Talk:Science (journal)

Science magazine
The page Science magazine is currently a redirect to List of science magazines (incidentally, this article was not in that list, so I added it). Methinks the redirect should probably be to here (article). Comments? Enquire (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The name of this publication is Science, not Science Magazine, so the specific addition you made to List of science magazines is incorrect. But whether Science should be there is also problematic: that list is about publications for non-expert audiences, while Science is a scientific journal and thus explicitly excluded from that list. (Note that Nature (journal) is also excluded.) Of course, everyone is a non-expert outside of their specific area, and so much of the news, commentatry, etc., in Science is written for such a non-expert (albeit well-informed) audience. But I think we should respect the exclusion of what are primarily scientific journals. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Irony
Am I the only one who finds the 'lack-of-citations notice' ironic? Also, can we please clean up the talk page so we can get rid of that four year old orange bar at the top of the main article?

137.54.23.191 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was time to archive. I have done that.


 * Note to the anonymous IP if s/he should pass by again:


 * 1) New discussions should always be added at the bottom of the talk page.
 * 2) Please sign your comments with the "four tildes" (" ~ ").
 * 3) Removal of the "orange bar" (the 'refimprove' tag) is contingent on someone deciding whether there is still a need for additional citations, such as unsourced material. You could do this yourself, but please check that you understand the applicable policies (e.g., WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources).
 * ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed tag
I decided to be WP:BOLD and remove the maintenance tag placed on this article way back in 2011. There is no specific problem that the tag mentions that needs to be addressed other than more citations are needed (it still seems kind of general). And there is no related talk page discussion that I can see (see Archive 1). In answer to the tag - there are plenty of references and citations that support the text in this article - so this article is probably (and hopefully) much improved since the date of the tag - 2011. Feel free to discuss here if necessary. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Science (magazine) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That (now closed) discussion is now found at Talk:Science (1979–1986 magazine). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"The journal Science" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The journal Science. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Cover image
Per 's recommendation on my talk, I've opened a discussion on the cover image here. I uploaded the cover of the latest issue of Science, in place of the image from the discontinued series from about 130 years ago. Headbomb reverted saying that as the first issue offers more historical significance, it should be preferred over the latest issue. If the cover was maybe from 10 or even 20 years ago of a significant point, I would agree. However this cover is 130 years old, and in no way represents the branding, style and design used in Science today. A more recent cover would definitely offer more usage to the reader. WP:NFCCP #8 states that Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. I believe a cover from 130 years ago does not increase a reader's understanding of the topic more than one of more recent, that represents the current journal. WP:NFCI #1's footnote states cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys. Using the cover of a discontinued edition that doesn't share anything with the current cover doesn't provide the same contextual significance as one that has the current the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys. I think for the reasons above, the more up to date cover should be used (it's here if anyone wants to see it), however consensus seems to be needed for this, and I don't think FFD is the correct forum for this now. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 09:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, and quite importantly that is, the original cover is in the public domain, whereas the new ones are copyrighted, and the new covers fail NFCC Criteria #1: No free equivalent (and all 10 criteria must be satisfied, an image is not given a pass just because it satisfies some of them). A recent cover does not illustrate or identify the topic better than an old one, especially given that is a very historied publication, that dates way back. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * See also WP:FREER. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a cover that in no way represents the current publication would be considered a "free equivalent". The current publications has completely different branding and identification, which is not provided with an older cover. The article already includes older covers, so the content is already in other parts of the article. WP:FREER asks whether Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?. I do not think that the first cover has the same effect as the current cover. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 09:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Put differently, is this the cover of Science? If yes, it has identified the publication. That it is not a recent cover is not relevant. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you really think using a century old cover is better, I guess I can't do much. I'll just go improve other articles. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 09:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of better or worse, it's a matter of qualifying for fair use or not. We're aiming to be the free encyclopedia, and when free content is available, we must work with it, to the detriment of prettier, but non-free images. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. A modern cover might be better from a graphics standpoint, but the legal situation with the old cover is better, and that wins out. If Science is unhappy that we're making them look old, they can license an example of a modern cover for us. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a reasonable fair use rationale can be advanced for the modern cover. The difference in appearance is to such an extent that it serves a different encyclopedic purpose under NFCC#1, and NFCC#8 is satisfied as an illustration of marketing/branding that NFCI states. I will admit that second-guessed myself about this article's topic (whether this was about the modern magazine/journal that I knew) when I first read it, just based on the first volume cover in the infobox. I believe there is a distinct encyclopedic value for the modern cover as identification and its now-familiar striking use of images, just as there is with the infobox image at The New York Times (and various other articles on old newspapers). At the very least, the infobox should use the modern PD logo, and the historical cover should be moved to the body. — Goszei (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Another solution would be finding a modern cover of Science that features an image licensed by Creative Commons, like at our article on Nature (journal). — Goszei (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the OP that a newer cover would better convey marketing, branding, and identification information, while an older cover would better convey historical significance. I know which of these I think is more important, and it's not whatever some corporate PR people cooked up recently.  So I support Headbomb's reversion, regardless of any questions about fair use. --JBL (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be a binary, consider how our article on The Lancet makes use of images. — Goszei (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it uses them badly (all the interesting and significant images are thrown together in a pile at the bottom, not used to illustrate anything in the text) but I take your point. I don't object on principle to including newer covers in the article, as well.  For that matter, I would also support swapping the two pictures (1882 and 1883) currently in the article so at the better-quality 1883 image appears first, in the infobox, and the blurrier original cover appears in the first section.--JBL (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The original is the most important one. And at 150px or so, there's very little perceivable difference. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer the 1880 version that Headbomb reverted back to. It has historical significance. Also, we are supposed to use the free version for any article when it is available. I don't think this takes away from the "brand" or "branding" of Science. This is clearly a front cover image of an issue of Science magazine. And I think it is best to keep in mind the reader, for whom this image is meant imho. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Cover image (2)


Following up on the previous discussion, I have uploaded a 2020 cover of Science that uses a NASA image as its cover, and is therefore in the public domain (like it was done on Nature). I propose that this image replace the current image in the infobox, and that the current image be moved into the History section. The previous discussion centered on the argument that a non-fair image fail NFCC#1 (a fair point), which would not apply anymore. Per MOS:LEADIMAGE, the infobox image should be representative of its subject, and arguably a image showing the current cover layout is more representative to modern readers. In an article about a city or building, you would show an image that shows how it looks now, and not 200 years ago. Older pictures would belong in the History section. Pinging, , , , and  as participants of the previous discussion. intforce (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, I prefer the historic first issue cover in the infobox, as more interesting and more historical/encyclopedic in value. I don't object to having a modern cover around, just elsewhere. Others may have a different opinion. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I support using a modern cover in the infobox and placing the first issue cover in the body. As intforce argues, a modern cover is most representative (some articles like The New York Times go even further, and find a non-free rationale in using a modern cover because it is distinct enough from the 1851/1914 versions). Thanks for the find. — Goszei (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC).
 * Just because one image used to make the cover is in the public domain, that doesn't mean the cover itself, a derivative work, is also in the public domain. NASA didn't put "Science" on top of their picture or choose any of the other wording that describes the inside of that issue of the journal. A fair-use rationale has to be advanced for the derivative work, just like for any other magazine cover. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The question is whether the derivative work crosses the threshold of originality, seeing as it is just text. If not, the derivative image would also be in the public domain. You are welcome to open a Commons deletion request so we can settle that question. I have followed the same procedure that was used on the Nature cover. intforce (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could have a similar radio box image switch system like with location maps? One of them could be the default and the other could be shown by selecting the respective radio button. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 11:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The licensing for this image is incorrect. It is a fair use image and the copyright is owned by Science magazine or AAAS. The NASA image is public domain. But this magazine cover is not public domain. Again, I think the historic magazine cover image should be kept because it is in the public domain. This is in agreement with Wikipedia's goal of free images. Please stop playing games with fair use images and so on. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed changes
Could the updates below be made to the following?

Introductory Paragraph

1. Change both references to SCI as an “academic journal” to “scholarly journal” in the first sentence.

2. Update the second sentence’s note regarding circulation to read “…currently circulated weekly in print and updated daily online..”

3. Change the first sentence of the second paragraph to read “The major focus of the journal is publishing important original scientific research and research reviews along with science-related news, science policy and commentary on or the wide implications of science and technology.”

4. Update the impact factor in the third sentence of the second paragraph to “Science’s 2021 impact factor was 63.832.”

5. Add a corresponding reference for the impact factor to: https://jcr.clarivate.com/jcr-jp/journal-profile?journal=SCIENCE&year=2021&fromPage=%2Fjcr%2Fbrowse-journals

6. If needed (and appropriate), the reference to the acceptance rate could be cited using the official journal metrics page: https://www.science.org/content/page/journal-metrics

7. Edit the last sentence in this section to read “Science is based in Washington, D.C., United States, with offices in Cambridge, UK and Beijing, PRC.”

History

8. Add a sentence to the fifth paragraph: “AAAS opened offices in Cambridge, UK and Beijing, PRC to support Science’s international body of authors.”

9. Move the last sentence “Former Washington University in St. Louis….” to the end of the fourth paragraph (which lists the most recent editors).

Availability

10. Change the last sentence of the last paragraph to read: “Science’s First Release feature provides advance electronic publication…” and remove the link to the Phys.org reference.

a. If appropriate, this is the link to the page with the most current First Release papers: https://www.science.org/toc/science/0/0

Mphelan123 (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 5 is under a paywall, FYI. PK650 (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Requested additions are not supported by reliable sources with the exception of 5) (which is pay-walled). Throast  {  { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 15:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Additional Proposed Changes
Hello!

We have some additional edit requests, listed below. Please let me know if I can provide rationale, additional information, etc.!

Bolded text indicates additions/edits to text.

Summary


 * 1) Request: Could we add the following sentence to the end of the “Summary” section?  “The journal is part of the Science Family of Journals, of which Holden Thorp is the Editor-in-Chief.”?
 * 2) Reason: For context -The Science journals have an overall Editor in Chief (Holden Thorp), but each journal is then managed by individual Editors who we prefer not to list.
 * 3) Link: https://www.science.org/content/page/leadership-and-management#HoldenThorp


 * 1) Request: Please move the sentence currently in the “Contents” section to the end of the “Summary” section, and update the Impact Factor and associated reference: “According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2022 impact factor of 56.9.”
 * 2) Reason: The IF is old and needs to be updated.
 * 3) Link: https://jcr.clarivate.com/jcr-jp/journal-profile?journal=SCIENCE&year=2022&fromPage=%2Fjcr%2Fhome

Scope


 * 1) Request: Please create a “Scope” section separate from the “Contents” section.
 * 2) Reason: We’re aiming to have the structure of the pages as consistent as possible across the journals.


 * 1) Request: If this is possible, please move the scope text from the “Contents” section into the “Scope” section: “The major focus of the journal is publishing important original scientific research and research reviews, but Science also publishes science-related news, opinions on science policy and other matters of interest to scientists and others who are concerned with the wide implications of science and technology. Unlike most scientific journals, which focus on a specific field, Science and its rival Nature cover the full range of scientific disciplines.”

History


 * 1) Request: Would it be possible to update “In 2015 Rush D. Holt Jr., chief executive officer” to “In 2015 Rush D. Holt Jr., then chief executive officer…”
 * 2) Reason: This clarifies that Holt is no longer CEO.

Availability


 * 1) Request: Please update the sentence regarding the categories of articles made free to read:   “Significant public-health related articles and articles that report the reference sequence of a genome are also available for free immediately after publication.”
 * 2) Reason: This more accurately reflects the journal's access policies.
 * 3) Link: https://www.science.org/content/page/open-access-aaas


 * 1) Request: Please update the first section of the third paragraph and its associated references to read: “Other features of the Science website include the "News from Science" section with "up to the minute news from science"((https://www.science.org/news) commentary (https://www.science.org/commentary) , the freely-accessible Science Podcast (https://www.science.org/podcasts), and "ScienceCareers", which provides free career resources for scientists and engineers.
 * 2) Reason: This more accurately represents the sections and features Science currently has. Additionally, "ScienceNow" no longer exists and is now referred to as News from Science;


 * 1) Request: Scienceexpress no longer runs; would it be possible to remove the link and reference to this?
 * 2) Reason: Scienceexpress is no longer active.

Right Rail


 * 1) Request: Please update the impact factor to 2022’s numbers (56.9).
 * 2) Link: https://jcr.clarivate.com/jcr-jp/journal-profile?journal=SCIENCE&year=2022&fromPage=%2Fjcr%2Fhome

Mphelan123 (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Reply 23-SEP-2023

 * Your edit request could not be reviewed because the provided references are not formatted correctly. The citation style predominantly used by the Science (journal) article is Citation Style 1 (CS1). The citation style used in the edit request consists of bare URL's. Any requested edit of yours which may be implemented will need to resemble the current style already in use in the article – in this case, CS1. (See WP:CITEVAR.) In the extended section below titled Citation style, I have illustrated two examples: one showing how the edit request was submitted, and another showing how requests should be submitted in the future:

Bare URL reference formatting: The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.[3]

References

1. 2.  3.

In the example above there are three URL's provided with the claim statements, but these URL's have not been placed using Citation Style 1, which is the style predominantly used by the Science (journal) article. Using this style, the WikiFormatted text should resemble the following:

Citation Style 1 formatting: The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin. Which displays as: The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.[3]

References

^ Sjöblad, Tristan. . Academic Press, 2020, p. 1. ^ Harinath, Prisha. (2020)., Science, 51(78):46. ^ Uemura, Shū. . Academic Press, 2020, p. 2. 

In the example above the references have been formatted according to Citation Style 1, which shows the author, the source's name, date, etc., all information which is lost when only the links are provided. As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, edit requests such as yours are generally expected to have this formatting done before the request is submitted for review.

Kindly resubmit the edit request below at your earliest convenience, taking care to ensure that it makes use of CS1. If you have any questions about this formatting please don't hesitate to ask myself or another editor. Additionally, the COI editor is invited to disclose the nature of their COI on their talk page per WP:COIDISCLOSE. Regards, Spintendo  22:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)