Talk:AIP Advances

Peer review and public ranking system
Randykitty : The bit on peer review IS on the referenced material. Just read the description of the journal itself by AIP on http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva. You mentioned the need for third-party sources, but this is not needed: this is a description of editorial policy, and the source is from AIP itself. This is in agreement with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide:
 * "Good descriptions of the journals can usually be found in the first few pages of the journal, or on their website, but sometimes they are overly precise and need to be "condensed"."

If you still believe this needs to be better sourced, let's look for sources, this will lead to a better article; deleting half of a new article will not.

Joaosampaio (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I will, yet again, remove this text. NJOURNALS indeed states that uncontroversial material can be sourced to the journal's own website. However, claiming that the journal differs "from almost all other scientific journals" in some respect or another is an extraordinary strong claim and will need more than the journal's own website to substantiate it (in fact, it cannot be substantiated, because it is false, there are quite a few journals that have this kind of post-publication info and being peer-reviewed is part of the very definition of an academic journal). Please do not restore this promotional material without an independent source. I will leave the info on the CC-BY license. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I re-inserted the text, and edited so it no longer suggests that their reviewing system is an innovation. The rest of the text is quite uncontroversial and factual : it is a fact that readership metrics are shown in the article page, it is a fact that typically journals ask more of their referees than a simple assessment of accuracy and originality, it is a fact that AIP Adv. ask their referees to assess only that, etc. If any part of the text still sounds to you promotional, let's discuss it here. Joaosampaio (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC).
 * I have shortened the statement, while retaining all crucial information. I hope this is an acceptable compromise. --Randykitty (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * perfect! Joaosampaio (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)