Talk:Journal of Historical Review

journal-stub v. Scientific journal stubs
Unfortunately, there are journals which are not at all scientific. Yours truly,--Ludvikus 05:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia automatically classifies the as SCIENTIFIC!!!
 * This needs to be changed!!!

Comic book
To compensate for the fact that Wikipedia automatically classifies a journal-stub as SCIENTIFIC I have ellected to classify this antisemitic periodical as a comic book--until we ressolve the issue of this journal not being SCIENTIFIC!!! Yours truly,--Ludvikus 06:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Journal of Historical Review. 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://web.archive.org/web/20061202163147/http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/historical_review.asp?xpicked=3&item=ihr to http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/historical_review.asp?xpicked=3&item=ihr

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) 20:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Use of template designed for academic journals
You have restored a template which is explicitly designed for academic journals, as is stated in the template's documentation. The sources already on the article, and the text of the article, make clear this is not an academic journal. Why have you done so? Cambial — foliar❧ 20:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree it’s inappropriate. Doug Weller  talk 21:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This is an academic journal. A very bad one (as the sources in article show), but an AJ nonetheless. We need a reference for the assertion that it is not peer-reviewed (if it is, "peers" will be extremists with the same ideas, but it is said nowhere that peer-review needs to be high quality). We have similar problems with Mankind Quarterly, another pseudoscientific rag. There, people review each others' papers and that is peer-review, bad, but nonetheless. I don't see any problem with calling the JoHR an "academic journal", as long as pour article makes it abundantly clear what we are dealing with here. --Randykitty (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I see no reliable source claiming this periodical is an academic Journal. JimRenge (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Neither is there a reliable source claiming this is a magazine... Being an "academic journal" is not an honorific, it's ust a type of ^periodical. We don't call predatory journals "magazines" either, even though they are far from respectable. --Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. As has long been observed in our article at the Institute for Historical Review, the academic journal The History Teacher, in an examination of bad-faith attempts such as this to lend holocaust denial a facade of substance, states: So we have one highly reliable source which explicitly states it is a magazine and indicates that its claims to be an academic journal are fraudulent. As you implicitly concede, there are none which refer to it as an academic journal. There are also a significant number of other other scholarly sources which state it is a pseudoacademic or pseudoscientific publication. pseudēs from the Greek meaning false, or to lie. As we have sourcing for magazine, and none for "academic journal", the latter's use here is inappropriate. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether or not this is a 'magazine' or 'academic journal' (fake or fraudulent or legit), the relevant keypoints are better summarized by infobox journal so that's the infobox that should be used. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading through the above, I agree that infobox journal would be more representative of what the JHR actually is. It's not an academic journal. Doug Weller  talk 08:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This comment is slightly confusing, as it seems to point in two directions – is there a typo? Cambial — foliar❧ 12:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ? I'm agreeing with Headbomb. What typo? Doug Weller  talk 12:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * , I know that your time here is limited these days, but your perspective as an academic librarian would be very helpful here... --Randykitty (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There are cases for inclusion of non-peer reviewed journals, but this case is an explicitly pseudo-scientific/fraudulent "journal". Just because they describe themselves as a journal/target academics, does not mean we should regurgitate their fringe views. If the infobox had an explicit field for fringe journals, I would support its usage, but till then,Infobox magazine is the way to go. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not infobox legitimate academic peer-reviewed journal, it's infobox journal, regardless of legitimacy. Journal of Cosmology might be a nutcase journal, but it is a journal nonetheless. And it's the same here.&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * So was this peer reviewed or not? Citation needed tag about this in the body would be good to address. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It was at best reviewed by revisionist peers (and likely just needed EiC approval). I doubt you'll find a source talking about it specifically. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, in the absence of it, we have to stick to sources. Citation needed should be addressed, if necessary, with the claim to the website itself that it is peer reviewed (according to itself)... :( <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC) PS. We can always tag such a claim with  to indicate the problem and wait for a secondary source that questions the peer review process in this outlet. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree that it should not be listed as an academic journal. journal would seem best.  DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * What is precisely an "academic journal"? Wikipedia defines it as follows: "A periodical publication in which scholarship relating to a particular academic discipline is published. Academic journals serve as permanent and transparent forums for the presentation, scrutiny, and discussion of research. They nearly universally require peer review or other scrutiny from contemporaries competent and established in their respective fields." The key word here is "nearly," so maybe we are confusing a plain attribute, i.e. "academic journal", with scientific, research, or academic credibility as a given fact. Because there are many examples of journals fitting the definition that have been shown not to have followed what is accepted as a scientific process.
 * Additionally, the fact that the template used here is one for academic journals does not bestow academic worth to the Journal as such. Wikipedia is not, in itself, a creator of information, or, worse, a means of assessment. Templates are mere instruments of editing. We could use a plain "journal" template, of course, but even the use of the "academic" one is not significant.-The Gnome (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable source
Can we all agree that this magazine is an unreliable source? Some people on Wikipedia wrongly think it is ok to cite the source to be "neutral" because apparently us Wikipedia editors are not supposed to be biased against Nazi propaganda. --QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)