Talk:Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health

Untitled
I contest the posting of the notability template. The Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health is sufficiently notable. The papers published in the journal make an important contribution to the fund of knowledge on work and health. I recommend that Abuctive remove the notability template.Iss246 (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can remove the template yourself, as soon as you have added some of the evidence of the journal's contributions that you mention above to the article. --Crusio (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I quickly compared this entry to the entries for two other journals with which I am familiar, the American Journal of Epidemiology and the Journal of Abnormal Psychology. I found that the entry for the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health to be more developed. The entry for the SJWEH ends with a link to the journal where the reader can find current information and links to specific issues. From a comparative standpoint, the information that in the SJWEH entry is more informative. I don't observe the notability template tacked onto the entries for the two other journals I mentioned. The notability template should be deleted from the SJWEH entry.Iss246 (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds or even more stubs for journal articles, you can't expect the editor who tagged this journal to tag all of those others at the same time. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Crusio (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I expect the editor to attach such tags, if the tags are warranted. Such tags are not warranted for the American Journal of Epidemiology and the Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Nor is such a tag warranted for SJWEH. SJWEH is an important journal in the area of the impact of working conditions and general environmental conditions on health. I also expect the editor to work on improving the entry.Iss246 (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Besides, it's not the article, but the topic that I tagged for notability. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the above response.Iss246 (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I found arrogant what Abductive did with regard to the Journal. First, dropping the notability template on the entry, and then dropping the reliability template. Skating around dropping little bombs on entries that show development. It is so selective when there are many journal entries that have barely anything to show. Why not just edit the entry to make it better. That is what editors are supposed to do.

What did Abductive think, I just manufactured a respected scientific journal out of thin air. The existence of the journal and evidence of its quality are easily checked. This kind of arrogant policing makes contributing to Wikipedia much less appealing than it once was. It makes me want to quit the endeavor.Iss246 (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that. If it makes you feel better, very few people have read the article, according to the article traffic statistics page here. Many of the hits are Google and other search bots checking in every now and then, so even fewer humans read it than the stats seem to indicate. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

To Abductive. I got pretty angry. You are trying to do a good job. But helicoptering into a site to drop warnings when someone put serious effort creating a good entry is demoralizing to the person who worked on the site, especially when there are so many journal entries that contain virtually no information. The Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health is a fine scientific journal. It probably needs links from other entries to help improve traffic.Iss246 (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not helicoptering, and I'm leaving the article alone for a while to see if any sourcing materializes. It's up to you, since be removing the tag you make it harder for other people to help find sources. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

To Abductive. I have to redirect because the journal is more precisely named the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health. I want to get the name absolutely correct. I will also install a redirect from the name having and "and" instead of an ampersand.Iss246 (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

To CorenSearchBot:  The Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health is the proper journal name. I took steps to redirect from the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health and from the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health''.Iss246 (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing you're supposed to do is "move", to preserve the article history. The bot detected the duplication. I tried to move, but I can't override this page since I'm not an admin. If you were to place a db-author tag on the new page, an admin will delete it and you or I can then move the original page. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The exact title is now correct even if I copy and pasted my own words from the original entry into the new entry. I apologize for not knowing how to make the transfer from the old, slightly incorrect name to the new exactly correct name other than by copying and pasting. But I made the transfer to effect greater precision. I don't want to see the entry get deleted for bureaucratic reasons about whether I used this method or that was used to effect the transfer. The point is that the entry has exact name.

I further edited the article. For as long as the article existed, quotation marks surrounded words quoted from the journal's web site.Iss246 (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PLEASE READ YOUR TALK PAGE. --Crusio (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

 * I have put a cleanup tag on the article. Several "references" are links to search pages and do not work for others. Please have a look at some good articles on journals and model this one after those. --Crusio (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your help. I've worked hard on this Wikipedia entry. I used the search page at one or two indexes' web sites to find out if the Scandinavian Journal is indexed by that particular indexer/abstracter. I did so because it was the only way I could learn if the journal was indexed INDEPENDENTLY of my consulting the journal's own web page. When the indexer provided no web page with a list of sources it indexed (at least I was unable to locate such a list), I conducted a search using the index.

An alternate route would be to get a list of indexes from the web site of the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health.

Bear in mind that in an earlier message I was told it was important to establish, INDEPENDENTLY of the journal's own web pages, where the journal was indexed/abstracted. I don't agree with such an idea because I see no reason to distrust the publisher of this reputable scientific journal. I, nonetheless, proceeded to establish where the journal was indexed/abstracted using independent sources, to wit, the home pages of the indexes themselves when possible. When not possible, I simply searched the index to determine if articles from the Scandinavian Journal were returned.

In all probability, you are more experienced with Wikipedia than I. If you would like to carry on where I struck out, please go ahead. I suspect that you will do a better job than I can do.

I appreciate your contribution.Iss246 (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally, I think that it is perfectly OK to source abstracting and indexing services to the website of the journal itself. For many WP entries, it is accepted practice to use primary sources for non-controversial information and it certainly is what I usually do in journal articles. Unfortunately, there is currently some disagreement among a group of editors about where the bar for notability for a journal should be. To be on the safe side, it is good to have independent sources. But for the abstracting/indexing, I would still go with the journal homepage. No journal would risk getting into a conflict with these services by falsely claiming to be included... --Crusio (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

How is I/O psychology relevant
RandyKitty. I am unclear how I/O psychology is a related field to what is covered by this journal. If you look at the contents of the journal, it is pretty far removed. Here's links to the table of contents for the last four issues. Seems if anything there is more overlap with clinical psychology (depression). Psyc12 (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Then add that to "see also". That section is not limited to only things that this journal covers, because in that case we could just omit it, as those things need to be linked in the body of text. --Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)