Talk:Journal of Occupational Health Psychology

Untitled
To Crusio: I read the importance class. It says, "Subject is peripheral knowledge to the field of psychology and possibly trivial but still notable. There may be limited research on the topic, or most professionals in psychology have not yet taken note of it. Example: Liberation psychology." This is not liberation psychology.Iss246 (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. And "High" says: "Subject contributes a depth of knowledge to the field of psychology. Most experts in psychology will be familiar with the topic. The subject can be found in most academic studies of psychology, and a significant amount of published research exists for it". Please realize that the "importance" parameter is not a judgment on how good or important the journal is. It is solely an indicator how important this article is for the understanding of the field of Psychology. Surely you do not want to argue that knowing about this journal is indispensable to understand psychology and that it is treated in the majority of treatises on psychology? That is what "high" means. Even the whole field of occupational health psychology itself would not warrant a "high" rating. For "Mid" you'll read "Many psychologists are knowledgeable of the topic". I dare say that many psychologists (not just OHP psychologists) will not even be aware of the existence of this journal. That leaves "Low". If you still disagree, go to the project talk page and ask for the opinion of WP Psychology participants and see what they say. --Crusio (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you but I have a number of other things to do right now. I promise to revisit the matter. Yes. A number of experts in psychology will know about OHP topics as work and cardiovascular disease. However, not all experts in psychology will know about that particular OHP topic. By the same token, not all experts in psychology will know about the genetic contribution to risk for certain mental disorders but some experts will. That does not invalidate clinical or abnormal psychology. I don't have the time right now to go into an extended colloquy and change the code because I have other matters to rush off to. I will revisit the matter of importance some time next week. However you cut it, rating the importance of the journal as low is insulting to the psychologists who publish papers in the journal and their colleagues who edit and review for the journal.Iss246 (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that you are completely missing my point. I am EIC of a journal myself (Genes, Brain and Behavior). Go see what importance rating that one has. Nobody is talking about "invalidating" any field. But to understand "psychology", knowledge of psychiatric genetics or OHP is not crucial. This goes even more for the existence of a certain journal. Rating it as "low priority" in the context of a Wikiproject, does not say anything about the people publishing in the journal. I urge you to familiarize yourself with the way WP assesses articles (see this for example). Importance ratings are relative to a Wikiproject. If there were a "Wikiproject OHP", then obviously, the OHP article would be "top priority" for that project. For the "Wikiproject Psychology", the importance is already lower. For a hypothetical "Wikiproject Science" (which would include physics, chemistry, etc), importance would be (very) "Low". This is not denigrating the practitioners of that field in any way. As for journals, I don't remember ever having seen a journal that rated higher than "Low" for any Wikiproject. Hope this clarifies things. --Crusio (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly the importance for Wikiproject Psychology needs to be "Low", for the reasons Crusio sets out. It's not a rating of the journal: that's a misunderstanding. It's a rating of the importance of the article about the journal, to a particular wikiproject. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with everything this learned editor MartinPoulter, says above to iss246. This editor makes excellent sense. Mrm7171 (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)