User:DGG/journals

DG
It has so far been accepted at WP:AFD that essentially all peer-reviewed academic journals are notablw An academic journal is notable because of what it is and what it does. A journal publishing notable articles is notable, and the articles are established as being notable by the people who write them, as is shown by their being cited. Essentially all journals are cited, some more than others. whether they are every last one of them notable is open to discussion, but certainly the ones that are listed in major indexes and held in major libraries are. Its easy to meet any one of a number of technical criteria, and by all the versions of Notability for science and Notability for academics, meeting a single criterion is enough. if two or more articles have be cited by different journals of acknowledge notability it meets the requirement, and all journals can meet that. By analogy with other media--textbooks establish notability if they are used in two or more universities, and all journals actually do meet that. Just as the notability of authors is one of the factors for books, so the editor's notability establishes the journals. The notability of the society that sponsors it establishes the notability. Consider where we find journals that a NN, as judged by their being not a Reliable Source: in pseudo science, it frequently turns out that the journals is published and edited by a person and his associated organization, is never cited by other journals, never publishes work by authors who publish in other journals, are listed in n indexes, and held by no research libraries. Think about  subject a little more, for you may not have seen all the aspects"DGG 06:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * General statement

Emerald titles
First published in 1970, it is considered by independent raters one of the top 4 logistics and transportation research specialty journals, for both research and teaching usefulness. The journal publishes articles on a wide variety of topics, including customer service policy, distribution costing, distribution planning, information technology, materials and purchasing management, order processing, systems transport and inventory management.
 * The International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management (ISSN: 0960-0035) is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

The International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management (IJPDLM) publishes ten issues per year. It is currently edited by Professor Michael R. Crum and Professor Richard F. Poist of the Iowa State University, and is published in association with the ISU College of Business. IJPDLM has been indexed in Scopus since 2005. As it is not indexed by Thomson Scientific Social Sciences Citation Index, no Journal Citation Reports impact factor is available.

Links
--
 * AAAJ homepage
 * Emerald Accounting & Finance journals
 * Submit an article

The Journal of Knowledge Management (JKM) is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed quarterly publication publishing original research,technical discussions, and case studies by academic, business and government contributors for the relatively new interdisciplinary subject of  Knowledge Management.

The journal is listed in Information Sciences Abstracts and INSPEC, and indexed in Scopus. it is not included in Journal citation Reports. This is a relatively new field, and this is the one of the three journals in it to be included in Scopus

my analysis of Emerald
You've made my week. In general its been possible to show that every published peer-reviewed journal is notable--, at least the ones in Web of Science and other indexes, but this may be a case where sections may be more appropriate. I will also write a completely new article on the company, and there will be no problem keeping it, as they have been specifically the topic of several published works. Stephen, a good catch. DGG 07:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Keep for International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. This journal has actually been rated by several independent raters, summarized in the peer-reviewed article cited (& not published by Emerald), and considered 1st, 2nd, or 6th among the 12 specialty transportation journals using various measures. Thus, I think by our rules it is inescapably notable, even though it is not in Social Science Citation Index, my usual criterion (The authors are university faculty, though primarily not from the US. SSCI is very US-centric for applied journals; Scopus is more balanced.). Articles about journals traditionally have some puffery--everything is a "leading international journal" or the like. When seen, such comments just need to be removed. Though as you will see there is some reason to be suspicious of the quality of Emerald journals, this one is OK. (to be continued) DGG 00:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Keep for Supply Chain Management: an International Journal. It is in SSCI and JCR, and ranks about midway in its group. Since JCR covers about the top quarter of peer-reviewed journals in the firs place, this is a respectable performance. The authors are mostly academics,not businessmen. DGG 00:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC) merge for International Marketing Review. It is in Social Science Citation Index, probably because it has been published a relatively long time, but unfortunately its impact factor puts it in the bottom 15% of its group. This is only a rough way of assessing journals, and all the caveats are discussed at Journal Citation Reports and Impact Factor, but it is relevant for the comparison of similar journals in the same field. When I add the publisher article, I'll merge in the essentials.DGG 00:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC) merge for Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, unless I can find out some more. It isn't in ISI and I have no other quantitative information. There are other ways of evaluating, but they're complicated-- You can look at how many libraries have the journal--which is not that useful as it once as because because Emerald like many major publishers sells most of its journals as packages--which also mess up subscription numbers. You look at a sample who publishes in it, and what their academic reputation is. You collect opinions of specialists. One look And so on. for now, I'd be very content to merge it in the general article. DGG 00:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC) keep for the moment for Journal of Knowledge management. This is a new field; there are at most 10 journals in it, & this is one of just 2 of them to be included in Scopus. (None are in Web of Science.) I'd suggest keeping it on that basis. I think it's at least respectable, and the authors are academics. DGG 03:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

New York Review of Science Fiction (prod)
"prod" on an academic journal

Daniel J. Leivick, I have to confess I was surprised to see a PROD on New York Review of Science Fiction, which is an academic journal. With all due respect, the standard of having third-party articles written about the work isn't going to really work on an academic journal. Academic journals are notable for their citation factors, for publishing well-reputed authors, and so on. You will never find third-party "articles" written "about" the vast majority of influential publications -- there are maybe only a tiny handful, less than a dozen, scholarly journals that are themselves "newsworthy". But newsworthiness is not the only criterion of notability. These are the kinds of questions that are trying to be addressed at Wikipedia:Notability (academics); we hadn't realized, I think, that people would be diligently trying to delete articles for academic journals as well as for scholars & academics. I'm going to work on those proposals, but in the meantime, I strongly suggest to you that PROD is inappropriate for an article on an academic journal. --lquilter 05:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the prod was inappropriate. An AfD could have been a better choice. My problem is there is a lack of verifiability, it is hard to say that journal is important without any sources. The information in the article is partly verifiable from the journal itself but any commentary as to its importance in the SF world is as far as I can tell unavailable. I have to confess my main reason I put up the prod is that I found out the Hugo nominations are really just fluff as anyone can nominate. I think it is misleading and at the very least a note should be put in the article. In any case it needs some kind of reference an article cannot be entirely self referenced. Thanks for you collaboration. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not going to be important to the "SF world"; it's important to the "SF studies" world. The Hugo thing is obviously just trivia, as all the SF articles are full of. It's a thorny problem, because "sourcing" is just not going to be easy for academic journals -- and I'm not just talking about this one, I'm talking about Cell, one of the top three publications in biology; and similarly significant journals in every field. They're simply not "newsworthy". Their significance is found by looking at things like citation factors, but depending on how you do it, that could almost constitute WP:OR. Anyway, please try to remember that a lot of the policies to date have had their kinks worked out on popular media topics, and more esoteric academic things are still being worked on. You might try contributing at WP:Notability (academics) and similar projects -- we need more people. Best, --lquilter 05:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC) This is an interesting one. I took a look at the academics notability discussion and assuming that we can transfer this policy discussion to journals, I am still a little troubled. The only criteria that the NYRSF could really meet is being cited frequently. I don't know if it is cited, but if it is then we might have some were to go. The problem in my mind boils down to this: without sources we can't have an article. This seems to be at the core of what an encyclopedia is. As a quick aside in the interest of full disclosure, I found this article after having a rather crumby experience dealing with one of its editors during a debate about her violation of WP:AUTOrules. In any case my I think my arguments for deletion are still valid, if you wouldn't be too upset I think I will post it as an AfD and drop the prod. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I already killed the prod per WP:PROD. I'm not upset by wikipedia policy; if you want to re-post as AFD, go ahead; but I can tell you already that it will be a waste of time because anybody who does SF criticism can point out that NYRSF is notable. On the other hand it may be that wikipedia is so dominated by fanboys & fangirls that academics don't notice this kind of thing; if so, and if the page is deleted, then it's indicative of the very real problems discussed at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) -- people seeking to apply the wrong criteria of notability to academic subjects, and simply not being able to adequately assess them. Not to bring up the pokemon test, but, this is the kind of problem that academics have dealing with wikipedia, and it's why wikipedia is so very, very detailed for every last detail of marginal TV series, and so thoroughly inadequate in anything other than popular culture. Being cited frequently is the kind of criterion for notability that an academic journal would need. Unfortunately, that data is available only for the sciences & social sciences (SCI and SSCI), and is expensive & hard to get. Other than that, you simply need to manually scan the literature to see how frequently the thing is cited; review the literature and scholarly discussions to see the impact it is having in the field; review the people published in it to see what caliber of authors are published; or review the publishers to see the caliber of publishers. Under any of these criteria, NYRSF is up there with Extrapolation, Foundation, and SF-Studies. Finally, if you're coming to this from a contentious dispute on the Cramer article (I went to Cramer's page to see a really appalling set of pointless disputes there too), you really might want to consider whether your concerns are well founded. Setting aside any concerns about Cramer, David Hartwell is of high repute in the SF criticism community; and numerous editors on the Cramer page have asserted her personal notability and the notability of NYRSF. So, to me, that question should be settled; and people should be turning their attention to improving things, not pointlessly reiterating the various indicia of academic notability. --lquilter 07:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Actually I just looked up Cell (journal) for comparison, b/c Cell is the #1 biology-specific journal; second only to the general science journals Nature & Science, and with two major medical journals. The entry basically has no cites, although because it's in the sciences it can include an impact factor. But this is one of the top scientific journals, and it suggests that your criteria for academic journals is a tad -- off. --lquilter 07:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC) It has so far been accepted that al peer-reviewed academic journals are notable. and I do not think that there is much chance that it will be changed, per WP:SNOW. The N criteria that apply for most WP articles actually do not apply to a whole range of media, especially web media,and have always been interpreted flexibly. But I would like to convince you: An academic journal is notable because of what it is and what it does. A journal publishing notable articles is notable, and the articles are established as being notable by the people who write them, as is shown by their being cited. Essentially all journals are cited, some more than others. whether they are every last one of them notable is open to discussion, but certainly the ones that are listed in major indexes and held in major libraries are. Its easy to meet any one of a number of technical criteria, and by all the versions of N for science and N for academics, meeting a single criterion is enough. if two or more articles have be cited by different journals of acknowledge notability it meets the requirement, and all journals can meet that. By analogy with other media--textbooks establish notability if they are used in two or more universities, and all journals actually do meet that. Just as the notability of authors is one of the factors for books, so the editor's notability establishes the journals. The notability of the society that sponsors it establishes the notability. Consider where we find journals that a NN, as judged by their being not an RS: in pseudo science, it frequently turns out that the journals is published and edited by a person and his associated organization, is never cited by other journals, never publishes work by authors who publish in other journals, are listed in n indexes, and held by no research libraries. Think about it. DGG 04:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC) apologies for miswording, I meant, "please think about this subject a little more, for you may not have seen all the aspects"DGG 06:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * PROD

This journal was placed in a PROD process for notability. The journal is one of the important academic review SF journals, akin to a New York Review of Books for the science fiction field; and important as are Foundation, Extrapolation, SF-Studies. It should not be deleted, and certainly not on a PROD, which is completely inappropriate.

The fact that SF scholarship and criticism are significantly under-represented in wikipedia compared to media SF characters (the Pokemon test) does not mean that they are not notable; simply that wikipedia (and the google test) do not pick up academic work as well as they do fan & pop culture stuff. PROD is completely inappropriate, and a Google test -- or even a Lexis/Nexis newsworthiness test -- is not an appropriate criterion on which to evaluate the notability and merits of an academic publication. In fact, academic journals are rarely going to have third-party articles written about them; they are notable because they are the source of important scholarship. This is the sort of problem that WP:PROF is dealing with in biographical articles. As yet, there has been no such proposal for notability of academic journals, because, I believe, people hadn't been deleting these articles and creating this problem. I will work on a proposal that better clarifies the sorts of criteria for notability that would be applicable in the case of an academic journal. These would include, for instance, (a) citation factor; (b) significant contributions to the scholarly field; (c) frequent publication by noted authors (an important criterion for a review journal, like NYRSF); and so on.

PS - I think had the PROD editor known more about the field he would have searched for "NYRSF" and found a lot more information about it. Google tests are still completely inappropriate for academic journals but in the SF field they will work better than in most fields. (If you know what you're supposed to be looking for.) --lquilter 04:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have now added a lot more information about the journal. I would note that as a result, this article is considerably more fleshed out than, say, Cell (journal). While that's nice for this article, this sort of reactive editing is actually not a helpful way to direct the evolution of the encyclopedia. It leads to smaller and more niche (while still notable) articles being fleshed out in an effort to stave off inappropriate deletions, at the expense of working on high-priority stubs. If an article appears reasonable and gives some assertions of notability then adding a or other working template is the better solution than PROD and AFD. --lquilter 08:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Agree. Thanks for all your work here. PRODing this article is wholly inappropriate. Maybe I'd better join WikiProject Science Fiction and keep an eye out. - PKM 17:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Good article, more than most, and it would be quite a job doing it for all of them until needed. Generally, JCR can be useful but it doesn't cover humanities. There have been so few of these that it might be best to do it reactively for now. DGG 04:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Chemical Physics Letters prod, kept

 * dated prod|concern = |month = January|day = 26|year = 2007|time = 23:40|timestamp = 20070126234042}}


 * I removed the prod tag because articles on journals are notable. See Wikipedia:List of missing journals with the statement near the top that "This list grew out of a discussion where it was felt that an important aid to making sure all Wikipedia content is accurate and verifiable, is to have more information on the various sources used to compile articles". If you want specific reasons for this article look at the list of editors (includes a Nobel winner - note he is a working editor, not just adding his name) and the impact factor (fairly high for a non-review journal). Sorry this is delayed. I wrote it earlier but must have forgotten to save it. --Bduke 01:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Law Practice Magazine, AfD, Kept
Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 9 Non-notable freebie magazine published by one of the twenty-plus subsections of the American Bar Association. There are several dozen such publications, and there does not seem to be any reason for each to have its own article, but one single editor rejects the idea of just rolling all these up into a single sentence in the ABA article, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion, since that page (which has no real external links) is never going to have any traffic to create a consensus. 9000 ghits, but most are law organizations or people mentioning that they were mentioned in the magazine. See also the related Articles for deletion/Law Practice Today. Finally, note also that Wikipedia does not have any separate articles for any of the six or so Federalist Society publications. THF 12:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Javit 12:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. (I created the article. And apparently I am the "single editor [who] rejects the idea of just rolling all these up into a single sentence in the ABA article".) The deletion nomination is not in line with Guide to deletion (WP:GD). The nomination suggests a merge into American Bar Association (ABA) ("to roll up" = "to accumulate; collect") through the addition of "single sentence in the ABA article". If the content of the article (or some of it) should be preserved, then there is no reason to delete the article and its history. WP:GD says:
 * "Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it into some more appropriate article. It is either inappropriate or insufficient for a stand-alone article. After the merger, the article will be replaced with a redirect to the target article (in order to preserve the attribution history)." (emphasis in the original)


 * If the content, or some of it, should be preserved, then I think an independent article would better present the topic, with corresponding external links to the ISSN entry, and so on. But, anyway, in this case, this issue should not be discussed here, but on the talk page of the article.


 * Secondly, IMHO, the magazine appears to be notable: see, for instance (obtained from a Google Scholar query on "Law Practice Management" - the old name of the magazine), citations in  (ref. No [4]),,   (ref. No 2.) These are just three random citations in apparently quite serious and renowned publications. A deeper exploration of Google Scholar would certainly reveal more citations. Having articles on sources such as specialized magazines is invaluable (please read the introduction in List of missing journals). --Edcolins 13:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I think that any of the publications of such a major organization would likely be notable, and the fact that they publish 20 does not count against them. Many excellent trade publications are supported by advertising and available free either to all or to those in the industry (known as controlled-circulation)--this is not a negative factor either. Magazines are made notable by notable articles, and in some areas of life this can be seen at least partially by citation. Ulrich's lists it as "Law Practice" (and the article should be moved to Law Practice (magazine).)
 * From the data there it is free only to members, & otherwise sold by subscription, it has a circulation of 19,000, and, most important, is indexed by the services A B I - INFORM (American Business Information), Accounting and Tax Index, Current Law Index, Family Index, Inspec, Legal Information Management Index, LegalTrac, P A I S International (Public Affairs Information Service), and SoftBase --nine major services. (I've added all this to the article.)


 * This makes it quite clear that it's being taken seriously in several different fields. A principal indication of notability is the indexing, because it shows that all of these organizations thought it important. The profession determines the importance, and we just record the fact. DGG 20:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Any of the publications?  According to the ABA website, they offer 2000 separate publications.  Even if you limit it to periodicals, newsletters, and law journals, that's over sixty publications that each merit their own article according to that crieria.  THF 20:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I wasn't thinking critically. As with most societies, not everything sold on their site is even their publication, they sell  Roberts Rules of Order, Freakonomics, and so on, & I wasn't thinking of their textbooks and practice manuals and education packages for continuing education, & committee reports,  and so on, nor most newsletters. I was thinking only of their formal  periodicals and magazines.  But I would say that all established academic journals and substantial professional magazines from established publishers & listed in major indexes are notable. (that leaves probably 75% of purported professional or academic serials that are not notable--the low end goes very low, as with most things. ) That the major professional society in a very large profession should publish 50 or so seems very reasonable. My thoughts in general about giving them separate articles is that if they have separate titles, yes, if they are parts A, B, C. etc of something, no matter how substantial, then just sections, if they are pairs, such as Journal of XYZ, and Journal of XYZ Supplement, then sections at most. But this is their basic professional magazine, supplied to the entire membership, There have been a few academic or professional magazines brought to AfD in the last 6 months; I've !voted no on some, and the consensus held me wrong in one that was unindexed and not even found in the issuing institute's library--and the consensus was right.    DGG 23:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 01:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not the "basic magazine provided to their entire membership." That's the ABA Journal.  This is a magazine provided to a single subsection.  And again, there are literally sixty periodicals, journals, and magazines published by the ABA, not all of which are notable.  So the fact that this one is published by the ABA means nothing by itself. THF 02:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, referenced by patents and held in many libraries in America and overseas, even russia and finland. John Vandenberg 03:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep INSPEC-indexed professional publication. —David Eppstein 19:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

MEADA AfD, (deleted)
An as yet unpublished magazine, sourced only to its own web site, that may eventually become notable. It's own site says "The first issue of MEADA Magazine will be available in Late July 2007." WP:CRYSTAL DES (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC) ...
 * Keep This magazine already has issue zero published. Obviously, all search engines and publishing organizations would have this information stored when it is automatically crawled or manually updated. The magazine is well known in the Middle East anyway.
 * Delete as per my nom. DES (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. It may return someday, but if it does, it will then have some notability attached to it. Resolute 04:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; google search indicates its not yet notable. I couldnt find an ISSN either. John Vandenberg 05:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lots of magazines are born and dead every day worldwide. If this one gets to be notable we will have the article in a few years. We don't have a crystal ball to now the future. Right now its simply free advertising, even if in good faith. - Nabla 13:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete until it becomes established. The web site announces that it "is set to be one of Middle East’s leading consumer’s Art, Design, and Architecture magazines. " but there's no reason for others to share their confidence.

User:DGG, User_talk:DGG, /edits to ck, /pages to revisit, /people, /priorities. /std talk pp, User:DGG/journals, /to insert, /sandbox /projects, /AfDs, /WP Projects, /other wikis