Talk:ELife

Journal staff
The article mentions that the staff are professional scientists, as if this were something out-of-the-ordinary. It isn't. 99% of scientific journals are edited by active researchers. Only trendy magazines like Science and Nature and their ilk are not edited by professional scientists but by professional editors, who indeed often apply non-scientific criteria when judging whether an article is appropriate for their publications or not ("is it sexy", "will it be heavily cited", and such). Unless there's a good reason to leave that comment, I'll remove it in a few days from now. --Randykitty (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That comment only makes sense in the context of eLife striving to rival Nature and Science, rather than the 99% of journals. Providing that context isn't possible at the moment, since eLife has only published a few articles, so I'd say the comment should go, at least for now. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. Even in that context, it's not completely correct, because for Science at least the EIC is always an active researcher. I'll remove the phrase. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Impact factor
I will remove the impact factor information in few days if there is no objection.

Reason? It is incorrect.

The journal should not have an impact factor before 2015. The IF number mentioned here is due to miscitations. See: http://quantixed.wordpress.com


 * Since eLife explicitly say they will not promote the impact factor (http://elifesciences.org/about), I don't have any objections to it being removed. - Lawsonstu (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I object. Although eLife's IF might be based on errors, eLife nonetheless does have an IF. More info here: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/08/21/the-mystery-of-a-partial-impact-factor/

Whether eLife wishes not to promote its IF is immaterial to the purpose here: to present credible and sourced information about the subject. Revising to include the IF. 173.10.39.249 (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

--I think the objection is not valid as it is based on the argument "IF might be based on errors  eLife nonetheless does have an IF". If it is based on errors, it is not correct and incorrect information should not be on wikipedia. Second, partial IF is not IF. You may choose to state it is "partial IF". Third, I realized that the source for partial IF is questionable. another user commented on scholarly kitchen "...was the industry shill "Scholarly kitchen", which has already been banned from wikipedia". I will wait few days and remove the IF. As a courtesy to other users, I choose to wait for few days so that anyone can comment on the issue.

To be clear, I'm going off Journal Citation Reports here. I don't understand the "industry shill" reference or relevance ... I linked to it not as authoritative but as having captured the issue. The real mistake is the incorrect citation that was captured among the data the JCR used. I suppose ideally JCR would issue a correction, but as it stands, JCR shows an IF for eLife. If we're getting picky, every notation of an IF would carry a caveat that the number could be flawed because of improper inclusion or exclusion of citations. The IF for eLife is what it is. I assume future eLife IFs will incorporate this problematic nugget, so we should never include the IF here? 173.10.39.249 (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

to add: Annual Report for 2016
Mid 2017 elife published the annual report for 2016 https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/d457b4cd/annual-report-2016-in-review --Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Acceptance rate is similar?
"However, the acceptance rate of eLife was 15.4% in 2015, which is similar to the acceptance rates of Nature and Science - both below 10%."

How is 15% similar to <10%? 15% means 50% more likely than 10%. 80.147.193.95 (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with this comment. Will look to make an edit when at comp.
 * -- Crawdaunt (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Controversy section
While this feels appropriate to mention in the article, the current size is perhaps WP:UNDUE. As it is a rapidly-developing topic, I'd also recommend withholding from live details, and stick to a simple summary of the events for now. The section title is also not specific. Perhaps controversial events like the new model announcement and the Eisen firing could be combined in a Controversy-like section? But I think a more descriptive title is needed. -- Crawdaunt (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Notyourbroom thanks for adding this info to the article and the context. I've edited it somewhat to remove any WP:IMPARTIAL concern re: prominent biologists. Generally Twitter posts are also not deemed WP:RS. Ideally we should use 3rd party reporting that confirms the matter independently. For instance, https://www.science.org/content/article/prominent-journal-editor-fired-endorsing-satirical-article-israel-hamas reports that "Multiple editors at or advisers to the journal have already resigned to protest his dismissal." I will likely replace the string of many twitter post references with this Science news reference, but just want to explain in advance why this is being done. -- Crawdaunt (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources met the criteria of WP:SOCIALMEDIA (namely, that someone's social media post sharing information about their own life- such as a career change- is a reliable source for purposes of WP:V), but I understand if you wanted to reduce the number of citations. &mdash;Bill Price (nyb) 19:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, good to know. Thanks! Yeah still probably better to not highlight specific persons on this rapidly-evolving situation, and stick to more broad statements. -- Crawdaunt (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)