doesn't seem very relevant and I think it should be trimmed considerably. Others' thoughts? Everymorning talk 13:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

infobox for academic papers/articles

Is there an infobox for academic journal articles? —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Template:Infobox journal is what you're looking for. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Links and resources can be found in our journal article writing guide. --Randykitty (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant, an infobox for a academic journal article, not academic journal. The subject of the article is not a journal but an article published in a journal. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

My apologies - that was clear from your first post. As far as I know, there isn't. I take it you're asking in relation to When contact changes minds. I guess there aren't that many Wikipedia articles about single journal articles, so I doubt if anyone has thought to create one. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

There are more than I thought existed: Category:Academic journal articles. Fgnievinski (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

A broader Category:Works originally published in periodicals uses Template:Infobox short story, which you might be able to adapt. Fgnievinski (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Journals edited by students

Category:Academic journals edited by students seems to have a lot of magazines -- please help weed out. The ones that are peer-reviewed, most seem to fail the notability test (certainly in terms of indexing in selective bibliographic databases). Fgnievinski (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes box

In case you're familiar with Category:Recent changes boxes (see, e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Lists of pages), I've started Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Lists_of_pages/All_pages, based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Lists of pages and its sub-pages. The selection of wikilinks listed in those sub-pages probably needs to be fine grained, by namespace (categories only, articles, etc.). Another idea is to have sub-pages split by subject area (e.g., Category:Physics journals, Category:Medical journals), in which case we'd need a bot to list all the pages in branch up to a certain depth. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Made: {{Recent changes in Academic Journals}}

Recent changes in WP:Academic Journals
In the most popular pages (source) In articles ( talkpages) In non-articles ( talkpages)
List overview · Updated: 2016-12-02 (articles) · This box:

You can put this box whereever you like (e.g. your userpage, some WP:AJ page). Remarks? -DePiep (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• You might consider this setup for the various lists:

1. All articles their talkpage (=follow content changes)

2. All non-articles their talkpage (=follow WP:AJ changes in WP:AJ/support/help/template/...)

-DePiep (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done! Enjoy! Put it on your userpage: {{Recent changes in Academic Journals}}. DePiep (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

1500 untagged academic-journal articles

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/List of untagged articles. As per Wikipedia:Bot requests#Academic journals may lack WPJournals template in their talk pages, "The category tree looks good for requesting the template be added. Note that some of the articles do not have talk pages." I think except for Category:Academic journal editors, the rest could be tagged by a bot; class=unsorted by default? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Leave the class= parameter blank rather than "unsorted", but if another tag exist, the WP Journals banner should inherit the assement. They'll mostly be stub or start classes anyway. And if it's a redirect, tag with class=redirect. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. Also, as per Template:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/class#Classification_based_on_class_parameter, articles in Category:Lists of academic journals would be tagged as class=list; and file talk pages as class=file. Any other special case? Fgnievinski (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Files should be tagged as class=files. Categories as class=category, etc. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Leave Category:Academic journal articles outside the scope of this WikiProject? Fgnievinski (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

If this is new--- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/List of untagged articles --- then I want to say that this is a great idea.

Also, 1500 articles? Wow! I guess I better get moving :) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Articles about each hijacked journal?

Pls see Talk:Hijacked journal#Articles about each hijacked journal?. Fgnievinski (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion relevant to this project

See Talk:List_of_lists_of_academic_journals#Requested_move_21_July_2015. Would appreciate it if knowledgable editors would weigh in there. Everymorning talk 15:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Public Health Reports help with expansion/DYK

I believe this one could have a great DYK (e.g. DYK that... PHR was established by the US Surgeon General John Maynard Woodworth according to the National Quarantine Act of 1878?), but the prose section is under the 1,500 bytes requirements. Help with the expansion would be appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I've expanded it to ~2100 prose characters, big enough for DYK. If you want that hook, though, you'll need the quarantine act link to be blue instead of red. The source I added could likely also be used for an article on the act. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Should nephrology journals have their own category?

In April of this year, someone created Category:Nephrology journals. I wanted to know if other contributors to this wikiproject thought this discipline was well-defined enough to warrant its own category. Previously Randykitty said that "Urology and nephrology are really closely intertwined, so it may be difficult to categorize some journals if we split this cat [i.e. the "urology journals" cat]." Everymorning (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think there's enough separation between the two to warrant its own category, but WP:MEDICINE is where this should be asked. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Given how close the two are, I see no need for two separate small cats, but now that they exist, I don't really want to spend the effort to get them merged. --Randykitty (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Creating Rhetoric & Public Affairs

Would some of you please help me create Rhetoric & Public Affairs? I'd like it to be strong enough to avoid a possible AFD. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It's on Jstor and Project Muse. Perhaps that's sufficient to prove that it is notable? Or do we need more info?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it also possible to de-redirect the Presidential Studies Quarterly and create its own page?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Look at WP:NJOURNALS. If those journals pass that notability threshold, then look at our writing guide at WP:JWG. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Want to help me co-create it or expand it after I create a stub with an infobox?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Please start it as a draft in your userspace: User:Zigzig20s/Rhetoric & Public Affairs. fgnievinski (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Or in the draft namespace Draft:Rhetoric & Public Affairs. Or just directly at where it's supposed to be. WP:BOLD and all. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

CODEN

I just sent an email to the CASSI people to see if they have an API that supports CODEN queries directly. Hopefully they do, and we can update our infoboxes to give links of the form http://cassi.cas.org/search.jsp?coden=PHRPA6 that would land us to the intended target [9].

I'll keep the project posted. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know much about this sort of things so forgive me if what I am saying is stupid, but if you could do this, could you not also import all CODEN into Wikidata? That could then be used to populate the infoboxes, eventually. --Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure bots could be made for this. Not familiar enough with Wikidata, but you can try your luck at WP:BOTREQ. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's the reply I got

"Automated searching is not supported in CASSI at this time (via API or other method) and there are no plans to update the service with this functionality in the near future. However, as CASSI supports researchers and librarians who need accurate bibliographic information we will include this suggestion when considering future CASSI opportunities."

Bummer. Oh well, maybe in the future. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Bilingual journals

Should Category:Bilingual journals be created? Note that Category:Bilingual newspapers already exists. Everymorning (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's been deleted in the past: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_5#Category:Bilingual_journals. Also notice that WP:JWG has evolved since that discussion, in that now Category:Multilingual journals is recommended in addition to (not instead of) sub-categories of Category:Academic journals by language. fgnievinski (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

RfD concerning Cochrane Reviews

Your feedback would be appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk pages of redirects: tag as class=redirect or redirect itself?

E.g., should we do like this Talk:Astrophysical Journal or as in Talk:PNAS instead? fgnievinski (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• This project has always tagged redirects as redirect class. The advantage to that is that the project will be notified if something happens to the redirect (a move, or an XfD, for example). So there are advantages and I don't really see any disadvantages. I have tagged the PNAS talk page accordingly. --Randykitty (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks; the reason I asked is because of an ongoing bot request. fgnievinski (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

MIAR

I just stumbled upon this website http://miar.ub.edu/, and I have to say it's a wonderful resource, especially when it comes to looking up indexing information (searching by ISSN works best I find). Journals don't always list it, but there's a good chance it'll be on here! Not sure how complete it is, but I wish I had known about it much earlier. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Journal draft

The draft Draft:Ecancermedicalscience is eligible to be deleted soon because it hasn't been edited in 6 months. I would appreciate it if other members of this WikiProject could weigh in on whether they think it meets NJOURNALS. Everymorning (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where's the best place to discuss; there exists a redirect at Ecancermedicalscience; I think the draft content should be made a section of the redirect target. It doesn't satisfy notability (for a page of its own). Should the content be manually copied and pasted? fgnievinski (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

ISO4 for ambiguous journals?

• Medicine (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins journal)
• Medicine (Elsevier journal)

Both of this have 'Medicine' for ISO 4. That can't be right, is it? I've seen "Medicine (Baltimore)" used for one those. Would that make "Medicine (Amsterdam)" for the other? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• You could check in the NLM catalog. Although it often contains errors (its LCCN numbers cannot be trusted, for example), its ISO4 abbreviations are generally OK. --Randykitty (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• While Randykitty was presumably typing the above comment I did exactly what he described. Specifically i looked up the LWW journal Medicine and found its NLM catalog entry [10] which says its ISO is "Medicine (Baltimore)". Everymorning (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• I couldn't find the NLM catalog entry for the Elsevier journal mentioned above. Everymorning (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Medicine (Abingdon). --Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• What's the relationship between Abingdon and Elsevier? Everymorning (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Abingdon, Oxford was the place of publication before http://www.medicinejournal.co.uk/content/contact moved a few miles to Kidlington. Elsevier owns the publisher (Medicine Publishing Company Ltd). LeadSongDog come howl! 02:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Asia-Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing

Another editor created Asia-Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing. I am not sure that the journal is notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Not even close. I have prodded it. Would have been simpler to have it speedied for the copyvio that it contained... --Randykitty (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Two articles about rebranded publishing company

Reed Elsevier was renamed: Talk:RELX/Archives/2015#Two articles about the same company?. Ideally the article would have been just renamed. Not sure how to proceed. Please weigh in. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

"Academic journals published in Foo country" categories

Despite the long-standing consensus in this project that academic journals cannot (and hence should not) be reliably categorized as being published in a certain country (and even if this can be determined, this fact not being a defining characteristic of a journal), several categories named "Academic journals published in Foo country" are now around after a "no consensus" closure of the respective CfDs. I propose adding a recommendation to our journal writing guide to state that the project members do not recommend adding such categories to journal articles. Of course, we can not recommend removing such cats (that would be disruptive after the decision at CfD), but we certainly can recommend not to add them. After an appropriate amount of time has passed, we should take these cats to CfD again. --Randykitty (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with Category:Law journals by country. fgnievinski (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That's perhaps the only journal cat where I think that "country" may have some importance, because most law is inextricably connected to a particular country. I would prefer it though it the cats were something like "Journals on English law", so that the articles would be about the subject covered. Some cats would then need to be created/recategorized (international law, European law, etc). --Randykitty (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please note that things just got more muddled, as we now also have a Category:Academic journals by country, which has been placed above Category:Academic journals by country of publication. I therefore propose that we place Physiology & Behavior in "Academic journals published in the Netherlands" (Elsevier's head offices are in Amsterdam, "Academic journals in Germany" (the editorial office is currently based in Germany; or should this be "academic journals published in Gerlany"?), "Academic journals published in the United Kingdom" (Elsevier is part of the Reed Elsevier Group (RELX Group), based in the UK, and "Academic journals in the United States", as the journal's inner cover mentions that it is the official journal of the International Behavioral Neuroscience Society, which has its offices in Texas (and whose relation with the journal is rather tenuous, as neither the website of the society nor that of the journal mentions anything about this purported relationship, which probably is just a marketing thing). If someone can find out where the journal is printed (probably India, Malaysia, or Singapore, where most journal printing is being done nowadays), we can add that country, too. Do I need continue about the impossibility of applying these categories correctly? I thought we had a consensus in this project not to have such country-specific categories for academic journals, so why complicating this now with "academic journals in Foo country" categories?? Are we going to add this nonsense to our journal writing guide? Or do we just remain mute there on the subject? --Randykitty (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There's already Category:Magazines by country and Category:Newspapers by country and Category:Books by country, not to mention Category:Publishing companies by country; so resistance seems futile. Although there are many ways of miscategorizing a journal by country -- Category:Multinational publishing companies, to start with -- there are a couple of sensible alternatives, if you're not dogmatic about it. I didn't start this tree but I can see how it could possibly work, if it's given a chance. Please have a look at Category:Academic journals in the United States and tell me if there is anything incorrect in there (other than the law journals). fgnievinski (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

As has been discussed multiple times, magazines are very different beasts from academic journals. The vast majority of magazines are published and distributed within one single country and almost always published in a local language. But the dam has indeed been broken. I see you now also have created categories by country for journals "associated" (whatever that may mean) with American societies, American non-profit organizations, American universities and colleges, and whatnot. I throw in the towel and give up trying to make any sense of this. Just remember that even though we do not add references to categories, the fact that you add a journal to a certain category must be supported by (correctly) sourced information in the article. --Randykitty (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It's simple: Category:American Astronomical Society academic journals, Category:American Geophysical Union academic journals‎, Category:American Heart Association academic journals‎, Category:American Statistical Association academic journals‎ are all journals associated with -- actually, owned by -- American learned societies, even if they are published by multinational companies on their behalf. fgnievinski (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed this project page from my watchlist, just as I am successively removing journal articles from my watchlist (I have already removed over 3000 in recent weeks). If my input is needed for something, ping me. --Randykitty (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

New journal AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biotechnological Research. Everymorning (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Democracy & Nature

A few SPA/COI editors are arguing here that this article does not need to adhere to our writing guide (notably the inclusion of lists of the editorial board and contributors), because there exist some articles on other magazines/journals that should be cleaned first. The situation has spilled over to ANI (at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#COI editing and personal attacks on Democracy & Nature and Talk:Democracy & Nature), where it has hardly received any attention except from the involved parties). Some independent knowledgeable eyes would be welcome. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randykitty (talk • contribs) 12:14, 8 September 2015‎

RFC on Template:Cite pmid

We're having an RFC on whether to deprecate Template:Cite pmid or not. It's at Template_talk:Cite_pmid#RFC:_Should_template:cite_pmid_be_deprecated. Please comment there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about whether to deprecate Template:Cite doi

Template:Cite doi allows editors to generate a citation from a digital object identifier. There is a discussion about whether to deprecate this template. Since doi's are used the sciences and this is a science WikiProject, I am inviting anyone here to comment. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see this is already noted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

title_orig field (original title, if not in English)

Please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magazines#title_orig field (original title, if not in English). Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:JCW update!

After a year or so, WP:JCW has been updated! And the people rejoiced everywhere!

1. Nature (22,000) overcame J. Biol. Chem. (21,900) Nature went up by ~2000 but J. Biol. Chem. went down by ~3000 for some reason. Journal of Biological Chemistry remains king if you combine all abbreviations (around 28,000) though.
2. Most cited missing is Tetsudō Daiya Jōhō Magazine with 306. Most cited academic journal is Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta with 256.
3. 6 'journals' are cited more than 200 times, and 57 'journals' are cited more than 100 times, but looking at the list, there's lots of magazines on there. Seems we've been good at giving highly-cited journals articles (or redirects).

I'll be compiling some Wikiproject-specific lists over the week to help us coordinate with Wikiprojects and deal with the backlog. Big thanks to @JLaTondre: for the new run. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Went through all the missing journals (well the 5 pages of missing popular journals) and created several hundred redirects to the relevant articles. I left proceedings and transactions alone for now, although I could have redirect them to their societies. Best to consider whether or not the society article should have the journal information, or if they are worth standalone articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Question: would it be better to leave the list as-is, or modify it as links are fixed/edited? I edited the pages wrt the Bulletin of The Museum of Comparative Zoology, but (obviously) the redlinked "at Harvard..." etc are still there. Should they be removed (with the numbers of the main redirects altered appropriately) or left as-is? Primefac (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

What existed and what doesn't can just be deduced from looking at the list (and greatly facilitated if you make use of Anomie's link classifier). So personally, I wouldn't worry very much about that, especially since it'll all be overwritten in the next update.

But putting what you've cleaned up in strikethrough would save people from trying to cleanup the same thing again. Like if you're cleaned up the article using "Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy at Harvard College" to "Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology", it's not silly to strikethrough "Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy at Harvard College" in the list. But that seems like a lot of effort for not a whole lot of payoff. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I've created Category:Lists of missing journals and made User:Headbomb's lists pages within that, for ease of discoverability and linking, and so that the lists won't disappear as talk pages are archived. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

When crating an article, please remember to create a corresponding Wikidata item, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Popular journals/magazines we think we have, but don't

• Video, → Video (magazine)? Hard to find exactly what it meant at the moment. Need to dig more.
• Oryx, → Oryx (journal) [11] [12]

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Five new journal AFDs

See today's deletion log, beginning with Journal of Physics and Applications. Everymorning (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

New journal - Molecular Systems Design & Engineering

Another new journal for your attention: Molecular Systems Design & Engineering is published jointly by the the Royal Society of Chemistry (where I am Wikimedian in Residence) and the Institution of Chemical Engineers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Recognized content

We now have this page. Should be pretty self-explanatory, but we should also include someone on the main project page. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Assistant professor#Proposed merge with Professor

This discussion may be of interest to some editors here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering and Technology

A new article has been created about the Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering and Technology. It has been flagged for notability concerns, so expert input would be welcomed. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education

Can someone please help me expand The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education? Seems like an important journal, but please help me find more references. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Asia-pacific Journal of Cancer Therapeutics

The article Asia-pacific Journal of Cancer Therapeutics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

(Unrealised) journal, failing WP:GNG. There's only one non-Wikipedia-mirror site that mentions this journal, but I doubt it passes WP:RS and it seems to have been written by the journal staff itself. It appears that this was a journal in the making in 2008, but hasn't taken off ever since, so maybe also a WP:TOOSOON. Seeing that the latest edit was in 2012, I doubt that the article will be improved in the future.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HyperGaruda (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to make an WP:NJOURNAL summary a sub-section of WP:NMEDIA

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(media)#Introducing_notability_criteria_for_academic_journals. I expect that this is noncontroversial and an obvious next step in confirming the usefulness of WP:NJOURNAL. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Attempt to Move Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists

I am the Communications Assistant at Speech-Language and Audiology Canada. Our Wikipedia page has been flagged as part of the WikiProject Academic Journals. I would like to move this page, as it is currently under our old name. The association was previously called the Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists, but it is now called Speech-Language and Audiology Canada.[13] Please let me know what steps I need to take to move this page. Currently, the talk page is locked for me. I believe this is because I'm not participating in the WikiProject. Any guidance would be much appreciated. Thanks.

SAC OAC (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)SAC OAC

Hello, SAC OAC. WikiProject participation has no impact on whether you are able to edit a talk page, and I don't see any reason why you would be unable to comment there. Anyway, I will move the article for you. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Cordless Larry! SAC OAC (talk)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_18#Military_History_Journal

Since there's currently in a bug with RFD in the Article alerts, here's a notice of that discussion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:JCW -- Citation density

I recently implemented (don't ask how the sausage was made) a 'citation density' (CD) column in our existing WP:JCW listings. It's defined as # of citations to the journal / # of Wikipedia pages the journal is cited in. I'm not sure if it's going to be of any use, but I figured I'd implement it to see if we have some trends. The CD seems to range between 1 (minimum possible value = every citation on a different page) and 2 for most journals, but some like Lloyd's List go as high as 45 for highly specialized articles. On the other hand ,we also have Myconet with a CD of 1, and it's cited 2740 times! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Very quickly, doing some stats on the 1000 most popular journal (n = 1005), I found

• CD only very, very, slightly correlates with popularity. On a graph of CD vs Rank (1-1000), I got a slope of -0.000374 CD/Rank (R² = 0.0041).
• Distribution of CD is heavily skewed towards lower values.

%ile	10	20	30	40	50	60	70	80	90	95	99
CD	1.117	1.157	1.199	1.245	1.294	1.355	1.435	1.539	1.769	1.992	3.605

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:JCW update

Just to let you know, the compilation has recently been updated. I've cleaned up several entries related to PNAS and PLOS ONE, so it should make the two publications easier to dealt with in the future. I cleaned up others too, but there's too many to mention at this point. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

WedMedCentral

There's a discussion concerning this website/journal(s) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#WedMedCentral. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Google H-Index

I just complied a list of the 100 most impactful journal according to Google's H-index. The list can be found in the link above.

We are missing entries on

• NBER Working Papers (Rank 22)
• CEPR Discussion Papers (Rank 93)
• IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics (Rank 100)

Additionally, we are missing dedicated article on

• The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Rank 37)
• Physical Review D (Rank 41)
• The Lancet Oncology (Rank 42)
• IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (Rank 55)
• The Lancet Neurology (Rank 73)
• Physics Letters B (Rank 99)

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible clarification on disambiguation guidelines

Please comment there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about generally considering articles from predatory publishers unreliable

There is a discussion here if that topic is of interest. It has been going on since Feb 26, but just wanted to make sure folks here are aware of it. fgnievinski (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe fall under this?

Hi! I was wondering if anyone knew anything about the Draft:The Dublin Review of Books? I'm not sure if it's a journal or a periodical, but I figured that it'd be worth asking here. I tried logging into my university's library to access Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, but my library's sign in is down at the moment (and oh joy, during finals week... that's going to be fun). Can someone help out with the draft? It was nominated for speedy fairly quickly after it was created and I've moved it to the draftspace. I haven't been able to get on as much this week due to finals and I just wanted to get a few eyeballs on this. I do see it mentioned in the media here and there, but it's going to need more than the brief cursory look I gave it in order to find if it'd pass GNG or NJOURNALS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Question about continuous journal with multiple titles

The journal titled Western North American Naturalist began in the year 2000 as a continuation of Great Basin Naturalist (1939-1999), retaining volume numbering, but both titles have different ISSN, OCLC, and other identifiers (see [14] and [15]). Both titles are also distinct entities on Wikidata. Is there an ideal way to denote both, and keep coherent Wikidata links? (Wikidata doesn't seem to associate with redirects). Thanks, --Animalparty! (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the correct think to do is to have one article (as we do) and work to get wikidata's shortcomings fixed. I don't think there's much else to be done on this end, although it would be good for the article to discuss the name change and its timing in a bit more detail than it does. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines about living scientists

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Science_and_academia#guidelines_about_living_scientists--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Tagging run for WP Journals.

I've just asked for a tagging run at WP:BOTREQ#Tagging for WP Journals. It's mostly the same as we did in the past, but feel free to comment there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musicologica Austriaca

The only participants in this Afd are up till now the proposer (me) and the article creator. More views from knowledgeable editors are urgently needed. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences

Hello,

I think this one belongs to you.

From January 2016 onward, Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences is published by Elsevier and not by Wiley anymore. You can find the announcement here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6017. You can find the new website here: http://www.jpharmsci.org/. Most of the articles are also free, and you don't have to go to ScienceDirect to get them.

In the Wikipedia article, I already changed the links in the box and under the external links. You could work on the rest of the article.

Cheers!

Georginho (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

NY entomological journals

There are a number of articles on NY entomological journals that have an intertwined history (some just simple renames) and that all basically consist of the same overly complicated table. See discussion here: Talk:Entomologica Americana (New York Entomological Society). Input from knowledgeable editors is welcome. --Randykitty (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

New journal but no article as yet.

Hi; can I add the title of a new open access journal to the 'Ubiquity Press academic journals category' if it does not have an article? The journal is called 'Citizen Science: Theory and Practice'.Richard Nowell (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Not technically possible: if you try to edit that category, it'll notice it's empty, as it's generated automatically from the tagged pages. fgnievinski (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks for reply. Could a WP article on an organisation involved with a Ubiquity Press journal in a big way be included within the aforementioned category if there was a section on that journal in the organistion's article? For instance, I'm about to prepare an article on the organization The Citizen Science Association (CSA). It has very recently started a journal 'Citizen Science: Theory and Practice' (CSTP) which it publishes with Ubiquity Press. If I added a worthwhile section to the CSA article on that journal, might the article then be included within the category 'Ubiquity Press academic journals category'? Richard Nowell (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The rule for wp:Notability is a topic is that we create an article on needs reliable sources that substantially discuss that topic. Without that, we don't create, or keep, a Wikipedia article on that topic. New journals rarely rise to this threshold, unless they are created amidst some particular controversy, for instance, as might happen when an entire editorial board resigns enmass over a dispute with a publisher and sets up a competing journal.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd forgotten about wp:Notability. I'd assumed that any modern scientific journal would be notable. I'll proceed with the article about the non-profit CSA, which I consider is notable, and include a paragraph or two on the new journal. After it's gained some traction at some point in the future, a stub article about CSTP might be more appropriate. Thankyou for your thoughts. Richard Nowell (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Science (journal) changing of the guard

FYI, as of May 25, Jeremy Berg named new "Science" editor-in-chief --->(link here)<--- ----Steve Quinn (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:JCW seems to mirror-ish Pagerank

According to [16] (see Table 1, p.2), it seems of all the metrics out there, WP:JCW/Popular1 seems to closely mirror PageRank sorting, especially if you include abbreviations and alternate spellings for our ranking.

An interesting factoid, I thought. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Wiener klinische Wochenschrift

I started an article on Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, a medical journal first published in 1887 or 1888. Ulrich's says that it is peer-reviewed. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Eastmain: Well, it is quite amazing that this journal has been existence for so long! Also, it appears to have an impact factor so that means it is peer reviewed.

I will try to do more research on this later. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Everything looks good. It is on the Springer website. Steve Quinn (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Modern phytomorphology

This journal is at AFD. More input of knowledgeable editors is welcome (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern phytomorphology). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Paid-inclusion open access journals

Anybody here ever heard of "paid-inclusion open access journals"?? I just discovered that we have a cat for that. The description on its talk page seems rather POV/OR to me. --Randykitty (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the "paid-inclusion" as a widely used term for journals; it could well be OR. Open access journals can have publication fees or submission fees, with submission fee sometimes being a red flag for a predatory journal. Sometimes papers are included/published with no peer review at predatory journals, making any fees similar to that of a vanity press. But "paid inclusion" conflates all those and doesn't seem too helpful as a category. --Mark viking (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I've taken it to CfD and propose upmerging into the parent cat. Input at the CfD is welcome, of course. --Randykitty (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

JAMA

Currently JAMA redirects to JAMA (journal), but given that Jama is a disambiguation page, is this a good idea? Should JAMA redirect to Jama instead? Would like to hear other editors' opinions on this. Everymorning (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think that would make more sense than the current situation. Otherwise, if JAMA does not need to go to Jama because it so obviously is about the journal, then we wouldn't need the "(journal)" dab. --Randykitty (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Announcing WikiConference North America in San Diego, Fri-Mon 7-10 October

I am inviting participants in WikiProject Academic Journals to WikiConference North America to be held in San Diego Friday to Monday 7-10 October. Here are further details:

• The conference includes several submission tracks of interest to people who work with academic journals
• We are accepting submissions until 31 August.
• We are accepting scholarship applications 9 August - 23 August. About 40 scholarships are available only for people in Canada, the US, and Mexico. Last year about 200 people applied for scholarships.
• More volunteers are needed. In the usual wiki-way, anyone may comment on program submissions. At the conference in person, all staff will be volunteer and all attendees are encouraged check in with conference organizers about volunteering for the task queue even for an hour. Anyone interested may contact Flonight and Rosiestep to offer volunteer support.
• Major sponsorship for the conference comes from the San Diego Public Library who are providing the venue and a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation.
• This is the third year of this conference, with WikiConference USA being in New York in 2014 and in Washington DC in 2015. Check the schedules of those for examples of what kinds of programming will be offered this year.

Discussion about the conference on-wiki could happen at meta:WikiConference North America.

I am one of the organizers for this event. If anyone has questions or comments, then conversation can happen here at this WikiProject also. I am advocating for topics related to the use of academic journals in Wikipedia to be well represented at this event. If any participants at this WikiProject wants to talk by video about the conference, I am available to meet by video chat if you email me. I might, for example, support anyone in making a presentation submission if you are unfamiliar with the wiki conference format. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

XfD

There are currently several AfD and CfD debates going on that really could need some input from knowledgeable editors. In one it is argued that inclusion of a journal in GScholar makes it notable, provided the journal is peer-reviewed. I would be interested to hear the opinions of editors here on this to see whether this reflects community consensus. A list of the different XfDs is on the main page of this project. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

To those who are interested, you can find some of the discussions listed here at deletion sorting category: Journalism (e.g. see Modern phytomorphology or African Journal of Neurological Sciences). Ajpolino (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Archives of Clinical Microbiology

I've just created the Flexal virus article from a CC-BY 3.0 paper published in Archives of Clinical Microbiology, a relatively recently created open-access journal: is it suitable as a WP:RS for this sort of article? On a wider topic, what would be the best way to check journal reputation for recently-created online journals? Thanks, -- The Anome (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• The publisher of this journal is on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory publishers. Indeed, if you have a look at the homepage of the journal (http://www.acmicrob.com/) One of the first things you see is a "journal impact factor" (with an asterisk saying that it is an estimate generated using GScholar) and a "global impact factor", a known bogus rating. Just out of curiosity, I went to the most recent issue and read the "Editor Note" (in the article itself the "citation" correctly says "Editor's Note", but the header had "Editor Note" again). It contains several grammatical mistakes. The author has a Chinese name, so is perhaps not a native speaker, but works in Hawaii, so having the 1 paragraph "note" read by a native speaker should not have been a problem. That neither the editor nor the publisher seem to care enough to do something about this does not instill much confidence, either. In short, the inclusion on Beall's list is already enough for me to steer away from a journal. What I've seen of this particular one confirms Beall's judgement. I'd steer away from it and not trust anything it publishes. --Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • What a pity. I wonder whether the failure of the DOIs to resolve might be related to this. I've deleted the article. -- The Anome (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Update: I've now created a new version of this article which does not depend on this source. -- The Anome (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

BioRxiv support in citations

Main page: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1 § BioRxiv_support

This project's feedback would be appreciated in this discussion, as this could greatly (and positively) affect biological citations! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

bioRxiv

Just created this. Feel free to expand on it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Now up for a DYK. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit

I wanted to seek the opinion of other members of this project as to whether this edit was acceptable. Everymorning (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hm. I appreciate that this user is trying to give the reader more information, and surely has the best of intentions. However, I would be wary about those links. WP:External Links is fairly clear that "Social networking sites" (including Twitter) are normally to be avoided (see WP:LINKSTOAVOID #10). The faculty profile page is less clear cut, though I think it is also inappropriate here. It may be explicitly discouraged per WP:LINKSTOAVOID #s 11, 13, or maybe 19? If the faculty member is notable, then perhaps the user who added that link would be interested in writing an article on him. The infobox of that article would be a good place for an external link to the faculty profile page. I'd be happy to hear other opinions! Ajpolino (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Everymorning: @Ajpolino: Yikes! My intention was just to provide more information about the editor, and I included the external link in the infobox itself. What do you think? I'd be happy to create a Wikipedia page about the editor... Ongmianli (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ongmianli: Great! If you're considering making a page for the editor (Andres De Los Reyes), you'll want to make sure he meets the relevant Notability guidelines which in this case would be WP:SCHOLAR. Otherwise you'll be getting a visit from the delete police. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but being editor-in-chief of a notable journal is one of the criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, as a generalization (always dangerous) being e-i-c of a journal rarely means that there exists sufficient reliably-sourced material upon which to base a wp:BLP (beyond a permastub). Author bioblurbs are normally self-written and so are intrinsically of limited utility; this is too-commonly overlooked in our author biography articles. Perhaps sadly, most people get very little public notice of their accomplishments until someone writes their obituaries, which of course they never see. Useful BLP sourcing (when it exists) may only come about in discussion of editorial controversies or disputes, such as those between editorial boards and their publishers. When such notability is based in the e-i-c role rather than a reflection of the individuals' personality or academic achievements it is probably best to discuss them in the article on the far more notable journal, then simply redirect their name to that article. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports Lawyers Journal and WP:NJournals

An editor at this AfD has brought to my attention the fact that WP:NJournals in fact does not require inclusion in databases only counts for notability if that database if selective. Either this was overlooked when HJournals was written, or it has been edited out without anybody noticing. I'm currently traveling and cannot look into this, so I'm posting here so that perhaps other interested editors can have a look. I'll cross-post to the talk page of NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:JWG mentions selectivity several times, but it doesn't look like NJournals has ever specified that. clpo13_(talk) 22:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Like I wrote in that AFD, WP:NJOURNALS was I think always meant to have the selectivity of databases as a criterion, but looking at it, it does seem that it's never actually explicitly stated. Most of the text of that guideline is from 2009/2011, and we never really took a look since it was proposed (and failed) as a policy. It is however, implicitly stated through the examples and counterexamples which have evolved over the years as a response to the criticism against WP:NJOURNALS, and specific situations where NJOURNALS was too liberal on what's allowed.

I'd support revisiting that guideline and giving it a good look to bring it in line with the reality of how it's used. Cutting down the notes and examples would do it good too, once we clarify that the selectivity of the indexing service is an important factor. WP:NASTRO actually was partly based on WP:NJOURNALS [17], and passed because it really explained the situation well and made selectivity of database/surveys/publications the focal point of the guideline. We should use and mirror WP:NASTRO when we can.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Pulsus Group, Future Medicine and OMICS

Pulsus Group recently was acquired by OMICS and since then there ahs been a lot of activity at this article. I've undone most proposed changes (not all), but I'd appreciate some fresh eyes to see whether I'm not being unreasonably strict. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I hope it is right forum for discussion. Pulsus Group and Future Medicine are independent publishers and different business models, we should not combine with OMICS sources . As you know OMICS Publishing Group is a negative attack article. Jessie1979 (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about being unreasonably strict. But as the article stands, it seems unbalanced. As far as I know, Pulsus has been a respected publisher for 31 of its 32 years, but with the emphasis on its recent sale, that doesn't really come across in the article. Worse is, for example, Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy, where the journal is pretty much declared unconditionally predatory by association with no consideration of its well-respected history. We need some way to indicate a more balanced view without recent controversies, for which there may indeed be more sources, dominating with undue weight the whole history of the publisher or journal. --Mark viking (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

: Thank you, let me edit accordingly. Pulsus Group is 32 years old company and it has its own business model, no need to keep OMICS sources here? We can keep the acquisition sources. Similarly Future Medicine is an independent prominent publisher from UK and no need to keep OMICS sources here. Jessie1979 (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I have several remarks about this. 1/ Yes, the recent brouhaha is recent, as opposed to 31 years of respectable history. Thing is, for all of those 32 years Pulsus has been a small and rather unremarkable company, generating no coverage that I am aware off. In contrast, the takeover by OMICS has generated a lot of coverage. So while it is reasonable to mention the company's history as a respected publisher, we need to mention the current controversy. 2/ OMICS apparently is acquiring established and respectable publishers/journals in order to gain some respectability itself. I'm not sure that WP should be an accessory to that. 3/ Please have a look at the actual edits proposed by Jessie1979, who wants to add information about Pulsus' "business model". In fact, Jessie is adding text about promises made by the CEO of OMICS that Pulsus and Andrew John will continue working as separate entities independently from OMICS. I doubt that we should lend much credibility to this as only the future can tell whether OMICS will keep their word. In fact, this statement is already partly untrue, because Andrew John has ceased functioning and its journals transferred to OMICS. In addition, the sources tell us that Pulsus' key personnel has left, so it will be up to the new owner, OMICS, to replace those people. Jessie has added the following statement to the article on the Pulsus Group: "As per present owner statement, Andrew John publishing and Pulsus are reputable publishing houses and both of them are running under Pulsus publishing now. Majority of the journals hosted by these companies are supervised by reputed medical societies, publisher has minimal role on editorial policy and practice. OMICS employees process PDF formatting,design and hosting there is no control on content and editorial practice of Pulsus Group journals. OMICS is doing this type service to some journals including 80 years old Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, this journal content and articles belongs to "Indian Pharmaceutical Association"." Now it may be me, but this reads like a press release from OMICS and it is doubtful whether it is correct. In addition, it is partly irrelevant, because the mentioned journals have never been published by Pulsus. 4/ The info that OMICS is widely regarded as predatory is verifiable and relevant, because otherwise it is difficult to see why the takeover would be controversial.

I'll go over this again and propose an alternative wording. --Randykitty (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't proposing that we get rid of the prose describing OMICS buyout, that is clearly a notable and important event in the history of both publisher and journal. While respected low key publishers like Pusus didn't get a lot of press before OMICS, this is a controversy precisely because (1) Pulsus was respected and OMICS is not and (2) Canadians don't like foreign entities coming in and buying up their home-grown companies. Following the sources, perhaps we should describe the Pulsus Group as a respected publisher that was bought by OMICS in 2016, causing controversy and putting the future of the journals into question. --Mark viking (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I understood that, my answer was partly directed at Jessie. I have edited the Pulsus and Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy articles in the light of the above. Let me know if you think this is better. --Randykitty (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Beall's Pulsus inclusion was happened on 13 September 2016 (as per his blog), Canadian scientific controversy happened at end of September. I hope it was ordered properly at history page, no need to include in lead section. I am removing at lead. Jessie1979 (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Nice improvements, Randykitty. I think your new prose in both of the articles more accurately captures the history and addresses my main concern. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion: Journal citation with templates should be preferred

Please see Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Journal citation with templates should be preferred for a discussion on modifying the provisions of Wikipedia:Citing sources, specifically section WP:CITEHOW, to allow and encourage journal citations using citation templates even if an article already uses a consistent system without templates. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

RFCs on citations templates and the flagging free-to-read sources

See

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access locks: Visual Design RFC
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Academic Journals/Archive 4 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing

There has been some edit warring going on at Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing regarding how the journal and its editors should be described. Additional eyes over there would be appreciated. Everymorning (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• And now it has spilled over to WP:NJournals: see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). --Randykitty (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

MFD Discussion for WP:NJOURNALS

FYI, participants in this WikiProject may be interested in the ongoing MFD discussion for WP:NJOURNALS, which can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Ufahamu and Physics Essays

Both of these articles could use some extra eyes. Be warned that the discussion at Ufahamu is especially acrimonious. --Randykitty (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals)

There are lots of discussion concerning WP:NJOURNALS, including proposed changes to it, many of which would substantially change the longstanding wording. Please comment there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Urgent: Beall's list

Jeffrey Beall's blog about predatory publishing has disappeared in its entirety. According to this, this is due to a decision by Beall himself, not hacking or such. Our problem is that posts on Beall's blog (http://scholarlyoa.com/), especially his lists of predatory journals, publishers, and impact ranking services (but also individual blog posts), are the main sources (sometimes the only ones) that provide criticism in our articles on some of these predatory publishers/journals. All those links are currently dead (and in the past two days, some editors already started removing them!) I would expect that most content can still be found on the WayBack machine, so it is urgent that all these references get rescued by adding archive-url parameters to them. I'm up till my ears in work in RL, so all help is welcome! Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. That's not good. I've checked WayBack and it seems to have a good archive of the site. In any case, no one should be removing dead references without replacing them, so that sort of behaviour should be reverted. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll take this to WP:BOTREQ. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Medicine promotion

The WikiJournal of Medicine is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's biomedical content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group with other WikiJournals under development. The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.

Engaging Wikipedians

• Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
• Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analogous to GA / FA review)
• Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

Engaging non-Wikipedians

We hope that an academic journal format may also encourage non-Wikipedians to contribute who would otherwise not. Therefore, please consider:

• Printing off the advertisement poster and distribute in tearooms & noticeboards at your place of work
• Emailing around the pdf through contact networks or mailing lists (suggested wording)

If you want to know more, we recently published an editorial describing how the journal developed. Alternatively, check out the journal's About or Discussion pages.

Additionally, the WikiJournal of Science is just starting up under a similar model and looking for contributors. Firstly it is seeking editors to guide submissions through external academic peer review and format accepted articles. It is also encouraging submission of articles in the same format as Wiki.J.Med. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:JCW and categorization of articles and links

I've had an idea for WP:JCW and facilitate our work. Please comment there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

Template:Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers has been nominated for merging with Template:IEEE councils. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Our vision for academic journal lists and articles

I was thinking recently how there is no one, universal lists of journals in any discipline, and where we (Wikipedia in general and this WikiProject in particular) fit into this. Here are my thoughts:

• not all journals are notable. We have a nice notability guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) to help us in deciding which publication is notable or not, plus an ongoing discussion there that aims to refine it, but bottom line here is that Wikipedia cannot have an article on each and every academic journal, only on the "important" ones. Those journals are accessible through categories (Category:Academic journals) and lists (Lists of academic journals).
• the notability guideline for journals does say that non-notable journals can be included in the lists. And lista are what I would like to discuss. We currently don't seem to have any quality list (please link any if you think it is worth looking at). So without a single good example of how a quality list may look like, I would like to ask you - how should an ideal, featured-level, list of academic journals look like? I think that it should be:
  • comprehensive: listing all journals in the field. Now, once at the talk of notability guideline we can agree on which indices are reliable, that would be a minimum requirement: a list should list all journals from reliable indices. But second question: should it attempt to list other journals - including non-notable, and pure predatory/garbage ones?
  • a sortable table: I believe a proper list would be a sortable table, listing more than just a title. What are important items to include in the list? Here are some ideas of mine: publisher, frequency, language(s), date of establishment, impact factor, h-index, indexing in reliable indices (which ones? some journals are indexed in 10-20 and that's too many for a list), and maybe open access status?

I am thinking I could start improving a list of journals in my field (list of sociology journals) but I would appreciate comments regarding how a good list in our field, one that good aim for a WP:FAL status eventually, should look like. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I don't really feel the need for such detailed list, especially because the more information you include, the more impossible it becomes to maintain. But in theory, I suppose we could have (current) Publication name, Date of Establishment, (current) Publisher, (current) Editor(s)-in-Chief, ISSN, eISSN, (current) open access status. Maybe IF IF year, but that also invites other metrics like SCImago Journal Rank, Eigenfactor, g-index, h-index, 5-year IF, etc... Indexing is too complex to include in such a list. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I support the project to expand the sociology list to make it a table that includes some non-notable journals. I believe "non-notable" implies here that (1) their names would be in text in the list, not redlinked; and (2) their presence in the list would not be a strong argument for a claim of notability later. Right? Let's leave out predatory/terrible ones but I don't know what sources can be used to distinguish those; maybe their presence in a reliable index? I would not go in the direction of "all journals" if that would include many not in English that Wikipedians here cannot judge or make use of. Our articles sometimes leave ambiguity about the language(s) of the journal. It seems to me that the useful encyclopedic attributes to list are the journal's areas of focus or criteria for inclusion, the language it's in, its open-access properties, and a link to further information about it if there is no en.wp article. I'd leave out impact, editor, publisher, and indexing attributes from such a table, for several reasons: (1) they change, creating work to update the table isn't useful in the long run; (2) we can link to sources for that stuff; (3) they will over-fill a wiki table, adding noise and a formatting problem; and (3) the emphasize a competitive frame for journals instead of their role in knowledge production -- that is, who is winning and succeeding instead of what the journal is about. I'll commit to help the project for sociology and evaluate usefulness for other fields I have a clue about (like econ, CS, and history of technology). -- econterms (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Query about journal pages

Hi, I posted a query on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide, maybe it would have been better if I had posted it here. Please let me know if you have any thoughts! Thanks TheBigPikachu (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I was planning on replying to it there, but life blew up. But I'll get to you now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikimania 2017

I will be making (assuming my proposal is accepted) a presentation on JCW at Wikimania 2017, in Montreal.

If you are interested in attending, please sign up! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences - review requested

A user requested review at Draft:Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences. I thought that I would notify this board. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I tweaked it some, but it looks pretty good for a new article. Continues a century-old publication, so notability is a cinch. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Please help review a draft

Is Draft:Image Analysis & Stereology notable? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

LGTM. Published for 30 years, official journal of the relevant professional society, widely indexed, and has a Thomson impact factor. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Show "opencitations" in Infobox Journal ?

For those who have not yet run across it, there is an initative abroad to open up citation data, with WMF involvement, tied to the OpenCitations initiative. As this is now approaching the point where half of all academic publications have released citations under CC0, it may be about time to capture and display status for publications in an {{Infobox Journal}} parameter |opencitations=. This could be bot-populated fairly easily (see the FAQ for more.) Comments? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Archive 4/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Academic Journals, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Listing the editorial board dispute at philoSOPHIA

Please comment at Talk:philoSOPHIA. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:PhiloSOPHIA#RfC_regarding_inclusion_of_advisory_board

Please comment. This will possibly affect our writing guide at WP:JWG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:JWG#Landmark papers

I've added a section on how to deal with landmark papers to the guide. Feel free to refine the language. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

African Journal of Disability

Would an attempt to write an article about the African Journal of Disability - http://www.ajod.org - be worthwhile or a waste of time? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'd say probably not--no impact factor, and only indexed in relatively obscure databases (not in Medline, for example). It seems to hinge on whether the following databases are selective as per NJOURNALS: DHET SA List, African Index Medicus, Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series and Publishers, Level 1, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), EBSCO Host, GALE, CENGAGE Learning, ProQuest. DOAJ I know isn't selective, though I'm not sure about the rest. Everymorning (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Everymorning, do you think it could be ignored for a year or two while it acquires an impact factor and possibly builds a reputation? BTW look for it in sociology indexes rather than medical - only a small part of disability is about medicine, it's primarily a social sciences topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Bibliographies of academics

Although perhaps only tangential relevant to this project, people here might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Aronowitz bibliography, which bears on lists of academic books and journal articles. --Randykitty (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Zotero now has a Wikidata translator

Citation management tool Zotero now has two Wikidata translators. Not only does it read metadata from Wikidata items about works, so you can add them to your Zotero library, but it can export metadata in a format understood by QuickStatements, enabling users to more easily create Wikidata items about the works already in their Zotero libraries. Since Zotero can already read metadata about works from other websites, or data files such as BibTeX and COinS, it can now be used as an intermediary to import that data. See d:Wikidata:Zotero. The translator was developed at the recent WikiCite event in Vienna. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caribbean Journal of International Relations & Diplomacy

This AfD was closed. I have requested a relist, so that editors knowledgeable about academic journals also can participate. --Randykitty (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Doesn't look like a relist is going to happen, so the AfD for this journal, that misses NJournals by a mile, has been closed "keep". I encourage editors here to increase their participation at journal-related AfDs (they are listed on the main project page). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2017 (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

Women in Red's new initiative: #1day1woman

		Women in Red is pleased to introduce... A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: #1day1woman
		Create articles on any day of any month Cover women and their works in any field of interest Feel free to add articles in other languages, too Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Frontiers in Public Health

A paid editor would like to add to the Allen Meadors article that he is an associate editor of a journal called Frontiers in Public Health. See the discussion here. It seems that the journal has 3,279 editors(!), 702 of whom are associate editors. Is it worth mentioning such a positon in a biographical article, given that the journal has so many editors? It hardly sounds like a selective position. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Question about two new mathematics journals

A request for advice/guidance: my research field has recently seen the appearance of two new journals, the Journal of Combinatorial Algebra (published by the European Mathematical Society; indexed in MathSciNet; three issues have appeared) and Algebraic Combinatorics (to be published by the Centre Mersenne; no issues have yet appeared, but it has been the subject of an article in Inside Higher Ed). Both are obviously reputable institutions. I'm not a regular editor of Wikipedia articles about journals; do these (yet) meet the basic notability requirements for Wikipedia? If not, what's the usual time-frame for notability in this kind of situation?

Thanks, JBL (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Algebraic Combinatorics is an unusual case because of the press coverage; it might well pass WP:NJournals #3. But I'm skeptical whether Journal of Combinatorial Algebra is notable yet; inclusion in MathSciNet shows that it is legitimate (as does its sponsorship by EMS) but because MathSciNet indexes almost every legitimate mathematical journal I don't think it can be considered as the sort of selective index requested by NJournals #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Asking at WP:WPM for their input on those journals would help. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll put a pointer there back to this discussion. --JBL (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that Algebraic Combinatorics merits an article, but I am also skeptical that Journal of Combinatorial Algebra does yet. I added the latter to the list of publications in the European Mathematical Society page, so that we have some record of it. Filling in that redlink at a later date, when the notability is unquestionable, ought to be easy enough. XOR'easter (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks David Eppstein and XOR'easter for your thoughts. Once AC has the standard data (DOI, ISSN, etc.) in place I'll try putting together an article, but I'll hold off on JCA. XOR'easter, thanks, that is a good idea. --JBL (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Template_talk:Infobox_journal#Conversion_to_Wikidata

From many discussions at Wikimania, myself, DGG, and several others felt this infobox was a prime candidate for conversion to Wikidata. I've started a discussion at the link above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the Manual of Style for Academic Journal pages?

Team is there a Manual of Style for Academic Journals? Can this be listed in main page. Also please advise if Infobox for Journals be added to the project page.--Wikishagnik (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wikishagnik (talk · contribs). There isn't a manual of style, but we do have a writing guide located at WP:JWG. Was this what you were looking for? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

No, while What to include and what not to include might help those who have worked on articles of Academic Journal, a new editor like me would have a tough time organizing an article. Yes, articles as stubs would be OK, but would be bad in the long run, so yes, a Manual of Style would help a lot.--Wikishagnik (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/JCW-CleanerBot

If you have comments, please make them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 21#Wikipedia:MCW

Please participate in this discussion. This is related to the creation of a magazine-equivalent to WP:JCW. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

{{Infobox journal}} update!

1. We now have a |bluebook= field
2. You get prompted to add ISO 4 / Bluebook abbreviations (law journals only) if they don't exist
   1. Using |abbreviation=no / |bluebook=no will suppress the prompts.
   2. The relevant tracking categories are Category:Infobox journals with missing ISO 4 abbreviations / Category:Infobox journals with missing Bluebook abbreviations
3. You get prompted to create ISO 4 / Bluebook redirects if they don't exist.
   1. You only get prompted if |abbreviation=/|bluebook= are set
   2. Maintenance templates at the top of articles have links to facilitate abbreviation validation / redirect creation.
   3. The relevant tracking categories are Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 redirects / Category:Articles with missing Bluebook redirects
4. We now have {{R from Bluebook}} to match {{R from ISO 4}}

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for your excellent work with this! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Education/Educational in ISO 4

"Education" and "Educational" don't show in the LTWA lookup. I've seen them both abbreviate to "Edu." and "Educ."—not sure whether/when it's consistent. Please {{ping}} if you can help. czar 18:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see that "educa-" with the hyphen is meant to denote both "Education" and "Educational", so both abbreviate to "educ." (Similar with "archi-" to "arch." for "archives", "archival", etc.) Hope that can help someone else and perhaps worth explaining in the guide? czar 18:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Medical in ISO 4

In the LTWA lookup, "medical" corresponds to "méd." with the accent. Is this correct? Medical Teacher would be "Méd. Teach."? czar 19:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: The list looks inconsistent as to where it places diacritics (compare biomedic-), but the general rules say: Diacritic marks shall be retained in the word abbreviations. For languages where an alternative spelling without diacritics is also possible, this alternative may be used instead. I understand here that only existing diacritics (in French titles) are retained. Tokenzero (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks czar 19:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Romanian Journal of History and International Studies

Could someone please review Draft:Romanian Journal of History and International Studies? The draft says the journal is peer-reviewed, but I cannot tell whether it is notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Predatory journal list

Would it be okay if you guys put this predatory journal list on the front page of your project, asking contributors to check the publisher of an academic journal against this list? It may be useful for people who use academic journals as sources and/or write about them. User:Drmies gave me a heads up on this page. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOLD Go right ahead and put it somewhere! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Beall's list is discontinued. It's ok to use it as reference, but please don't link random copies, use an archived copy of the actual list. I'm not sure what sorts of "checks" you envisage, but nowadays it's quite useful to check whether an open access journal is included in http://doaj.org/ with the DOAJ seal. --Nemo 19:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I started a "Suggestions" section - Please check the Wikicode (it seems work and look OK) and feel free to change or add anything WhisperToMe (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You tell people to check the Directory of Open Access Journals, WhisperToMe, but don't tell them what to do if it is or isn't on there. Surely this only applies to OA journals in any case? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Lemme revise that... - If an OA journal is not on the list, what do you do? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

https://blog.doaj.org/2017/06/02/are-you-publishing-with-the-correct-journal/ has some tips too. --Nemo 07:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Impact factors for 3 law journals

Could someone (@DGG:/@Randykitty:?) look up the impact factors for

• Indiana Health Law Review
• University of Pennsylvania Law Review
• New York University Law Review

And update the articles accordingly? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• The first one is not indexed by Clarivate Analytics, so it doesn't have an IF. The IF listed in the article is probably taken from the Washington and Lee rankings (and should be removed from the infobox). The 2016 IFs for the other two are 2.630 and 1.705, respectively. As for the Indiana journal, the IFs mentioned in the articles are probably from the Washington and Lee rankings. W&L strive to include every law journal published in the US, so it's not selective in the sense of NJournals. We have hundreds of articles on (US and other countries') law journals and I've never been able to figure out a good way to separate the notable ones from the non-notable ones (of which there are many: W&L lists lots of journals that are not cited at all during some years). --Randykitty (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of selectiveness, the main issue is that this isn't the impact factor, but rather something else entirely (like a pseudo-IF). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, this is not the IF, but I wouldn't necessarily call it "fake" or "pseudo" either. An IF is number of citations during a given period divided by number of articles published in a period of interest. Clarivate uses (citations in 2016 to 2015 and 2014)/(articles published in 2014 and 2015), but Scopus calculates a "Citescore", which is (citations in 2016 to 2015 and 2014 and 2013)/(articles published in 2013 and 2014 and 2015). W&L uses a different year span, but I think the basic formula is the same. I'm not really sure how W&L calculates their IF, but it seems to cover 7 or 8 years ([18]). I'm not sure how to handle this. Law journal are really in general a different kind of academic journal (for starters, most are student-edited and not necessarily peer-reviewed). W&L seems to be the standard in that particular field, much more than Clarivate (formerly Thomson Reuters, formerly ISI). W&L presents a lot of statistics on journals and most of these articles are created by the students that edit them, who then cherry-pick to present the W&L metric that places "their" journal in as much positive light as possible. I usually just edit these articles to be neutral, but don't see much in the way of establishing notability. The Indiana Health Law Review is a good example. Not indexed in any selective database, so should we PROD this? How about the hundreds of other law journals? And given what I said above about the article creators, PRODs are bound to be contested ("our journal really is very important"), this would lead to a lot of AfDs (with the usual crowd of "it's an academic journal so we should cover it"). --Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb and Randykitty, I have a few thoughts that relate to this discussion:

1. Impact factors for law journals in infoboxes: The Washington and Lee impact factor shows (very roughly) the average number of citations in other law journals per article per year. You can learn more about their methodology at this link. To calculate this score, Washington and Lee only looks at citations in other law journals that are accessible through Westlaw, so it does not account for citations in other publications (e.g. if the Harvard Law Review is cited by British Politics, that citation won't count towards the Harvard Law Review's impact factor if British Politics is not available on Westlaw). That said, I do think it would be useful to include Washington and Lee's impact factor in the infobox of Law Journal articles. Is there any way we can add this to the template?
2. Notability of law journals: For the last several years, I have been thinking that we need to have some sort of formal standards for the notability of law journals. However, after giving it some thought, I think that we should use the standards that are already established at WP:JOURNALCRIT. I think law journals can satisfy the first criterion if they have been cited in published court opinions (this shows that courts treat the journal as a reliable source and that it is influential in its subject area). For the second criterion, if the Washington and Lee rankings show that a law journal is rarely cited, then I think it's safe to say that the journal fails to meet this standard. I think very few law journals will qualify as notable under the third criterion alone, and I can only think of handful off the top of my head (see, e.g., The Green Bag (1889–1914)). Because law journals occupy a fairly unique space in academic publishing, I don't think that being indexed (or not being indexed) in selective databases is a good measure for notability. Instead, I think we should look on a case-by-case basis at whether the journal has made a significant contribution to legal scholarship.
3. A quick response regarding the selection process of law review articles: Unlike most disciplines, which regulate scholarship through "pre-publication screening" (viz. the peer review process), legal scholarship primarily relies on what William Baude describes as "post-publication screening". In post-publication screening, a wider range of ideas and arguments are published, and those ideas and arguments are then later refined and critiqued by future articles, books, court opinions, etc-. Consequently, when evaluating whether a journal is considered "influential," it is important to look holistically at the role the journal has played in advancing discourse or scholarship in its field.

In any event, I hope you are both enjoying a nice weekend! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

If we recognized the W&L impact, I'd rather have a |w&l-impact=/|w&l-year= for that information than putting it in the |impact= field, to make it clear this is a W&L metric, rather than the impact factor. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's essentially what I envisioned. We definitely should not give the impression that Washington and Lee's impact factor and the impact factor are equivalent. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Italian titles and ISO 4

Is there a guide to handling Italian titles? The English equivalents for Ricerche di Pedagogia e Didattica are abbreviated, but no dice in the LTWA czar 21:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

If you disable english only in my tool (warning, it's slow, hangs for at least a few seconds; the link) it finds ric., pedagog. and didàtt.. I'm working on making it faster and giving all the abbreviation, instead of just the table. Tokenzero (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The most authoritative source for journals and periodicals in Italy is http://acnp.unibo.it/ which provides "RPD" as alternative title. --Nemo 15:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

This is about ISO 4 abbreviations specifically. Other abbreviations may be used (and be more common) than ISO ones. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications in ISO 4

"Its" isn't an article or conjunction—should it be included in the journal's ISO 4? czar 01:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

My gut says no and that possessives should be left out. "Teach. Math. Its Appl." gets 29 hits, "Teach. Math. Appl." gets 729 hits. Both redirects should be created, but I'll ping @DGG: here to know which should be tagged with {{R from ISO 4}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing the standard in detail, I see nothing that says possessive should be excluded, so I've marked Teach. Math. Its Appl. as the ISO one. Both are created however, since both are likely search terms.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Apparent discrepancy on ISO abbrev

I just created Knowledge-Based Systems (journal), and was confused about what the ISO abbreviation for its title is. The automated tool that now is linked to at the top of new articles says it should be Knowledge-Based Syst. (I guess), but the NLM catalog entry says it should be Knowl. Based Syst. Which one is right? Everymorning (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The tool doesn't handle hyphenated very well. Remove the hyphen, you get Knowl. Based Syst., so the ISO 4 abbreviation is Knowl.-Based Syst. (You preserve hyphens in ISO 4.) The un-hyphenated versions should be created and marked with {{R from abbreviation}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)