Talk:Angewandte Chemie

Untitled
I deleted the incorrect statement about not providing graphical abstracts. Angewandte Chemie does not publish abstracts for Communications. By clicking on the "View Graphical Table of Contents" link on the journal homepage, one can read a short Table of Contents text with a graphic even without full access. Dflanagan 14:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree, if I go to http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/26737 and click View Graphical Table of Contents I get an access denied:  REASON: You are accessing the system as a Guest. As a Guest, you have access to Abstracts-but not Abstracts with References, Graphical Table of Contents or Full Text Articles Angewandte should take a good look at how JACS is handling information, information heaven: abstract, graphical abstract and supplementary info, V8rik 16:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I checked-- you're right. However, as originally written, the article said no abstracts were available. How about something like, "Angewandte Chemie provides open access to author-written abstracts, but access to the graphical table of contents, with an image and editor's summary for each paper, requires a subscription. (Note that communications in Angewandte Chemie do not have author-written abstracts.)" --Dflanagan 04:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * agree, I have already implemented the new line. Also: the top-10 should be about original work not reviews, does such a list exist, is there a list somewhere regardless of what journal it is in? V8rik 17:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that list came from ISI-- one could make such a list with access. --Dflanagan 08:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the incorrect statement about not providing free access to supplementary information; this is available without requiring a subscription. I also inserted a clarification that communications are not published with abstracts (abstracts for reviews published in Angewandte Chemie, for example, are freely available). As discussed above, access to the graphical table of contents does require a subscription. --Dflanagan 17:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dflanagan, I challenge you to provide me with a open access link to any abstract in the current issue of the angewandte international edition (I guess you will say that this issue ONLY contains communications). On the other hand I did get open access to the supplementary info: great! I also kindly request that you state if or not you have any professional ties with the Angewandte or its publisher, this is not clear to me from your user page. V8rik 18:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Example link to abstract for article in current issue: Abstract --Dflanagan 16:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * is a review and does not count V8rik 17:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

... which is exactly what is written in the article. V8rik, why you're having a go at Dflanagan? BlnLiCr 21:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We are trying to write an encyclopedia article about Angewandte, not to guide the journal's (or any) policy. --Smokefoot 23:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * BlnLiCr, please elaborate on you're having a go in your comment. Am I in any way disrespectful to co-editor Dflanagan? Usually new editors with 2-day work experience on Wiki concentrate on adding new content rather than accusing other editors.


 * Smokefoot, yes it is all about adding new content to existing pages. One hot topic in scientific publishing is open access so the open access policy of a journal is certainly worth mentioning. V8rik 22:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Dflanagan did not respond: I rest my case V8rik 22:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Magazine
I didn't see any mention of a magazine as part of this journal when it is issued weekly. I removed mention of the magazine unless someone has a page on the web site that says otherwise. Thanks. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * With "This journal strongly emphasises review articles" and "Use of unpublished results from original research should be extremely limited" you make it seem Angewandte is a review journal that discourages research articles. This is not true. "Use of unpublished results.." only refers to the essay content and the majority of the content is in fact research articles V8rik (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree. The majority of content is review of original research already published. The only new articles in this journal are review articles in all categories. There is nothing that says this journal publishes original research. However, there is more that says this journal reviews already published original research. Can you show me something on the web site or from another source that says something different? Steve Quinn (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at the [section for referees where it is clear that it publishes new results of wide interest, or this quote "The Communications are critically             selected and report on the latest research results, making the              journal indispensable to the chemist who wants to stay well              informed." in this link. This journal competes with the [[Journal of the American Chemical Society]] as a prime journal for original research that is of interest to most chemists. All journals are publishing more review articles these days because there is a demand and they are cited more so raise the citation index of the journal, but that does not alter the basics of this journal. The current issue has 43 communications (that is original research), 1 review, 1 mini-review  and 3 highlights plus some news and one author profile. V8rik is correct. -- Bduke    (Discussion)  10:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Highly cited papers
I have removed the list of most highly cited papers. There's no indication those papers are individually notable, there was no third-party source discussing the numbers of citations (beyond a citation index which lists every paper's citations), and there's no indication those most highly cited in 2006 are any more or less notable than those most highly cited in, say, 2000 or 2012. In short, it's listcruft. Huon (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV: Cherrypicked quotes in 2020 controversy
There is a serious problem in lopsidedness and non-neutrality with the quotes under the "2020 controversy" section. The three quotes (cited firstly without reference to relevant sections in the discussed paper, and secondly with a link that does not direct to the proper source, but instead to the journal's apologetic response), are (copied from the version as of writing this):

"the recently established “Power Hour” at Gordon Research Conferences... in order to increase the participation of women in science... diminishes the contributions by men"

and:

"The pressure on Chinese academics to publish in “western” journals is immense and it is therefore not surprising that fraud and improper publication protocols are common"

and that, in training and mentoring:

"there must be "an unconditional submission of the apprentice to his/her master.""

Wikipedia articles mustn't claim a given claim without context. Please add full context to the quotes, such that they are not out of context, to let the reader form their own opinion of which claims are actually made. ---MewTheEditor (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I've checked the original quotes, and I expanded the first one (was really distorted by cutting) and third one (to make it clear it's quotation in quotation). Hopefully it's improved somewhat. One could say these still do not include enough context and should be expanded further, but this section already takes half of the article space...


 * As for link to the original article, I don't see how this can be done without it being WP:LINKVIO, as the original article was completely removed from the website (not just retracted) and it wasn't Open Access. – attomir (talk &#124; contribs) 16:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, attomir (talk the original article is completely retracted and withdrawn from journal website. But still if you want to see the article its available in Sci-Hub. So you can get it from there. A humble suggestion no need to make it even big issue by discussing too much in article section, I came to know about the issue only through wiki. The contribution of this journal to science is literally huge, so no need to make a lot of negative discussions. Rahul SomanDiscussions - contribs 11:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It could be compressed by removing quotes and summarizing their content instead. Of course the best way would be to also expand other content to make it proportionate. – attomir (talk &#124; contribs) 08:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)