Talk:Physics Essays

Fringe journal
After having seen what kind of article is published in Physics Essays, this looks more like a vanity publication than anything else. I'd like to see reliable sources for the claim that the journal is peer-reviewed, I'm not aware of indexers checking this. And I don't see how a promoter of extreme fringe ideas can be called a scientific journal. Lastly, I couldn't find any sources reviewing Physics Essays in any form, except for automated ranking. Paradoctor (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Even a fringe journal is called a "scientific journal", because it publishes on science. This one is included in the SCI and Scopus, selective databases (very much so in the case of the SCI) that only include journals that are peer-reviewed. Being included in those databases is first rate evidence of being peer-reviewed. If you want to place doubt on this and call this a fringe journal, the burden of proof is on you, not the other way around. --Randykitty (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Something worries me though. The official website claims that Physics Essays is on SciSearch - which I gather is Sci-indexed - and also listed in Current Contents but when I go to the master's list, I cannot find Physics Essays.  I saw this Chinese blog claiming the Sci-index expanded had discontinued Physics Essays in 2014.  I would love some clarification on this.  I cannot imagine that the official website for this journal would give disinformation on this.  If it is Sci-indexed, can someone show a URL which demonstrates this? TonyMath (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It was indeed dropped this year, no explanation given (see here; can only be used as a source if archived, as the content of this page changes yearly and far as I can see, the previous year's content disappears). This link confirms that it was indexed, but is not any more. If you click the link, it says the journal was "dropped". From experience with other journals I know that this may mean one of two different things: dropped completely or dropped just for this year (see this one, for example), so at this point we cannot exclude that it will be re-activated again next year. There are several reasons why a journal may be dropped, such as citation stacking, excessive self-citation, or quality concerns (see this for example). --Randykitty (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sad news. But what about the papers that got "in" while Physics Essays was Sci-indexed?  Can they still be retrieved via e.g. SciSearch?  I hope so.TonyMath (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume they will, as far as I know, TR doesn't remove items that are already in the database (unless something really is wrong, of course). --Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Come on, it is an outright crank journal that publishes crackpot nonsense and anyone with half a brain will not be deceived. To daintily say it is nevertheless a science journal because it publishes on science is disingenuous. A journalist or two might wander in there to pick up a story for a tabloid and maintain that the thing looked like an above board boffin rag. Misinformation is a serious threat to our civilisation, and it is sheer perversity to want to be part of the problem. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:C4A1:F12C:FA61:9D32 (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

A great deal hangs on the concept of 'peer-review', a term which impresses journalists and the lazy-minded but which is essentially meaningless. It meant something, way back when people were more trustworthy, but peer-review nowadays signifies little more than 'approved by the similarly deluded' when it come to fringe journals. As for 'abstract services', they often rely on the clientele to warn them about dubious journals. I have myself complained about fringe journals, and they are usually soon taken off the list ... even if earlier issues are not. Scopus, for example, still lists old issues of the ultra-silly, Journal of New Energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.63.73 (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit war

 * Note The following discussion has been copied from the talk page of, who currently is blocked from editing and cannot post here. --Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This message id for Randykitty in regard to Physics Essays.

A few days ago I wrote you the following message:

This is not an edit war. It is a friendly statement of facts. The impact factor of the journal is available from other sources. The readers should be made aware of such sources. If they are unreliable, let the reader decide, and do not decide for them. Please do not remove what I add for the benefit of the readers, unless everything is removed related to the impact factor. If you prefer the latter solution, this is acceptable to me.

As to CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) Scholar, the reader cannot go into the link that you provide because it is almost impossible to find Physics Essays among the several thousands of journals and books that are listed there. It is much more helpful to provide the direct link to Physics Essays. Again, do not disrupt the improvements to the page that I make by reverting them.

Finally, I do not understand your insistence in arranging the order of the abstracting list in the wrong way. Physics Essays is a physics journal, and not a chemistry journal. By listing, as you do, the Chemical abstracting first, a reader gets the message that Physics Essays is mainly concerned with chemical submissions, and not physics submissions. Again, this is an improvement to which you seem resisting, and it comes as an entire surprise to me. By the way, have you noticed that not one of the improvements that I submitted has been acceptable to you?

Sharonzuke

I was pleasantly surprised that you accepted my arguments and we found common ground by removing completely any mention to the impact factor and by rearranging the order of the abstracting list. In this way the version of the page was acceptable to me as published.

To my surprise, I found, two or three days ago, a complete reversal to the original controversial page, the reversal done by another editor, Euryalus. Not only, but he has blocked any change to the text. So, my question is: For how many rounds of discussions we have to go through before all the editors of Wikipedia are satisfied? Does it make sense what is happening?

I look forward to your reply in the hope that we can reach a consensus on the content of the page of Physics Essays.

Thanks.

Sharonzuke
 * Hi, Where did you write that message to me, because I never saw it (nor can I find it in your edit history). And, yes, you were edit warring, reverting edits and removing sourced content without any discussion. Anyway, we are now communicating, so that's a good start. Here are answers to your questions. I will be linking to a number of guidelines and essays that explain things in more detail, please read them.
 * 1) Impact factors are assigned by the Journal Citation Reports. These are the only ones that we list. We do not include unreliable information in articles to "let the reader decide", that is not what a serious encyclopedia does.
 * 2) You are putting an external link to the results of a search on CNKI in the text. As WP:EL explains, external links should be avoided in the body of text of an article. Per WP:ELNO#9, links to search results should be avoided completely. In short, adding the external link as you keep doing is inappropriate.
 * 3) The order of the abstracting list: this is always done alphabetically. Any other order is based on personal opinion, which should be avoided (see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH).
 * 4) I never agreed to remove the sourced content about the impact factor and because we never discussed, there was no agreement and I never "accepted your arguments". The fact that Euryalus also reverted your edits indicates that they, too, do not agree with your edits. And if you check the edit history of the article, you will see that you have been reverted by multiple editors, not just me and Euryalus, so at this point there seems to be a solid consensus that your edits do not constitute an improvement of the article. You will have to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page of the article and obtain consensus there before you make those changes again.
 * 5) Euryalus did not lock the article for editing. Instead, they blocked you from editing WP to stop your ongoing edit warring (as explained by the template just above this section).
 * In summary: your edits go against established WP policies and guidelines. Especially the fact that you kept reverting edits without discussing them is a serious issue (see WP:BRD). Finally, you have only ever edited this article. Do you have any relationship to the journal or its publisher? If so, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID.
 * I will copy this discussion to the talk page of the article, which is where the discussion should be continued, not here. --Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * More underhanded pretend-civilisedness from this "randy kitty" defending the indefensible just because he gets off on being an insufferable so and so. "Let the reader decide" - a grown up responsible adult ought to know better. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:C4A1:F12C:FA61:9D32 (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of "peer-review" in lead
@Randykitty Since communicating in edit summaries is cumbersome, I will respond here:

You said on last edit that "usually cranks like this do their utmost to seem to be a regular journal, so I don't doubt that they perform peer-review; note that the "peer" of a crank is another crank... Are there any sources that cast reasonable doubt on this practicing peer review?"

The thing is, I tried to find sources. I failed to find any that go beyond "this journal have been indexed in x". That's why I nominated this article for deletion in the first place. I figured this is a rare case where WP:NJOURNAL fails to be true. Ca talk to me! 14:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Given how that AfD is going, you're alone in this. What would be more useful than fighting over "peer-reviewed" would be sources that cover how this journal is fringe. --Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I sent a request at Reference desk/Science; I'm hoping that other editors would have better luck locating sources. Ca talk to me! 14:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that including "peer-reviewed" on the technicality that cranks are peers of other cranks is carrying the technicality too far at the expense of giving the reader the wrong impression. Would one actually call homeopaths refereeing other homeopaths, or creationists other creationists, "peer review"? Is that truly a good use of words to convey meaning? If you want a rationale grounded in Wikipedia jargon, the fact that we have no WP:RS talking in depth about how its peer review operates means that including "peer-reviewed" is WP:UNDUE for the MOS:LEDE. The bigger picture is that this is just one bad journal out of a bunch of them that keep cropping up. What we would really benefit from is somebody putting the general ambient knowledge of the physics community down into writing about the whole lot. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is peer review. It's just meaningless review because the EiC defers to the authors to address the feedback or not:
 * "Articles submitted for publication will be reviewed by scientific peers. Realizing the interchangeable roles of authors and reviewers, the positive aspect of the reviewing process will be retained by providing the authors with the reviewers’ comments. Each author should judge which parts of the reviewers’ suggestions are appropriate to improve the quality of his or her paper. The editor, who is responsible for the Journal, will allow a large degree of freedom to the authors in this process."

I removed this claim from the article an a lot of other claims as well including genre, identity of the editor, etc. We need reliable sources for these claims and I don't think we can even take the journal at its word about this stuff. How can we trust it at all? By all means, find us some sources for this journal, but don't engage in original research, please. jps (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See, if I were talking about that in conversation, I'd call it "sham peer review" or something like that. In the present circumstances, I think the safest thing for us to do is just to drop the descriptor: including it is closer to an untruth. The wrong idea is being communicated. Alternatively, we could include that very quote, or part of it, to explain their ... process. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur. This is not peer-review by the usual definition of the term. I'd even use this quote as a source to claim that the journal is not peer-reviewed. Tercer (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is clear WP:ABOUTSELF stuff. And unless you have an WP:RS that dispute these things, there are no grounds to remove them based on your own personal assessment. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Exactly! Are we WP editors now deciding whether a journal is crap or not or what quality its peer-review is? Of course not! Sources, sources, sources. And the procedure described above is perfectly normal. Authors are responsible for the content of their articles. Reviewers provide criticisms and suggestions but authors are under no obligation to follow these. Of course, ignoring such suggestions without good reasons (clearly explained to the editor) risks rejection, but the principle stands. --Randykitty (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The journal is lying about its genre, its quality, and its peer review. If you think I'm wrong in this, I ask you to provide a source to that effect. jps (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's on you to provide such a source showing the journal is lying. Because from where I am, the journal is 100% truthful about what it is. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No. WP:ECREE and WP:FRIND state that the WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate that this rag is not lying through its teeth about everything. jps (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe you'd like to highlight your favorite "physics fact" from the latest issue just to demonstrate how truthful the journal is being? Or maybe that's not where you are standing? jps (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't have sources for the majority of respected journals that they are not fringe. If there are no reliable sources stating that a journal is "lying about its genre, its quality, and its peer review", then we cannot include that in our article on that journal. It's not up to us to decide that something is a worthless rag. --Randykitty (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That would mean that everybody can start a website, call it a "peer-reviewed journal", and we simply accept their word for it, right?
 * Einstein debunked! Film at 11! --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Provide it gets indexed as such, yes. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You've gotta be kidding. Are you that blinkered in your little WP:LOCALCONSENSUS joyride with Randykitty that you can't see how insipid this argument is? jps (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's correct, there's nothing special at being an academic journal and being peer-reviewed. As for the article you cite, if there are reliable sources debunking that article, that could be added to our article on the journal. But just our opinion that this is crackpot stuff is not enough. --Randykitty (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * C'mon, man. You know that no one would bother to even pay attention to such drivel. Don't play the fool. jps (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

If no source except PE itself says that PE is peer-reviewed, can we at least attribute it and say that "PE says it is peer-reviewed"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Actually we have a clear majority of editors in favour of outright removing the claim that it is peer reviewed. Just do it. Tercer (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * (ec) No, unless we have a source that says that peer-review here is insufficient. For almost any journal for which WP has an article, we accept the "peer reviewed" claim and their is no reason apart from the dislike of some of this rag's articles to say otherwise here. It's not our job to evaluate the quality of a journal's peer review. It's our job to summarize the info found in reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no reliable source claiming that Physics Essays is peer-reviewed, because Physics Essays is not a reliable source. Tercer (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * PE is reliable source about itself for basic facts. ESCI is also a reliable source. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Aboutself only applies when the fact is uncontroversial. Also, common sense applies. A journal claiming to debunk Einstein every other week will not have any form of meaningful peer review. If an oil company says on their website that they protect the environment, do we place that in the article, no questions asked? Ca talk to me! 11:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's an idea. JPS you're an astronomer. Tercer you're a theoretical physicist. XOR'easter I don't know your background but this might also be up your alley. Presumable you hold a PhD from a non-crackerjack box institution. How about you write an critique of Physics Essays on your personal websites, and then those can be cited under WP:EXPERTSPS/WP:PARITY. Pick a selection of obvious nonsense papers, look at self citations, or how some "scholars" only publish in Physics Essays and discuss how whatever peer review process is going on at Physics Essays is either nonexistent or meaningless. Or how often Dean Radin publishes there. Look at the first issue with its foreword by Gerhard Herzberg, talk about the editorship under Gerard 't Hooft, and then we'll have a good piece to use as a source. I'd do it myself, but I only have an M.Sc. and I doubt I'd be accepted as a source here. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How about you write an critique of Physics Essays on your personal websites, and then those can be cited Thanks for the invitation, but this is not something I am prepared to do for a number of reasons: (1) it sets a terrible precedent for Wikipedia to be the impetus for the creation of sources and (2) I don't think this journal deserves any more attention. jps (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think Wikipedia being the impetus for the creation of sources is necessarily bad in general. (Suppose I notice that a math book I've used as a reference several times doesn't have an article. I look around for book reviews to see if it's wiki-notable, and I don't find any. So, I write one, send it off to an education-oriented journal, and it gets published. Is that a bad thing?) Maybe it's not worth the trouble here, or maybe the proper scope is fringe physics more generally rather than just this "journal" in particular, but I don't find the suggestion unreasonable in principle. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I do have a PhD. But why should I undertake such a laborious process? Only for Wikipedia to say the truth about Physics Essays? A journal nobody cares about? And presumably repeat this for a huge pile of crackpot journals that have respectable-looking Wikipedia articles? I have much more interesting things to spend my time on.
 * Here's a better idea: we just don't have articles on non-notable journals to start with. We start by deleting WP:NJOURNALS, and proceed to repair the damage you caused with this ill-conceived guideline by AfD'ing the individual articles on crackpot journals. Tercer (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "A journal nobody cares about" If you don't care about it, then you won't lose sleep over this page existing. But let's get one thing straight, the next time you accuse me of damaging Wikipedia, we'll end up at ANI. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You can threaten me all you want, I won't stop repeating that your ill-conceived guideline has damaged Wikipedia. Tercer (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Passing mention of Physics Essays
One can find a mention of Physics Essays in Physics Today 46 (1), 96–97 (1993); (https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2808799), which is a reply to this opinion piece: Physics Today 45 (3), 102 (1992); (https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2809603). Not sure it is direct enough to be helpful for the WP article, but it does lightly touch on the issue of crackpottery. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Bit of an incidental mention, but still an interesting find&mdash;thanks! XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"Unzicker, however, cites as heroes of modern physics characters like Pierre-Marie Robitaille, a radiologist in a US hospital who has never worked as a professional researcher in astrophysics and has never published a paper in a serious professional physics or astronomy journal. He uses to publish in Physics Essays and Progress in Physics, which were not even on the list of 1200 journals of physics and astronomy with a measured SJR index in 2021 (for the first journal, the last SJR index was given in 2019: 0.111, which is equivalent to the very end of the fourth quartile; and the second journal is not registered in SJR). Nevertheless, Robitaille dared to posit new revolutionary ideas about, for example, stellar astrophysics, black holes, and cosmic microwave background radiation (he is famous for having paid The New York Times US$100,000 to publish a page with his crackpot theory on this topic). If we are to believe that the hope of physics in the future lies with this kind of researcher, we will be left with an even more pessimistic impression about physics and its future." &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Another possible source:
 * Please, let's not cite Martin Lopez-Corredoira. It makes things too complicated. He's arguably on the fringes himself. jps (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't say I'm familiar with him much. His publication record seems admirable though. &#32; Headbomb {t ·

c · p · b} 01:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No doubt. He's not a complete outright crank. He's just... complicated. His judgement is fairly good in this case, but you can find a number of other works that represent something quite orthogonal or even completely opposed to scientific consensus which, sigh, I think we are charged with trying to pay the most attention to at the least. For example, he was a champion (and for all I know, still is) of "non-cosmological redshifts" at the very cranky 2005 "Crisis in Cosmology Conference" . I'll leave the rest of the rabbit hole descent to those who have time on their hands but, suffice to say, I think his disdain for Robitaille is rather like the ufologist who gets mad at the psychic crashing their meetings (can you tell I've spent too much time in the WP:FRINGE dungeon?). jps (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Could well be. He's also rather ... anti general modern society. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"First, there is the claim by the team headed by a parapsychologist Dean Radin from the Institute  of  Noetic  Sciences  (an  American non-profit  parapsychological research institute) that their experiments, which are varieties of the classical two-slit experiment, demonstrate considerable statistical dependence (in the direction expected if the CCC hypothesis is true) of the results on the Buddhist meditator’s directed  meditative  attention  to  the  slits  (just  imagining  and  keeping  them  before one’s «mind’s eye»). The results were published in a series of articles in the journal Physics  Essays  and  a  book  [Radin,  2006],  and  aired  with  a  TED  talk;  so  they  are considerably advertised. However, «Physics Essays» is not a reputed scientific journal but rather a free forum where extravagant views on physics (in particular, those involving parapsychology) are welcome; as for «mainstream» physicists, they do not seem  to  take  Radin’s  claim  seriously. At least,  there  was  no  discussion  in  reputed scientific journals, and no reported attempt to reproduce the results of Radin’s experiments. (However, the relevant criticisms can be found at Internet sites of skeptics and in the paper by Erich Goode in the collection dedicated to philosophy of pseudoscience [].) It is no wonder: scientific laboratories and journals do not bother with discussing; checking and refuting claims that do not look scientifically respectable; besides, quantum mechanical experiments are not cheap. Probably, the main reason why «mainstream» physicists do not take Radin’s experiments seriously (besides quite a few more specific methodological faults) is that these experiments are out of touch with the character and origin of the problem. Quantum-mechanical data that gave rise to the CCA hypothesis has nothing to do with such specific states of consciousness as Buddhist meditative attention; it arose from perfectly ordinary  observations,  such  as  seeing  a  reading  of  a  measuring  device. So it seems clear that if some experiments can decide between the CCA hypothesis and its negation, they should have to do with the same kind of ordinary observations."

From

Thanks to for this fantastic source. It might be worth checking out Goode as well, but it's paywalled. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Goode's chapter "Paranormalism and Pseudoscience as Deviance" only mentions Radin's book, not Physics Essays. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should also go ahead and use the Martín López Corredoira source. The above blurb seems useful or at least some part of it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * With main issue with that source is that it doesn't really say anything about Physics Essays directly, but implies a lot. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * «Physics Essays» is not a reputed scientific journal but rather a free forum where extravagant views on physics (in particular, those involving parapsychology) are welcome
 * That doesn't really say anything about Physics Essays directly? It is a sentence we can use as-is in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's from Dmytro Sepetyi, not Corredoira, and is already in the article. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Indexing
I've done a very simple edit to emphasize the fact that the journal is not currently indexed by any selective index. immediately undid it. In the current form it's a disservice to the reader. Being included in non-selective databases is not even worth mentioning, but these are mixed in together with the selective databases in a list. Which are there only because the journal was indexed in the past. The relevant information is which selective indices currently index the journal, and this must be displayed prominently. Right now the reader must go through the whole section to deduce the relevant information. Tercer (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "not currently indexed by any selective index" Do you have a source for that? Who judged ESCI to be not selective? We do not give those value judgments in articles because they require sources and attribution. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What about Chemical Abstracts Service, EBSCO databases, and INSPIRE-HEP? Do you agree at least that those are of a completely different nature? Tercer (talk) Tercer (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's rather irrelevant and not something that needs to be highlighted. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How on Earth is that irrelevant!? An unaware reader will see them mentioned in the same list as Scopus conclude that they are of the same nature. Whereas in reality being included in INSPIRE-HEP doesn't mean anything, whereas being included in Scopus means you have at least a passing similarity with a scientific journal. Tercer (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * That's why our article clearly indicates that Scopus coverage ended in 2017. --Randykitty (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * INSPIRE-HEP indexes stuff like arXiv preprints, not just peer-reviewed articles. (Their documentation says so explicitly; even preprints that aren't listed in any of the specific categories they mention can make it in, too, such as here.) I think the concern here is that failing to make clear that INSPIRE-HEP is much less selective than Scopus gives a misleading impression. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the "catch-all" indexing game being played for the benefit of article creation has ended up creating a perfect storm for bad actors to create coatrack possibilities. It's pretty easy to get indexed on the more lax indexing services and, by the judgement of a few NJOURNAL fans, we basically treat all indexing services exactly the same way at Wikipedia. What gives? jps (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * No, we don't. You only need to go through our archive of deletion discussions to see that we absolutely do not "treat all indexing services exactly the same way". --Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What RK said. Scopus, SCI, Index Medicus (and equivalent) are the big ones. Secondary ones like ADSABS, INSPIRE, or Pubmed are nowhere near sufficient to establish notability. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Aha! So you are indeed aware that they are completely different. Now do you understand why I object to mixing them in the list together with the selective ones? Tercer (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you know that adjectives are different than nouns? Clearly this must mean that we need to write "Physics Essays [proper noun] is [verb] a [article] quarterly [adjective] peer-reviewed [adjective] scientific [adjective] journal [noun]..." What we use internally to assess notability is our opinion of it. It is a viewpoint. Viewpoints need attribution, and Wikipedia discussions are not reliable sources. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You want a source saying that INSPIRE is comprehensive, whereas Scopus is selective? Then you'll allow me to list them separately? Tercer (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You want to say that Physics Essay is indexed nowhere selective. You need a source that states so specifically. You won't find it because ESCI is selective, just not enough for purpose of meeting WP:NJOURNALS. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Now you're arguing in bad faith. You know very well that no such source exists. Why on Earth is it not enough to have source about whether the indexes themselves are selective? Tercer (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I'm arguing that what we write about Physics Essays reflects what is published about Physics Essays, and in particular does not contain obvious unattributed falsehoods like it's indexed nowhere selective. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What I fail to understand is how you came to the worldview that merely being indexed is somehow something that is published about a journal. If I told this to anyone who wasn't in Wikiworld I think they would laugh in my face. jps (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see how a statement like "Physics Essays is indexed nowhere with standards" would be synthesis, but I also think that organizing the list and saying more about what kind of index each one is would be both policy-compliant and beneficial. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why these indices are linked. We don't need to describe them on the page of individual journals. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard § Physics Essays
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard § Physics Essays. Ca talk to me! 10:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we stop splitting discussions across multiple forums? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Where do you recommend placing the poll? Ca talk to me! 12:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Scientific journal
Definitions and descriptions at scientific journal seems to be at odds with this journal and how it is described in the one reliable source which actually mentions it in any detail. I have removed that description. Discuss if you disagree! jps (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Like "peer review", "scientific" is not a declaration of quality. This journal is about physics, which last time I checked still was science. Bad science, perhaps, but "science" all the same. --Randykitty (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a journal of physics, this is science, not humanities or medicine. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to me to be a journal of physics in name only. It is bereft of real science. I wouldn't even call it bad science. Perhaps we should hold this up to this question: what is the definition of science? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, OK, I admit it is bad science - very bad science. And, it certainly doesn't deserve the designation scientific journal. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Science is a demarcation at the very least. When your journal publishes pseudoscience, you are not a scientific journal. Since there are no sources which say it is a scientific journal except for the WP:ABOUTSELF-based ones, it is 100% a violation of WP:FRINGE to solve the demarcation problem and declare it "science" as a matter of genre. jps (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And I have to agree, that this publication publishes pseudoscience. Here is one example: . First of all in the abstract it makes a claim about the aether as a physical constant (what?). Then it uses terminology that is recognizable as physics to give it false authenticity. These are the tactics used by pseudoscience proponents. Maybe not intentionally in this instance but there it is. Wouldn't it possible to use a couple of these articles to demonstrate this is not a scientific journal?. I mean, if this Wikipedia article already satisfies the criteria for a standalone article as it is, then couldn't we use these primary sources to demonstrate what this publication really is or is not? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, the other side of the coin is that we have thrown shade on this publication as a trusted source. First, there is the (perhaps) strategically placed word 'supposedly'. Then 'peer reviewed' has been removed. And we have a source that has a strong negative critique of this publication. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is a reliable source that describes this publication as a "scientific journal", then we could do so, with an inline reference, as we do with many things that reliable sources say. If we say in Wikipedia's voice, without a reliable source to back it up, that this publication is a "scientific journal", that is WP:OR and not WP:V. We describe subjects of articles as reliable sources describe them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Consensus on this matter seems to be clear. I have now reverted the WP:TAGTEAM reintroduction of this unsourced WP:PROFRINGE WP:POVPUSH by two users and have warned them that they may face action at WP:AE for continued intransigence in this regard. jps (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, per this comment in the edit history, AfD does not preclude further editing of an article after the AfD. And this publication is a prime example of PROFRINGE. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I just became aware of this page from a discussion elsewhere. I'm against using the word "science" here. I find the argument that we should call it science because it is bad science unconvincing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi 'Fish, long time no hear :-) Not "because" it is bad science, but "despite" it's bad science. Up till now we have 1 (one) in-passing mention questioning the reliability of this journal. From that is concluded that it's a fringe journal, not scientific, and not refereed... --Randykitty (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

There is also the fact that it is fringe, not scientific, and not refereed. It is weird that you are pretending that this is somehow controversial. jps (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi 'Kitty (one of the few editors I know and am friendly with in real life)! If you want to call it a "bad science journal", I won't object, but I have a hunch that's not what you have in mind (wink). In any case, I think it's NPOV to call it "a journal", and I disagree strongly with insisting that we call it a "science journal". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Undue coverage?
Apparently, there is a minor government official in Himachal Pradesh who drums up media attention from time to time for making big claims about his (pseudo)physics theories. He's published a few papers in Physics Essays:

This was apparently enough to get brief mentions in some fairly major newspapers in South Asia, mostly through the Indo-Asian News Service, the first three of which mention Physics Essays by name:



In response to some of the credulous coverage, there has been some reasonable pushback:



This resulted in the at least one of the above actually being taken down for "factual inconsistencies" (last two are also dead links):



But the journalist apparently was unable to locate the Physics Essays papers and had to learn about it via secondhand source; it's not clear he even knows the journal exists. Would citing his article to debunk the material qualify as WP:SYNTH? I think the scale of the coverage deserves a mention in the article, but the quality of the science journalism is pretty spotty here, in my opinion and it's unclear the best way to approach it. &#12296; Forbes72 &#124; Talk &#12297; 04:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The Hindu criticism would bite more if there weren't basic mistakes like E$2$ = p$2$c$4$ +m$2 0$c$4$ in it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Philosophia Dumka is not a good reference
Philosophia Dumka is a Ukrainian Philosophy journal which does not belong here as a reference. It should be removed. Also Wikipedia editors  are  smearing  Physics  Essays  by  derogatory  word  choices. This is not befitting of  Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.239.8 (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * You are repeatedly claiming that it does not mention Physics Essays. This claim is false, just open the reference and search for it. Here is the quote The results were published in a series of articles in the journal Physics Essays and a book [Radin, 2006], and aired with a TED talk; so they are considerably advertised. However, «Physics Essays» is not a reputed scientific journal but rather a free forum where extravagant views on physics (in particular, those involving parapsychology) are welcome;. Tercer (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The now-blocked-for-edit-warring IP sounds very familiar. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, so that's why he was interested in Physics Essays. Tercer (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)