User talk:Deep humility

Welcome!

 * Thank you for the enthusiastic welcome! --Deep humility (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thymus reference
Hello - on my talk page, you said: How do you think about the reliability of the following source?



That journal seems fine for impact factor (~ 4) and quality of sources for the topic the article addresses - changes in thymus morphology during aging. I would regard it as a suitable reference in the thymus article. Good luck! 21:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC) -
 * 1) This source is not published by the Medline-indexed journal.
 * 2) However, the journal is the Official Journal of the American Aging Association.
 * 3) The source is reviewed.
 * 4) This source appears to be the most recent update on the topic--Thymus and aging.
 * 5) This source has been widely cited.
 * Many thanks!! Deep humility (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. This Frontiers article would meet some resistance by medical editors because a) it is 7 years old (see WP:MEDDATE) and b) it is published in a Frontiers Media journal, a concern due to possible predatory publishing practices. The journal's editors may use unrigorous practices, and the author may have been recruited to actually pay the journal for publication - practices contrary to rigorous review. See other Frontiers Media journals at WP:CITEWATCH, where the disclaimer explains the background for treating these journals as dubious sources for Wikipedia, and an editor has to judge source quality as "hit or miss". There are numerous Frontiers 'review' articles which I regard as untrustworthy, misleading, and unusable. If you have further questions, you can ask them here, as I am watching this talk page. Zefr (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) This article is published by Frontiers.
 * 2) This article has been cited more than 200 times, in part by some articles in well-known journals such as Journal of Clinical Immunology, PLoS, and PLOS Biology.
 * 3) This article is peer-reviewed.
 * 4) The journal is Medline-indexed.