User talk:Elysia (AR)

Annual Reviews
The article on Annual Reviews (publisher) reads as spam, and makes it appear differently credible. Guy (help!) 22:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the note. Do you mean to say that AR does not appear like a credible organization in general, or is this an invitation to improve that article? As far as I know, AR does not plan on paying me to improve the article about the organization or any of its journal titles, but it could be in the works for a separate project. Elysia (AR) (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also just saw your reversion of my edits to Myc due to COI. To the best of my knowledge, I have followed all COI policies of Wikipedia. My edits included adding a citation to a section that previously lacked any citations. With your reversion, the Discovery section is once again uncited, Burkitt's lymphoma is once again incorrectly called "Burkitt lymphoma", and the section caps are wrong for "Relationship to Stem Cells". A similar model of paid editing has existed for some time with WikiProject_Medicine/Cochrane on Wikipedia, with . Elysia (AR) (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in as someone who works primarily on biology articles and isn't being paid by Annual Reviews (I was brought here by WAID's post at WT:MED). I can't speak to the organization broadly, but at least their molecular biology-related journals (Annual Reviews of Biochemistry, Cell & Developmental Biology, Genetics, Immunology, Microbiology, Plant Biology, and Virology) have excellent reputations in academia. I suppose they're probably the premier publisher of reviews in those fields (along with JBC and Nature Reviews X...)? I don't know of any third-party ranking assessing this kind of thing, so I'm just leaving my opinion here. You can take it or leave it. The Annual Reviews (publisher) page does currently stink. I'll add it to my todo list for a rainy day. Ajpolino (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I mean that the article reads like an advert or PR copy. Guy (help!) 08:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'll pass that along to Annual Reviews. As I said, not sure that it's within the scope of what I was hired to do, but maybe they'll have me propose some changes on the talk page. Elysia (AR) (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link in your userpage
Hello, I checked out your userpage and noticed that you linked to Annual Reviews which is a disambiguation page. I figure you probably want to link to Annual Reviews (publisher) (not quite sure if it's acceptable to edit people's userpages, so I'm just leaving you a note instead). BTW, I like your work on Convenience voting. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 05:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for pointing that out! I feel a bit silly that of all the links to hit a dab, it was that one :) I have fixed it. And thank you for your note on convenience voting. It was definitely one of those articles I was a bit surprised didn't exist already. Elysia (AR) (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

doi-access=free
Have all Annual Review journals been converted to open-access? Is this permanent &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , hello! It's five at present with more to be rolled out next year. I don't think it's been externally announced yet, so I can't say how many/which ones. Current open-access journals are polisci, nuclear science, public health, cancer bio, & environment and resources. So the new volumes are published CC-BY. Back volumes of these journals have access control removed, so are doi-access free as far as Wikipedia is concerned, but obviously image reuse is not possible from the back volumes like it is from current volumes.
 * There are no plans to go back to gated access for these volumes. Of course, if the publishing model started leading to catastrophic revenue loss, Annual Reviews would probably revert to its previous publishing model. Like I said, not the plan, and they're opening up more journals next year. Elysia (AR) (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Asking mostly because if the whole catalogue was open access (and open-access status won't retroactively change in the future), it would be a pretty easy thing to go through all AR-citations with bots and add free automatically. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * you may be interested in the above for an -run. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This will be done automatically at the next run as long as Unpaywall knows about the OA status, which it currently doesn't. I've reported the issue but maybe Elysia can help by forwarding the Unpaywall FAQ to whoever handles metadata at AR. Nemo 11:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My ticket has not been closed as resolved yet, but I think it's being worked on, because I see quite a few Annual Review edits by OAbot. Nemo 14:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've been seeing quite a few on my watchlist as well--thank you! Elysia (AR) (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've been seeing quite a few on my watchlist as well--thank you! Elysia (AR) (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Todd Klaenhammer
I saw you wrote the article on the late Todd R. Klaenhammer earlier this year prior to his death earlier this year. I knew Dr. Klaenhammer from being a member of the Institute of Food Technologists (I created that article in 2006 as a matter of disclosure.) and he was an advisor to a professor I had at Clemson University in the mid 1990s. I wanted to say you did a great job in creating that article. Chris (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm no longer with Annual Reviews, but thank you for your kind words! I really enjoyed learning and writing about the prominent scientists whose careers intersected with AR at one point or another. Enwebb (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics cover.png
Thanks for uploading File:Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics cover.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Elysia (AR)/Annual Review of Environment and Resources


A tag has been placed on User:Elysia (AR)/Annual Review of Environment and Resources requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"Article exists (Annual Review of Environment and Resources), no need for a copy in user space"

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)