Talk:Catalysis Science & Technology

Removal of sourced text
This is a very short article, but an attempt to expand it by a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry has been reverted by user:Randykitty as "promotional". The doesn't seem particularly promotional to me. It contains far more information than the.

I am particularly concerned that Wikipedia has difficulty in attracting experts to edit, and this represents to me the sort of actions that alienate good-faith experts who try to engage with our project. I invite interested editors to examine these sources: (all of which have been removed by Randykitty) and explain how and why they are not suitable sources for content in this article.
 * http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/CY/about.asp RSC Publishing  About Catalysis Science & Technology
 * http://library.queensu.ca/library/news/story/11/02/08/new-journal-catalysis-science-technology 'New Journal: Catalysis Science & Technology' Queen's University library website
 * http://derevistasylibros.blogspot.com/2010/12/la-royal-society-of-chemistry-lanza-una.html De revistas y libros
 * http://libguides.library.usyd.edu.au/content.php?pid=35136&sid=258408 E-Journals, includes Open Access Journals, University of Sydney Library

I would also like to know why this sourced content:

The first online articles were published in January 2011, and the first issue of Catalysis Science & Technology appeared in March 2011. Free online access is available to all Catalysis Science & Technology articles until the end of 2012. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2013 impact factor of 4.76.

Scope

Catalysis Science & Technology is a multidisciplinary journal focussing on both the fundamental science of catalysis and also the science of catalysis technology, including applications addressing global issues. The journal contains a mixture of applied, fundamental, experimental and computational research. The journal aims to bring together the top research from the homogeneous, heterogeneous and biocatalysis communities.

Article types


 * Catalysis Science & Technology publishes the following types of articles:
 * Full Papers (original scientific work)
 * Communications (preliminary accounts that merit urgent publication)
 * Mini-reviews (short accounts of the published articles on the topic of catalysis)
 * Perspectives (personal accounts or critical analyses of specialist areas)

is unsuitable for inclusion in the article. If there are no good reasons for the exclusion, then I intend to restore the expanded version by user:Hallowesa. I would hope that in future, new editors - particularly those with expertise in the relevant field - are given a warmer welcome by experienced editors. It is certainly easier to simply revert, but we'll never improve our editor base until established editors take the time to help new editors improve. Reversion doesn't fit that bill. --RexxS (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to go into each and every detail here. Please see WP:JWG for tips on how to write and expand articles on academic journals. The guide clearly explains that, for example, "types of papers" should not be listed. "References" to homepages of editors are promotional, especially if they don't even mention the journal (this is about the Mizuno lab page, the van Leeuwen link is a dead link). And how is a claim that "[t]he journal aims to bring together the top research" not promotional? And what is the use of "Free online access is available to all Catalysis Science & Technology articles until the end of 2012", apparently more than 2 years out of date? The "scope" section is a close paraphrase (partly literal copy) of what is written on the journal page. The whole thing just means the same thing as "all aspects of catalysis", just using more and promotional sounding words. Any restoration of this text would be inappropriate. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:JWG appears to have the status of an essay, not policy. I'm not going to go into each and every detail here, either. Just one. Had you checked the cited source, rather than merely removing another, new, editor's contribution, you would have seen that "until the end of 2012" refers to the fact that articles published until that date are (still) free to access. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in the version I've just restored that is incommensurate with the essay that you seem to rely on. I had hoped you would have been keen to work with new editors who have particular expertise in this article, but it seems you prefer to dismiss their efforts without debate. Removing relevant, cited text without good reason - they are not promotional - is disruptive. --RexxS (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Andy and Rexx, as you seem to need more detail, I'll go through all the newly-introduced problems one by one. The journal article writing guide is indeed not a guideline or policy, that would be weird. It's intended to help people to write or expand good articles on academic journals. It has been honed over years and is followed by every editor in the WPJournals wikiproject. There is good and solid reasoning behind the recommendations given there. In any case, whatever that guide says, there are significant problems that remain. I'll describe and explain them in what follows. As my internet connection is very unreliable at the moment (I ust lost about 30 min of editing), I am going to do this very incrementally. Please wait with responding until I have indicated that I am finished. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for engaging positively with my concerns. I'm sorry that you're having connectivity problems and of course I'll wait for you to explain before responding further. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for engaging positively with my concerns. I'm sorry that you're having connectivity problems and of course I'll wait for you to explain before responding further. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Article problems
OK, it took me a while to get to this, but here goes, from the top of the article to the end.
 * 1) Infobox, country: "United Kingdiom" is a common geographic term that should not normally be wikilinked (WP:OVERLINK)
 * 2) First line of lead, "references": The first "reference" is just another link to the journal's website. Sprinkling an article with links to such a website is mildly spammy and not necessary at all. The homepage adequately sources the information that this is a monthly journal published by the RCS.
 * 3) First line of lead, "references": The second "reference" is a 3 line announcement on a library website. Does not provide any usable info and as said above, not necessary.
 * 4) First line of lead, "references": The third "reference" is a brief announcement of the journal on a blog. Unnecessary, uninformative, and not a reliable source.
 * 5) First line of lead, "references": The fourth "reference" does not even mention the journal and even if it did, the foregoing would apply to this reference, too.
 * 6) First line of lead: does not say what the journal is about. "Catalysis Science & Technology is a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal covering all aspects of catalysis that is published by the Royal Society of Chemistry" does.
 * 7) Second sentence of the lead: the editors are clearly listed on the journal website, as are their affiliations. The "reference" given for Mizuno goes to his lab page, which does not even mention the journal. Reference is unnecessary and mildly promotional. I assume that the "reference" for van Leeuwen would be a similar page (it's a dead link), the same goes for that. The info is uncontroversial and adequately sourced by the journal website.
 * 8) Third sentence of the lead: "The first online articles were published in January 2011, and the first issue of Catalysis Science & Technology appeared in March 2011" is just a long way of saying "The journal was established in 2011".
 * 9) Fourth sentence of the lead: "Free online access is available to all Catalysis Science & Technology articles until the end of 2012." To start, this phrase is unclear: it suggests free access will be available until the end of 2012 (it now being 2015...) Apparently, what is meant is that all content published in 2011 and 2012 is available for free online. The journal is, as indicated in the infobox, a hybrid open access journal, so readers will expect some content to be available for free (and not just info from 2011/2012). Unclear and unnecessary. The reference is a promotional-sounding announcement of the journal itself.
 * 10) Last sentence of the lead: correct and pertinent. This information is normally placed in a section titled "Abstracting and indexing", which is where it belongs, but not in the lead.
 * 11) Scope section, first sentence: "Catalysis Science & Technology is a multidisciplinary journal focussing on both the fundamental science of catalysis and also the science of catalysis technology, including applications addressing global issues." The proposed first lead sentence ("Catalysis Science & Technology is a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal covering all aspects of catalysis that is published by the Royal Society of Chemistry") captures all of this with "all aspects of catalysis". The rest is promotional sounding hoopla.
 * 12) Scope section, second sentence: "The journal contains a mixture of applied, fundamental, experimental and computational research." More promotional sounding hollow stuff. Captured with "all aspects of" and, like the previous sentence, copied directly from the journal's website and therefore a copyvio.
 * 13) Scope section, third sentence: "The journal aims to bring together the top research from the homogeneous, heterogeneous and biocatalysis communities." Completely promotional. Again copied from the journal's own website. In short, the whole "scope" section is a copyvio (and therefore understandably promotional) that needs to be deleted.
 * 14) Article types section. This is basically part of the author guidelines. Sections like this are routinely removed from any journal article, based on the advice of our resident librarian: User talk:DGG/Archive 0.1 Catalysis Science & Technology, who says about this: "Publishers like to list all the sections. i don't think that's encyclopedic. Every scientific journal typically has articles and editorials and letters to the editor and occasional reviews." Besides "unencyclopedic", I personally would add "boring"...
 * 15) Abstracting and indexing: absolutely necessary section, should contain the information on the impact factor.

and, I hope this explains sufficiently the edits that I previously made and makes it clear why the article cannot stand as it currently is. pOur journal article writing guide gives manu helpful tips for easily and rapidly creating informative and neutral articles on academic journals. Even editors with a COI can, if they follow that advice, easily contribute good quality articles. There is also a collection of resources (including pre-formatted references) on my user page. I hope that after reading the foregoing, you will restore the modifications that I made to the article. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I can't see that the issues you raise are best addressed by wholescale deletion of the edits made by a new editor, particularly one who has expert experience with the subject of this journal. I feel it a far better course of action to outline concerns before making drastic cuts to other editors' good-faith contributions.
 * I am aware of the essay on the writing of articles on academic journals but even a cursory glance shows that your last removal of content didn't match the advice, as you removed the Scope section, contrary to WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide . So I think we both are happy to take that essay with a pinch of salt, especially if it should conflict with the norms of Wikipedia article writing, such as making articles comprehensive (per WP:GACR no.3 and WP:FACR no.1b).
 * In an effort to move forward, I'll address your concerns and look for where we might find consensus:
 * I have no problem with unlinking United Kingdom and have done so.
 * The journal home page is located at http://www.rsc.org/catalysis as is shown in the infobox; this is part of the publishing section of RSC and shows the free content of the latest edition. The first reference is to http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/CY/about.asp which is descriptive of the journal and not at all the same thing as "the journal's website". I reject your assertion that it's "just another link" as it sources much of the information in the article. If you think the information on that page isn't relevant to the article, then I'm afraid you're not understanding how we write articles. We find reliable sources that are relevant to the topic and summarise them, giving due weight where necessary. The first reference is useful and relevant and should be kept.
 * The announcement by Queen's University Library sources the start date for the journal and its initial co-editors in chief. This is a secondary source and is to be preferred over primary self-published sources per WP:SPS. I feel it would be better used to source the first sentence of the second paragraph, but I reject your assertion that it "Does not provide any usable info and ... not necessary". I have difficulty reconciling your complaint about multiple references to the journal's own website with your contention that we should be removing relevant secondary sources.
 * I also dislike blogs and I'd happily ditch the third reference.
 * The fourth reference is old - retrieved on 26 February 2011. At that time it had a generic pointer to RSC journals more prominently displayed (http://web.archive.org/web/20091112031245/http://libguides.library.usyd.edu.au/content.php?pid=35136&sid=258408) but I agree it doesn't add much and wouldn't worry if it were removed.
 * Sorry, but I don't know where you get the "covering all aspects of catalysis" from. I can't find that phrase or a equivalent anywhere in the sources that I'm aware of and you don't show the source for your proposed amendment. If you're assuming that the journal covers all aspects, just because there's a list of several aspects given in the sources, then I'm afraid you're guilty of OR. Only an expert could draw that conclusion and you seem to have chased off the only expert that I know of. Without another source we can do no more than list the aspects that the present sources do. I don't think that list is suitable for the lead, as it belongs in the scope section. In this case, I don't agree that we need to explicitly state that "Catalysis Science & Technology is a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal about catalysis". I think almost any reader will have worked that out from the title. So, I disagree with your proposed change and prefer the current formulation.
 * When we state facts in Wikipedia, such as the names of the editors, we expect to supply some references. I agree that Hallowesa was mistaken in referring to the editors' own sites, but that sort of mistake should be corrected by replacing with a reference (to http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/cy/staff.asp for example), not by simply deleting the refs and leaving the claims unreferenced. That is no improvement and does nothing to help a new editor learn how best to source facts. it is not good enough to assert that "the editors are clearly listed on the journal website". Their names, along with their affiliations, are relevant to this article and ought to be sourced. We don't write articles by sending the reader off to other sites to pick up information that ought to be included in our article.
 * "The first online articles were published in January 2011, and the first issue of Catalysis Science & Technology appeared in March 2011" is not just a long way of saying "The journal was established in 2011". There's no need to throw away detail that may be of interest to our readers. I disagree that your suggested over-simplification is an improvement.
 * I agree that the sentence "Free online access is available to all Catalysis Science & Technology articles until the end of 2012" is unclear. The solution is to clarify it, not to remove it. How about "All Catalysis Science & Technology articles published up to the end of 2012 are available free online"?
 * Are you asserting that the last sentence of the lead, According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2013 impact factor of 4.76. shouldn't be in the lead? I disagree. This is what WP:LEAD says: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points" The impact factor of a journal is an important point and belongs in any concise overview. Personally I'd just write "The journal had an impact factor of 4.76 in 2013" (as I don't see the need to attribute a claim uncontested by any other source) but that is just a stylistic preference.
 * "Catalysis Science & Technology is a multidisciplinary journal focussing on both the fundamental science of catalysis and also the science of catalysis technology, including applications addressing global issues." As explained in #6. I think you've used OR to get the phrase "all aspects". The lead doesn't need the list of aspects covered, but the scope section does. You just can't make the sort of simplifications that you're trying to do. A list of aspects covered is just that and you're quite wrong to dismiss it as "promotional sounding hoopla" in favour of your own interpretation. That is the scope of the journal and it belongs in that section.
 * Similarly, "The journal contains a mixture of applied, fundamental, experimental and computational research" is a reasonable list of the types of research covered. It appears in the sources, unlike your "all aspects of" and has to be part of the article. An isolated sentence fragment is rarely viewed as copyvio. Sometimes there is only one way of stating a fact and, short of changing the order in the list, that would appear to be the case here.
 * Given the webpage http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journals/guidelines/AuthorGuidelines/JournalPolicy/Journals/CY.asp is the source, I agree that the paraphrasing is too close in the third sentence, and that it needs to be re-written. Perhaps the third sentence needs to just neutrally mention that the journal draws from the the homogeneous, heterogeneous and bio-catalysis communities, as that seems to me to be the relevant point. The section needs more work, not deletion. Please take a look at the essay Close paraphrasing which gives some good tips.
 * Removal of sourced text that is relevant to an article needs more than the opinion of a single editor. I find a list of the types of article published in the journal, along with explanations, (Full Papers, original scientific work; Communications, preliminary accounts that merit urgent publication; Mini-reviews, short accounts of the published articles on the topic of catalysis; Perspectives, personal accounts or critical analyses of specialist areas) to be a piece of useful information and very much encyclopedic. DGG is clearly well aware of the types of articles published by particular genres of journals. Nevertheless, a casual reader of our encyclopedia will not know that. We are writing for the general reader, not for a retired librarian, and that needs to be kept in mind when deciding what belongs in an article. I couldn't care less whether you find the information boring. We're not writing the encyclopedia for you either.
 * I agree that the information on the impact factor should be in the body of the text in a well-developed article as well as the lead. I don't see why Abstracting and indexing is the appropriate section for it, perhaps you can enlighten me?
 * I'm sorry that we don't see eye-to-eye on the issues above, but perhaps you can appreciate that other views may be just as valid as yours. I found your large reverts of good-faith contributions of a new editor to be a sub-optimal response, especially with edit summaries of "cleanup, see WP:JWG" and "Revert promotional edits". I feel it is unacceptable to throw out the contributions of editor who was an expert in the field based on an essay and your personal assessment that the text was promotional. Of course it's easy to revert as a solution, but it didn't improve the article. That takes work and, when other editors are involved, finding a consensus. Now, how much of my comments above can you agree with? I've indicated where I feel we should have agreement. In fact I went through your reverts to look for things that I immediately agreed with and made four more edits to incorporate them. I'm disappointed therefore that you don't seem to have taken on-board any of the other editors' views and you still want to return to your version. Above, I've presented my responses to the issues you raised and I've generally quoted Wikipedia policy to support my position. Now, can we find a compromise that you, I, Andy and Hallowesa can live with, or do we need to go to mediation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RexxS (talk • contribs) 02:35, 1 February 2015‎
 * For the record, I agree with all of Rexx's points, except the minor one of linking "United Kingdom", though I won't push that. I also find your recent tagging of the article as "PoV" and as being of "disputed neutrality", and your removal of the entire "Scope" section, all done several hours after Rexx's post, to be unnecessary, pointy and unhelpful. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm even more sorry that an editor of your standing does not feel the need to remove copyvio immediately when it is identified. Given that the promotional copyvio has been removed, I agree that the neutrality tag can go. As for the "unhelpful responses" to a new editor: I was suddenly confronted with 4 or 5 editors declaring that they worked for a society publishing academic journals and then blithely editing the articles on those journals, adding copyvio and what not. We have enough POV pushers trying to promote their journals through WP as it is. --Randykitty (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your consternation when a batch of new editors arrive in a topic area where you edit regularly, making mistakes and showing their personal POVs. I'm used to it in medical articles whenever a new medical college course is set up with "editing Wikipedia" as its theme. Nevertheless, I'd like you to consider the potential of keeping a group of experts involved in editing Wikipedia for its own sake. Both Andy and I regularly train groups of new editors for learned societies and I truly believe the potential for expanding our expert editor base to be worth persevering with. New editors don't understand all our policies, guidelines and essays, no matter how much their trainers have tried to instil the important issues in them. As such, I'd ask you to be patient with new editors; to assume their good-faith (even when they seem to have a POV); and to look for opportunities to teach them where they have gone wrong, rather than simply taking the easy route of deletion of their work. Three sentences directly drawn from a source, and only partly paraphrased does not rise to a major issue as a copyvio. I didn't have much trouble finding a way of stating the same without using exactly the same words, and I'm sure others could do a much better job, yet you chose to rigorously follow the letter of WP:COPYVIO which is principally designed to deal with whole articles, not three sentences. You have the skill to read a source and write it in your own words, so why not use it in these sort of cases? These editors are not the paid shills who make editing Acupuncture or E-cigarette such a misery; they are academics who have much to offer, but can only be expected to start with topics where they are comfortable. The hope is that they enjoy the process, learn, and broaden their editing over time. Why not help in welcoming them to Wikipedia? who knows, one day they may be valued collaborators for each of us. I'm now going to do a clean up of the references and see what else I can do to improve the article. Please join me. --RexxS (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me try to explain, again. There's a bunch of editors suddenly appearing. They (correctly) declare their COI. I have no problem with that in principle. Some editors paid by publishers have added good, neutral articles on journals published by their employers and were not a problem to work with. But in this case, these people suddenly start adding promotional sounding text that turns out to be copyvio and inserting loads of links to the homepages of their journals. My response was not that different from what you say it should have been, the main difference being that I removed the Scope section as a copyvio, whereas you maintain I should have reworded it. Why should I reword a section that I think is superfluous to start with? If you have a problem with "all aspects of", then let's just state that the journal covers "catalysis" (or "research on catalysis). I know that's obvious from the title, but we need to wikilink that word somewhere in the lead. To get back to the scope section as it was and as it appears on the journal website: is their any aspect of catalysis that is excluded? Not as far as I can see. Publishers often include a list of subjects that is as long as possible, to attract as many authors as possible (i.e., for promotional reasons). Our project does not have many "good articles", but if you look at the two that we have (Category:GA-Class Academic Journal articles), you won't see a scope statement in them for exactly this reason. Neither has either a section on article types (because that's unencylopedic). You may disagree with me, but I don't think you can say that my objections against those scope and article type sections are completely unreasonable. Once those two sections are removed, we're left with a brief stub, so obviously I took out the multiple links to the journal homepage, because for such a brief stub that is overkill, unnecessary, and, yes, promotional. Again, looking at the GA articles, they dio have such references to their own websites, but those articles simply have more content. Yes, I agree that my reaction to the COI editing could have been to try to get these articles up to GA, but I have several thousand journal articles on my watchlist that regularly get edited by people with a POV (editors, board members, publishing assistants, editorial assistants, even authors, etc). I simply don't have the time to bring them all to GA. So a perfectly normal reaction is to remove copyvio (and not rephrase it because I don't think such a section is necessary to start with) and stubify an article like this had suddenly become. Now let's stop bickering about how this should have been handled and let's try to find a compromise to the remaining issues. --Randykitty (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Promotional sounding"? It was nothing of the kind. Either support that or retract it. They added a lot more text than just the three sentences that you feel are copyvios (and that I would characterise as insufficiently paraphrased). Hollowesa FIVE references, of which TWO were to the RSC page about CS&T. That's your idea of "loads of links to the homepages of their journals!? You're talking complete bollocks and you need to take a step back, stop trying to defend your inexcusable behaviour and apologise to Hallowesa. You removed almost the entirety of his contributions with a wholly inadequate explanation. "Cleanup" indeed.
 * You mentioned WP:JWG, so how do you explain your contention that the Scope section is "superfluous"? "What to include: Journal scope: The article should have a brief description of the journal's scope." That's why you should have reworded it.
 * You want to say "Catalysis Science & Technology is a journal covering catalysis"? just so that you can wikilink it? No, thank you. Catalysis is clearly wikilinked in the second line of the infobox. Anybody who needs an explanation of catalysis is unlikely to be looking much beyond that anyway.
 * If you can't see that "is their any aspect of catalysis that is excluded? Not as far as I can see" is original research, then you shouldn't be editing these sort of articles.
 * The relevant GA criterion is: "3. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic;" The relevant FA criterion is: "1b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; You may think that the scope of journal is not one of the main aspects nor a major fact or detail, and not part of the context of the journal. I believe that everyone else looking at what topics should be included in the article would disagree with you. I do think your objections are unreasonable. The same goes for a list of the types of article published. These are the sort of things that non-experts (general readership) don't know and would expect to find from an encyclopedia's entry. Let me put this another way: What's left, in your opinion, to include in these articles? No wonder you've got loads of stubs if you refuse to include relevant, sourced content.
 * You remove content and then say that "we're left with a brief stub, so obviously I took out the multiple links to the journal homepage" - I'm sorry but that's Kafkaesque. If you've got the sources, add the content. If you don't have time to do the job properly, then leave the article alone and let somebody who has time sort it out.
 * Now, if you still want to stop bickering, then please start suggesting the text of actual improvements, instead of trying to convince me that you didn't just revert as a knee-jerk reaction. --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You remove content and then say that "we're left with a brief stub, so obviously I took out the multiple links to the journal homepage" - I'm sorry but that's Kafkaesque. If you've got the sources, add the content. If you don't have time to do the job properly, then leave the article alone and let somebody who has time sort it out.
 * Now, if you still want to stop bickering, then please start suggesting the text of actual improvements, instead of trying to convince me that you didn't just revert as a knee-jerk reaction. --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Now you're putting words into my mouth. I have no problem with the removal of copyright material; but the option was open to you to rephrase it, rather than blank, the section. The number of new editors does not excuse your unfortunate treatment of them. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As I have tried to explain before, I don't see why I should rephrase stuff that in my opinion doesn't belong in the article to start with. Deleting promotional content, especially if it is a copyvio added by A COI editor, is standard operating procedure. --Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No it isn't standard operating procedure. There's a lot of steps to take before deciding to delete and re-writing is the most obvious. You're wrong about not having a scope section and even the essay you referred to in your edit summary supports that view. --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Impact factor: It is necessary to mention that the IF is given by the JCR, because there are other organizations publishing impact factors, too. Those are almost invariably unreliable and even fraudulent (see here). The phrase should go to the "abstracting and indexing" section because, well, it's indexing, so that's where it belongs. The IF is in the infobox, there's no real reason to mention it specifically in the lead. --Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Communities: "homogeneous, heterogeneous and bio-catalysis communities". Does that exclude any part of the catalysis community? --Randykitty (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is only one reliable source, then its claim doesn't need attribution per WP:ASF. Normally we rely on the link to the reference to inform a reader of the name of the source.
 * Communities: "homogeneous, heterogeneous and bio-catalysis communities". Does that exclude any part of the catalysis community? - How would any of know? we're not experts. We use secondary sources to decide these sort of questions, not write the content based on our own amateur guesswork. --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Communities: "homogeneous, heterogeneous and bio-catalysis communities". Does that exclude any part of the catalysis community? - How would any of know? we're not experts. We use secondary sources to decide these sort of questions, not write the content based on our own amateur guesswork. --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catalysis Science & Technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120713170042/http://library.queensu.ca/library/news/story/11/02/08/new-journal-catalysis-science-technology to http://library.queensu.ca/library/news/story/11/02/08/new-journal-catalysis-science-technology

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)