Talk:List of medical journals

categorizing by topic rather than letter
I question the usefulness of categorizing by first letter. People who already know what they're looking for are probably going to be searching for this. When people come to a list, they probably want to look by topic. What are the cancer journals? The surgery journals? And, of course, the general journals? Ect., ect. What do others think? II | (t - c) 23:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC on journal list names
There is an RfC regarding the standardization of journal lists names. Please comment at Talk:List of journals. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Utility and validity of this list
As the list currently stands, there is effectively no benefit versus the Category:Medical journals in regard to the alphabetical list and versus sub-categories of the Med. Journal category for the speciality listings. Also, there is not a specified inclusion criteria for the list; this matter of inclusion criteria appears in general to be of more importance for list-type articles than for categorization based on observation of editing behavior of the two. The reason for the apparent redundancy between this list and categories is that all list items are also represented by articles and the scope of the list matches that of the noted categories. I'm thinking about how to address these concerns of mine, but I thought I'd put this out there for comment before I did anything drastic. Regards --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 12:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of journals that have no articles is problematic (not just in this list, but in all journal lists), as there are many non-notable (and even predatory) journals out there. If there is an article, one can assume that a journal is legit (or if it is notable because it is a fake, that will be in the article). But if there is no article, it becomes very difficult to see what is spam for non-notable/predatory journals and what is legit. Apart from that, I completely agree that this kind of lists is useless and only provide work because these spam-magnets need to be watched continuously. --Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Including links to journal homepages as "references" (sourcing what, that the journal exists?) do not really make this list any better. Are we going to include a hyperlink to each journal's homepage now to give this list a semblance of being sourced? --Randykitty (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My concern is that there is apparently a strong bias towards journals that are still being published. Pert' shure there are a lot of others that disappeared over the last 200+ years, but only a few of the deceased journals are mentioned. Shanen (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

List ist absolutely incomplete and maybe useless
The Index Medicus, Pubmed and Medline comprise more than 5,000 journals. As many journals have content relating to several medical specialties, organising these will be a substantial and probably impossible task. A list with just the most important journals would ideally consider the Citation Index, which is an objective parameter and could be used as a cutoff value. As the Citation Index of journals can and will change, the list would have to be adapted all the time. Other Internet sources would probably be more useful in this regard instead of this article. The current list has been composed arbitrarily and is of little use in my opinion.Opzwartbeek (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

EJMED
Is this one a valid journal, worthy of inclusion in the list? Arcturus (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)