Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Archive 6

Seeking a Wikipedian in Residence (U.S.)
Annual Reviews, an independent, nonprofit scholarly research publisher, seeks an enthusiastic Wikipedian-in-Residence (WIR).

The aim of this role is to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of the sciences by citing expert articles from Annual Reviews’ journals. The WIR will engage with Wikipedia editors across life, biomedical, physical, and social science articles and WikiProjects to help ensure responsible and valuable expansion of content.

This is a temporary position for 10 hours/week, paid at $30/hour USD, and is anticipated to last for up to 1 year. This position can only be based remotely from the following states: CA, OR, OH, NV, NC, WA, WI, CO, MA, PA, NY, HI, or MT.

PLEASE APPLY! https://annualreviewsnews.org/2020/02/25/seeking-a-wikipedian-in-residence/

Cheers, Jake Ocaasit &#124; c 09:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Hindawi's Advances in Virology
Interested in the project's opinion on the reliability of Advances in Virology, a journal from Hindawi, launched in 2009, as it is being used as a source for many articles relating to the current coronavirus pandemic. I've never heard of it before and it lacks an impact factor, but is being indexed in some reputable places. The discussion on Hindawi seems to indicate that some of its journals are ok, some not so much. Thanks in advance, Espresso Addict (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * probably best to ask at WT:MED &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is new, and I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * since this seems up your alley. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Re-ping, did the ping not go through the first time? It makes identifier most predatory journals a cinch, but also shows fake impact factors and the like if those are used as a source.&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Possibly predatory journals from Green Publication
Green Publication https://gnpublication.org/ publishes several journals that claim to have significant impact factors, but I feel very skeptical about the company. I have not seen anything about the company other than its own website, so I have nothing to cite to back up my instinctive dislike for it. Still, I wanted to share this note with other members of this project. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Indexing The Mathematics Enthusiast
An editor of our article The Mathematics Enthusiast insists on removing from the article any information about what scientific indexes it is included in and not included in. The article is currently completely unsourced. Anyone else here want to weigh in? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Indexing information should be in. Where it's not indexing in however, shouldn't be in. It's not indexed in many databases it could be indexed in.


 * Unless of course, there's third-party covered about how it's not in certain databases. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Medical Hypothesis, Discovery & Innovation in Ophthalmology
This debate could use some expert input. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Communications Physics
If anyone is interested, the scientific journal Communications Physics qualifies for inclusion. Scroll down on the linked page to abstracting and indexing (Current Contents and Science Citation Index). It is an open access journal published by Springer Nature (Springer and Nature used to be separate - ah the good ol' days!). I am unable to locate an impact factor on the site. And here is the home page - very impressive.

Communications Physics is a redirect at this time, but it seems to me this journal merits its own article.

Thanks to the section this redirects to - I checked out Communications Biology, and that also seems to qualify per abstracting and indexing. See the "About" page.

I suspect Communications Chemistry and Communications Materials might also qualify. Well, here are four possible scientific journal articles for an ambitious editor. Have fun! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Transactions of the Krylov State Research Center
Does the journal is notable as per WP:NJOURNAL. Did not find anything at http://miar.ub.edu/. Any help is appreciated. ~ Amkgp 💬  09:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ~ Amkgp 💬  09:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also tried with the ISSN but nothing showed up at http://miar.ub.edu/lista/ISSN/2542-2324 or http://miar.ub.edu/lista/ISSN/2618-8244 ~ Amkgp  💬  09:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see notability there. The tricky bit is that this is a Soviet/Russian journal, and coverage is probably much more substantial in Soviet/Russian sources which may not be digitized, and which I couldn't read anyway if I managed to find them. A merge to Krylov State Research Center is what I'd recommend, unless more sources are found. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Headbomb. Merge to Krylov State Research Center. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the MIAR tool that is linked above by User:Amkgp. This is certainly useful for WP Academic Journals. I think we should somehow integrate this into this project. I'm thinking integrate into the Writing Guide and maybe integrate this as a search tool to help with determining notability per WP Journals' notability guidelines. Thoughts? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well we already mention it in WP:JWG, it's mentioned in WP:JRES, and it's also integrated in infobox journal (this both needs an ISSN to work, and to have search links enabled). &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the journal's homepage says that it is indexed at Russian Science Citation Index and Web of Science but the claims remains un-verified both from website and at article where there is no reference in support. I tried at https://mjl.clarivate.com/search-results but did not find anything ~ Amkgp  💬  19:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You might have to search the Russian title. Both the transliterated version or the original Cyrillic version. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I could find only https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01009841617 from Russian State Library ~ Amkgp  💬  20:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK thanks. This is a little bit of an oversight on my part. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK thanks. This is a little bit of an oversight on my part. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

AfC submissions
Hi, some AfC submissions you may like to look at: Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:International Journal of Geometry Accepted
 * Draft:Microwave Journal (declined and not re-submitted)
 * Draft:Arnoldia (journal) Accepted
 * Draft: Canadian Medical Education Journal Declined Hickeygamez (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Hickeygamez

Others KylieTastic (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Priroda (journal) Accepted
 * Draft:Democratic Theory Accepted

Another KylieTastic (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Zoosystematica Rossica Accepted

More: Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics
 * Draft:Lambda Nordica
 * Draft:Multinational Business Review
 * btw you can tag their talk pages so they appear in the Article Alerts for this project too. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes but I think it shows only currently submitted ones, so if declined it does not appear - would be nice if it showed recently declined as well so the project could see to improve or advise author. KylieTastic (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting Citation or Further Discussion To this Speculation
Hi there, I enjoy this project while I was reading about it and I found this passage where to me should be cited at least or I will open the debate around the actual value of the scientific book as follow: (If scientific impact is considered related to the number of endorsements, in the form of citations, a journal receives, then prestige can be understood as a combination of the number of endorsements and the prestige or importance of the journals issuing them.) As the Science is in constant evolution and just to mention this point, endorsements and citation, can be manipulated or modified and the related number attach to it would end up irrecevable or compromised. Based on a journal, unless there is a proof of concept and some applicative solutions, it would be improper to use this argumentation and honorable mention from this book. Best Regards SirlupinwatsonIII (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * what article are you referring to? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, citation counts are never a measure of significance or reliability. See also https://sfdora.org/ . Nemo 06:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

New pages patrol
Please weigh in: Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Technology, Education, Management, Informatics
Is this a predatory journal? It looks a little fishy, but is indexed at least in a few places. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Any particular reasons why it would be? Looks like any other random European journals from a minor publisher. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Mostly just the look and feel, and the fact that it was open access. Nothing else, really. Thanks for weighing in. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles to expand and clean up
Journal of Political Economy

and

New Political Economy (journal)

I've added templates wrt expanding for more references. Anyone with a political economy background can help expand and improve these articles? Thanks!

BlueD954 (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Journal of Healthcare Management up for deletion
This could use more eyes from the project. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Widener Law Review
I thought all law reviews were notable. This has been tagged. Notable or not? Ping me, please. Bearian (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Shii Studies Review
This could use more eyes. Please comment. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ping. This has been relisted for 2nd or 3rd time. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

List of academic preprint servers
Members of this project may be interested in the new article List of academic preprint servers. The main things that caught my eye were a lot of redlinks not accompanied by citations, and the inclusion of viXra. The editor who created it has also been making a lot of changes at List of academic databases and search engines about which I have no strong feelings (although the removal of arXiv strikes me as a bit odd). --JBL (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation hatnote for articles having an eponymous journal
Hi. WP:SIMILAR says that "When two articles share the same title, except that one is disambiguated and the other not, the undisambiguated article should include a hatnote with a link to the other article." This is done most of times, as in Sustainability or Genomics. Yet I'm finding many such hatnotes almost a type of spam, specially for single-word journal titles. This issue is nicely avoided when the main concept already has a separate disambiguation page, as in Toxin. WP:ONEOTHER does allow a DAB page for one topic other than the primary one, but only temporarily. Does this bother anyone else? For many other instances, see Google Search. fgnievinski (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

FAR notice
I have nominated Astrophysics Data System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Bacon 05:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

APC vs author pays
There's a discussion at Talk:MDPI of about whether article processing charge (used at the PLOS One article, among many others) should be used consistently or 'author-pays' is reasonable language. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Good its finally discussed. Great to have them standardized. I think golden OA will suffice. Most of the time authors don't pay but their funding institutions. Kenji1987 (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "Gold open access" is ridiculous jargon that should not be used in the lead of any article on any journal or publisher, ever. --JBL (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Plus "Gold open access does not intrinsically mean, however, that the author pays and, indeed, this was not integral to the term as it was coined by Stevan Harnad." fgnievinski (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * (May I suggest centralizing this discussion at Talk:MDPI?) fgnievinski (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Louis Riel
This is something members of this project may have an opinion about, so please comment. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox organiser
Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

John Cummings (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion on reliability of MDPI journals
There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of MDPI journals. If you are interested, please participate at. —  Newslinger  talk   13:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Microbiology Spectrum Draft
Hello editors, I'm Geoff. I work for the American Society for Microbiology. I have disclosed my Conflict of Interest on the American Society for Microbiology Talk page, as well as on my Talk page. Per Wikipedia policy for connected contributors, I do not make edits directly to articles about ASM or its journals.

I am here today to ask if anyone is interested in reviewing a draft of an article about one of our journals, Microbiology Spectrum. If so, the draft can be found here. I believe it qualifies under notability for academic journals because it is indexed by SCOPUS and Science Citation Index. Many of our journals already have entries on Wikipedia, and our goal here is to offer content that improves the encyclopedia by helping to fill a gap. I'm committed to following community guidelines, and am open to feedback.

Please feel free to reach out with comments and questions here or on my Talk page.

Thanks so much! Geoffhunt3 (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft has been moved to Draft:Microbiology Spectrum. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

AfDs
There are currently several journal articles at AfD that could benefit from input from editors that are familiar with academic journals. See WikiProject Academic Journals/Article alerts. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Journal search engines that only index reliable journals
Hello friends. I'm working on a citation highlighter user script called CiteHighlighter. It color codes around 1000 websites green, yellow, or red depending on their reliability. I'd like to start expanding this coverage to journals. First off, are there any journal search engine websites that only index reliable journals? For example, I currently highlight any citation with a link to PubMed as green, as this journal index is pretty high quality. And I also highlight arXiv as red as that one is self published. I don't know much about the quality of other kinds of journal indexes that show up in citations, such as doi. In your opinion, are there any other ones I can add that are an obvious green or an obvious red? Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A wide, wide range of journals have DOIs; there's no way to make a single judgment about them all. See WP:CITEWATCH for examples of journals that have DOIs and are questionable at best. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * PubMed also includes all journals in PubMed Central, which is not very selective. It excludes the most egregious predators, but some doubtful journals are also included. MEDLINE is much better and Index Medicus is even better. BTW, has created a similar tool for journals, so I'd suggest you get together with him to avoid unnecessary double effort. --Randykitty (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ArXiv is not a journal at all. So highlighting it as an unreliable journal is a mistake. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red is also overkill for the arXiv, since very often it's used in lieu of the full citation to proper journals, or is used in an otherwise acceptable manner. In general, I find that highlighting in green is a futile endeavor, because the question is always reliable for what, and it's not because something is published in a journal, in the New York Times, The Lancet or whatever, that it's correct or even accurate. A case report published in a reliable medical journal doesn't suddenly cross the WP:MEDRS threshold. Plus, there's millions of reliable sources, getting an exhaustive list is an impossible endeavor. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyway, my script is WP:UPSD and I feel it would be better to have one central script that does this than multiple scripts that clash with one-another. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks, I'll take a look at your script. My script uses WP:NPPSG, which is a summary of many RSN discussions and WikiProjects. Has about 1000 sources. I'll have to give some thought as to the best way to avoid duplicate work. I'm sure your script and CiteUnseen already cover a lot. By the way, arXiv is red at WP:RSP, so I feel that one is reasonable to include as unreliable. I coded it so that if any other journal ID number is present, that highlight will be more  than arXiv and will take priority. – Novem Linguae  (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's red at RSP, but it's a bit of an overkill when it's actually by Wikipedians used in articles. They're plenty of places where it's not enough, but there's many places where it's fine to support basic information. It's also present in many citations, like
 * And highlighting that in red just because there's a convenience link to the preprint would be silly. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's important to distinguish between arXiv references where arXiv is the only publication metadata (maybe unreliable, depending on whether the other publication data is missing or whether it doesn't exist) and arXiv courtesy-links in citations to properly published journal articles (generally totally unproblematic and should probably not be highlighted at all). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's important to distinguish between arXiv references where arXiv is the only publication metadata (maybe unreliable, depending on whether the other publication data is missing or whether it doesn't exist) and arXiv courtesy-links in citations to properly published journal articles (generally totally unproblematic and should probably not be highlighted at all). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Notability?
Hi! A couple of journals have come up as I work through a backlog and these are two that I feel like should be notable, but I'm having trouble finding sourcing. Any recs? African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies (complication, the org it's affiliated to is a redlink without many sourcing options either) and African Journal of Infectious Diseases. Thanks! StarM 21:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The second one is in Scopus, which is a pass of NJournals. The criminology one is not in any selective database (hence a fail of NJournals), so if it doesn't meet GNG, then unfortunately it is not notable. The medical journal article needs work (for example, AJOL is an access platform, not a publisher). --Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you Randykitty! The AJOL link might have been my own issue, trying to get the official link to be a working URL and I didn't realize distinction between access, publisher. Had a feeling re: criminology when its affiliated organization wasn't providing evidence either.      StarM 23:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * since you're here and I imagine other backlog editors might have the same question so not putting it on your talk or that of the specific journal's, but how would an editor unfamiliar with this field find out that it's in SCOPUS? Is there a tutorial somewhere? Question driven by dePROD 1 and 2, but I imagine I'll find others in the backlog. Thanks!      StarM 14:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * One way is using the Scopus search page (also linked on my user page). The other way to do it is to activate the search links in the journal infobox, which will give direct links to the journal's Scopus page (provided a valid ISSN is in the infobox). That will also give a link to the MIAR database, which lists the services indexing a journal and is, in my experience, quite reliable. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Super helpful, thank you. Don't want to delete anything that's notable, and some of these early mini stubs aren't as clear as those edited more recently.      StarM 16:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Me again! Question on IRB: Ethics & Human Research, which I found in a backlog. ISSN:0193-7758 comes up "N/A" in all fields in SCOPUS. I'm not clear whether that means it's indexed by them or not (unlike others which don't return a result at all). ANd one more in Journal_of_Enterprising_Culture which is not in SCOPUS, but lists a number of places it is indexed. Is there an easy way to see if those are selective databases? Thanks! StarM 15:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Need comments on RfC at MDPI
Link to RfC

Need some help with the above RfC, since opinions are clearly entrenched and we have no chance of reaching a consensus. Banedon (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone familiar with MDPI will know what this is about without even having clicked on it. Still, it's high time we resolve this nonsense once and for all. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Best search engine for economics journals
Hello. Any recommendations for a search engine for checking economics journals? I'd ask at WT:ECONOMICS, but that place is crickets. Also, what are the major academic journal search engines in general besides PubMed and Google Scholar? Thank you. – Novem Linguae (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Scopus
Oh dear... --Randykitty (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't have access to the full paper, but there's an alternate conclusion that can be espoused, which is mainly that Scopus is right and Beall was wrong. And that inclusions of journals on Beall's list in Scopus simply reflects Beall's categorization mistakes. Or doesn't distinguish between questionable, potentially predatory, and predatory, since Beall didn't distinguish between them either.
 * Reality really is that neither are right 100% of the time. Beall made mistakes (or was lax with categorisation), but Scopus also includes crap. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So how do they define the potentially predatory journal? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Update/shameless plug of WP:UPSD, a script to detect unreliable sources
It's been about 14 months since this script was created, and since its inception it became one of the most imported scripts (currently #54, with 286+ adopters).

Since last year, it's been significantly expanded to cover more bad sources, and is more useful than ever, so I figured it would be a good time to bring up the script up again. This way others who might not know about it can take a look and try it for themselves. I would highly recommend that anyone doing citation work, who writes/expands articles, or does bad-sourcing/BLP cleanup work installs the script.

The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Journal deletion discussion
Hello! Thoughts humbly requested at Talk:International Quarterly for Asian Studies. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Frontiers Media request
Hello, I have suggested updates to the Frontiers Media article at Talk:Frontiers_Media, specifically focusing on some missing context with regards to a statement by the Committee on Publication Ethics. Do any editors at this WikiProject care to vet that potential update? I do not edit the article myself because I am an employee at Frontiers Media.

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Burning Bush (2nd nomination)
This AfD suffers from low participation. Informed !votes are welcome! --Randykitty (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Academic Journals articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion
Category:Academic Journals articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Most-viewed stub article within this Wikiproject
Semantic Scholar Total	10,989	Daily 366	Stub--Coin945 (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Editor-in-chief information for journals
Is it appropriate to add information about current and past editor-in-chiefs for journals described on Wikipedia? And, what would be considered an appropriate citation for this information? Some journals list the editor in chief or there are press releases (likely from the journal), but I am unclear if those would be acceptable, independent sources. --DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, see WP:JWG. And press releases/website/journal staffing description on the inside of journals would all work. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Auk and Condor renamed - move y/n?
As of January 2021, Auk and Condor have been renamed to "Ornithology" and "Ornithological Applications" (neither of which was taken yet, apparently - go figure). Question: should the articles be moved to the new names, or rather new redirects be made to the old names? Bit hard to tell what is more appropriate with these venerable journals - both have a 100+ year history. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Usually, we move them to their new names. After the switch, not before though. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They did switch, I just can't find any press release or similar to that effect. Uncharacteristically coy, that. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No need for press releases, their websites are fine to support WP:V. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Moved and updated both articles, if someone wants to check & twiddle. For one thing, I've left defaultsort paras, Wikidata and Commons links alone because I don't know whether those even need to be adjusted. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Anais da Associação Brasileira de Química
Does anyone read Portuguese to see if there's sourcing? It's not in SCOPUS and I'm not able to come up with anything useful in English. Thanks! Star  Mississippi  16:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You could try asking at WP:BRAZIL also. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

2020 IFs released
This morning the 2020 impact factors were released. JCR also has an updated interface, but unfortunately my access is currently not working. I hope that this is just because many people are checking thereby overheating Clarivate's servers and that the problem will soon be resolved. --Randykitty (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * PS: note that almost all articles currently in Category:Articles with outdated impact factors from 2020 are displaying 2019 IFs, NOT the 2020 ones... --Randykitty (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:APL Photonics
Hi,

Draft:APL Photonics has been waiting in draft for 4 months - an opinion as to if this is notable or not would be helpful as the sources require logins.

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

✅ and created --Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks - Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Cognizance Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies
is apparently indexed in Publons, Crossref, ORCID, and Academia.edu. Is there some quicker way to delete this than PROD? --JBL (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Doubt it - there's a claim to importance, however threadbare, so no A7, and I don't know what else would apply. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh, and PROD has now been removed by the article creator. Guess we get to have an AfD (courtesy link). --JBL (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

List of preprint repositories
I did a little cleanup work on List of preprint repositories, but I don't think it's ready to be de-tagged yet. It could probably stand a little discussion about what the criteria should be for inclusion. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Science (journal)
There's a discussion about fair use on cover images that would benefit from more eyes. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

AfDs in need of participation
Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Revista de Derecho de la Universidad Nacional del Altiplano de Puno
 * Articles for deletion/East Asian History (journal)
 * Input from knowledgeable editors still needed. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 07:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The AfD for EAH could still use some input from editors familiar with academic journals. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

"Academic journals of foo country" vs "Academic journals published in foo country"
At the moment we have two parallel category trees, Category:Academic journals by country and Category:Academic journals by country of publication. The first one has as subcats, for example, Category:Academic journals of Brazil, with Category:Academic journals published in Brazil as a further subcat, but also as subcat of "Academic journals by country of publication". For toher countries the trees are kept separate (e.g., Germany). Articles on individual journals seem to be allocated to "journals published in" or "journals of" more or less haphazardly (I at least have not been able to discover any logic). I find it difficult to see how a journal that is not published in some country could be "of" that country, so I think that all the "of" cats should be merged into the "published in" cats. Then somebody should go through them all with a fine-toothed coomb, as most journals cannot be allocated to one particular country unambiguously. I'm curious what editors here think about this and any suggestions on how to go about this are welcome. --Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Publishing" can be a confusing concept. Many software platforms which present a journal will not be in the country of the journal. I live in the United States, and I happen to know that in my community there is an organization which hosts various journals for, by, and about Africa. If publishing means "makes the text digitally available and distributes it" then publishing often does not happen in the country producing the content. If publishing is just the brand or institution which organizes the journal then that makes more sense.
 * Whatever publishing actually is, people will continuously interpret it in various ways. I favor trying to avoid sorting by country of publication because of those varied interpretations.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  22:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more. Modern publishing is very international in nature. That something is published by, say, Elsevier, a company headquartered in the Netherlands, doesn't mean that its journals should be categorized as "published in the Netherlands". A particular journal may have its editor in the US, the editorial assistant somewhere in India, board members all over the world, and a publisher in any of the major offices that Elsevier has all over the world (without this actually being indicated anywhere), whereas the actual production of the final PDFs takes place in Singapore (and if there still is a print version, that may be produced in Malaysia). So "published in foo country" has not much meaning in contemporary publishing. However, in the past I have tried to get rid of these outdated national categories and that has failed each time. So if somebody adds a "published in" or "journal of" category to a journal, I leave it in place unless it's absolutely ludicrous (such as journals published by one of the major international publishers), even though I'll never add such a cat to an article myself. Accepting the reality that we can't get rid of these national journal cats, at least we can try to have a modicum of logic and merge the "journals of" cats into the corresponding "journals published in" cat. But if you see a chance to get rid of all "national" cats, I'll be with you! --Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I favor the merge but I do not know how that should look. I wish that the word choice was not so sensitive. Even if word choice is problematic, either I support the merge, or I suppose that within 10 years Wikidata will suggest categories for all these things which will probably let anyone categorize things however they like. Besides sorting this for English language, in the foreseeable future we also need these categories available in other languages as Wikipedia's citation infrastructure gets more translated.
 * For now I will just say that I support a merge for anyone who feels using their time to change the status quo.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Predatory publisher's journal
Today, I came across Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology which I created in 2010. I think since I was relatively new, I didn't realize that the publisher's website is full of blatant falsehoods. Apparently the publisher is listed in Beal's List of predatory journals. This came to light after I created the article. There is a link to this list in the references. On the publisher's website, there is an easily seen impact factor. Yet, this journal in not listed in the Web of Science - see Master List. Also, it doesn't seem to be listed in Scopus. Anyway, I am going to PROD this article and hopefully it won't be necessary to go to AfD. This will save time and energy. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It was in Scopus, but no longer is as of 2018. I'll take the opportunity to remind people here that infobox journal has several editor-oriented database search links that can be enabled to facilitate lookup in Scopus/MIAR/etc... &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It is interesting that problems were noticed in 2017 but the page was not prodded or sent to AfD. The abstracting and indexing listed in this article was also removed, and rightly so Well, I am surprised this is still on Wikipedia. Hopefully, not for much longer. Just wanted to inform project members about this. I have prodded the article and removed most all of the information because none of it can be considered reliable. FYI, I left a similar message on RandyKitty's talk page. . ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It might also be worth taking a second look at Journal of Biomedical Nanotechnology, from the same publisher. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * That particular journal is in all the important databases (according to MIAR). --Randykitty (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep or delete this journal?
In a related talk page discussion, an editor/colleague pointed out the Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology is surprisingly indexed by MEDLINE and Index Medicus. Based on this listing, the editor thinks the page for this journal should be kept, but with a note that the publisher is on Beall's list (diff here). (MEDLINE and Index Medicus listing is here). (Also, found in MIAR).

With respect, I disagree. Given that the information on this journal's website not reliable, I think its Wikipedia page should be deleted. And I don't think being listed on MEDLINE and Index Medicus is enough to overcome this discrepancy. So, I would like other editors to chime in here. Should this be kept, deleted, discussed, or whatever else? Thanks in advance. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Serials from the Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University
The Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University, which our article says is the oldest natural science research institution and museum in the Americas, publishes several serials. They are listed at https://ansp.org/research/systematics-evolution/resources/scientific-publications/ and briefly described in the Academy's article at Academy_of_Natural_Sciences_of_Drexel_University Most are published irregularly and therefore not periodicals.


 * Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences (First Series, Second Series), both ceased
 * Monographs series (ISSN 0096-7750)
 * Notulae Naturae (ISSN 0029-4608), occasional series
 * Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, (ISSN 0097-3157) "The Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, established in 1841, is the longest running serial on natural history and the environment..."
 * Special Publications series "began in 1922 and continues to this day. This series includes works of taxonomy (ISSN 0097-3254), pansystemic research resulting from expeditions, historical reviews, surveys of Academy collections, and biography."

I discovered all this when I was editing Sargocentron poco and found that the original description of this species was in Notulae Naturae, which does not have an article. I don't know whether any of these are indexed by any selective index. They are probably peer-reviewed, although possibly not exactly the same way that most journals are. I'd like to suggest that an expert on journals consider whether any of the serials ought to have their own article with an infobox, or whether the section in the Academy article is adequate. Once I might have been bold and created articles on each serial, but AfD is a scary place and I haven't found good references for any of the serials. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The easiest way of checking where a journal is indexed is by entering its ISSN or title in MIAR, which is quite good and rarely wrong (but the site is usually a bit slow, so be patient). If you do that for the above publications, the Proceedings is clearly notable, as it is included in Scopus and the Science Citation Index Expanded (so it should also have an impact factor). The other publications don't seem to be indexed anywhere (one is in BIOSIS Previews, but I don't think that's enough), so redirecting to the academy seems the way to go and briefly give whatever info can be reliably sourced. I didn't find anything about the Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences, but didn't have time to put in a large effort (which is needed given the very general title). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Daily Nous
This deletion discussion is about a website, but it might be fruitful to evaluate it like a journal in some respects. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Nature article on predatory publishers and bootlegged papers
Probably of interest to members of this WikiProject: Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Fascinating! Although I try to keep current on this subject, this article made me aware of several trends that I had missed before (such as the extensive rebranding by OMICS). Thanks for bringing this to our attention! --Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

AfD needing participants
Articles for deletion/Beta (journal) was just relisted, but has not a single comment yet. Please participate in the discussion. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Impact factor
There are some discussions ongoing at Talk:Impact factor that could use some other opinions. --Randykitty (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History
This AfD could use some more input from knowledgeable editors. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge: Retraction Watch and Center for Scientific Integrity
Please see the proposal (here) to merge Center for Scientific Integrity to Retraction Watch. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

List of early-modern journals
Is this a legitimate list? Smells like WP:OR to me but perhaps there are contemporary scholarly sources about the concept of an early-modern journal that I don't know about. Was considering nominating it for deletion but thought I'd bring it here first. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Perspectives médiévales
I am working on Prise d'Orange and started using yesterday. I hadn't heard of Perspectives médiévales before. Can I trust articles from this open-access journal? MIAR says it's indexed in a few databases so it's at least a known quantity. The about page says it's been published in some form since 1975 by Société de langues et littératures médiévales d'oc et d'oïl. I would have tried WP:RSN but haven't been having much luck there lately and WikiProject Middle Ages is apparently inactive. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like a reliable source. Its notability, however, is borderline at best as it is only indexed in the MLA database. (Unless somebody would find some in-depth sources so that it'd meet GNG). --Randykitty (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The only statement I could find about the journal was note 38 on this page, which surely doesn't suffice for GNG. I was mainly concerned about reliability because I don't have a good sense of when, and when not, to trust open-access journals. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In a certain sense, you shouldn't trust articles even from prestigious journals. What better journals offer is a higher likelihood of conscientious reviewing, but recent decades have seen a collapse in the ratio of authoring volume to reviewer effort. What gives me confidence in articles is the existence of articles that cite the work and investigate its claims critically. In the absence of that, you can use the reference but use it with due caution. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Science Immunology
Could someone start a stub article on this journal? It's quite high profile - published by the AAAS and has an impact factor of 18 - but weirdly doesn't have an article yet. I would do it myself, but I have a conflict of interest. Modest Genius talk 11:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for declaring your interest. You can create a draft free of the CoI restrictions at Draft:Science Immunology. See WP:AfC for pointers to information on how authoring works for CoI editors. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And by carefully following the instructions in our journal article writing guide, you can easily develop an acceptable, neutral article, even if you have a COI. Pre-formatted references can be found on my user page. Drop me a note when you have finished the draft and I'll review it and move it to article space. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks both. I'm aware that WP:COI allows me to write a draft despite the CoI, but that's not something I'm comfortable doing. Better if I don't touch it at all. Modest Genius talk 13:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * If I find 30 min later today I'll make an article. --Randykitty (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I can understand your reticence. I've participated in multiple AfDs where the nom rationale was essentially 'TNT, falls foul of our CoI policy' when all the CoI editing had been done in draftspace. IIRC, one kept a high level of hostility even after the actual facts about our CoI and deletion policy were made clear. There's a need to raise awareness with respect to policy here. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

✅ --Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Very kind of you, thanks! I didn't expect to get a reply this quickly, let alone an article. Much appreciated. Modest Genius</b> talk 17:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Wording of redirect template
I think the wording of R from journal is confusing and have opened a discussion at Template talk:R from journal. Pam D  10:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Computational Engineering and Physical Modeling
This AfD could use the input of some knowledgeable editors. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

IEEE Photonics Society Journals
Hi, Appologies if this is the wrong place to ask, I'm new.

I have been trying to publish an article through AfC on IEEE Photonics Technology Letters but have been declined twice, both due to references not showing significant coverage. I asked about this on teahouse and this ended with two other articles (IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics and Journal of Lightwave Technology) being tagged with multiple issues.

I'm unsure if continuing my draft is the best thing to do or if instead I should request that my draft and the now tagged articles are all merged into IEEE Photonics Society. It may also mean the merging of IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics as well, but I didn't tag that in the teahouse discussion so it wasn't tagged with issues.

Thoughts/advice greatly appreciated (even if its to link me to a better discussion board or a document I have missed.) Carver1889 (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Almagest (journal)
This AfD could use the input of knowledgeable editors. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:JCW reaches 3 million total citations!
With the latest dump, the WP:JCW compilation has reached 3M citations for its analysis. 2.75M come from cite journal, the rest from a variety of templates. Mind blowing!

Again thanks to for making this possible. You can discuss this on the JCW talk page. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Notability
I'm wondering if anyone has thoughts on proposing Notability (academic journals) to be a guideline. Is it accepted enough in the community? –– FormalDude  talk  19:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Last time this was attempted it got attacked by some for being too lenient and by others for being too stringent. Personally, I would do away with it completely, with one exception.
 * CRIT 2: This is a badly-defined criterion. As a result, some editors occasionally argue that a handful citations is enough to meet this criterion. Hard figures cannot be given, as citation rates vary significantly between fields. In addition, it's not really necessary as journals that rack up significant amounts of citations will soon be included in some of the major databases.
 * CRIT 3: Again, a badly-defined criterion. Some editors will argue that because a new journal with as yet no published articles nevertheless meets this criterion because it is the first journal ever to concentrate on the right hind leg of the Patagonian cockroach. As mentioned in NJournals, a publication that really is "historically important in its subject area" will have coverage unreliable independent sources and hence meet GNG.
 * So it looks to me like criteria 2 and 3 are really unnecessary and indeed in practice they are rarely invoked, but responsible for a disproportionally large proportion of the disagreements and bitter AfD discussions that sometimes take place in this area. Only CRIT 1 appears to have some use, but that rests mainly on the assertion that inclusion in a selective database is equivalent to an in-depth independent reliable source, meaning that such inclusions signify that a journal article meets GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Reviews and Advances in Chemistry
Some input from knowledgeable editors would be welcome. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Query regarding sufficient reliable source template
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I want to know when is it okay to remove the template message regarding insufficient reliable source for an academic journal. For example in the case of Inorganic Chemistry, will it be okay to remove the template?

Also, what would be the best practice in such a case? Self remove or let someone else remove the template?

Thank you!

~ Nanosci (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As to the article involved, I think the banner "relies largely or entirely on a single source" is still accurate. The indexing information you added is good but that's a minor part of the article. For the general removal of maintenance banners, unless you have a conflict of interest or received a specific sanction from ARCOM disallowing you or the banner was the subject or edit warring, then you would be fine removing so long as the reason for the banner was adequately fixed. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * sourcing is fine for the information that's there. I removed the banners. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) ~ Nanosci (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Need Guidance Regarding Uploading Journal Cover Image
Greetings fellow Wikipedians,

I am trying to upload this File:2DMaterialsCover.gif, which is a journal cover image of 2D Materials. However, even after uploading the image more than once, I see 0 × 0 pixels as the image description. Additionally, it was not letting me correctly link to the journal page. Initially, I thought it was just waiting for approval (as it says pending on the File page) but today, I got a message on my talk page saying it is an orphaned image and would be deleted if not correctly linked to any article.

I would appreciate any and all guidance that I can get from your vast experience. Also, let me know if you have any preferred method to upload images, between Commons and File. Looking forward to learn from you all!

Thank you!

~ Nanosci (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)



Update:
A kind Wikipedian, like you all, fixed the issue. However, I would still like to know your pick between commons and file for image upload. Especially in the case of journal cover. Thanx! ~ Nanosci (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * commons is generally used for all suitably free images (see this). For images like this that are not free but used as low res as "fair use" under Non-free content then local is the only option and would be deleted quickly from commons. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you! :) ~ Nanosci (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Retraction Watch as a source
Hi! What's the community's opinion on using Retraction Watch as a source in articles about journals? It's seems reputable and independent to me, but some might disapprove since it technically is a blog. The topics covered are of course controversial so I understand a high standard must be kept. SakurabaJun (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It's a blog, but a very notable one. The blog and/or the people behind it are regularly cited in mainstream newspapers and magazines. It's absolutely a reliable source IMHO. --Randykitty (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks! That's great because there seems to be a lack of independent sources on research misconduct, editor misconduct etc. in academic publishing. --SakurabaJun (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

journal editors
User:Randykitty has added a criterion for inclusion to the category Academic_journal_editors (being editor of a notable journal) which I think is superfluous. I want to know the opinions of other users. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Just like Academics need not be academics of notable institutions or journalists need not be journalists of notable journals, we don't need the aforementioned criterion. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The specifiction that it should be a notable journal is essential, otherwise we should also include editors of non-notable (or even predatory) journals. This criterion has been around for quite some time, I only clarified this (and that was done months ago without anybody objecting). --Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Being editor of a non-notable journal is not a defining characteristic for an academic's bio, which is what cats are about. --Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In wp:category there is nothing about defining and notability of category's details. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It literally is in the lead. --Randykitty (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is said that all categories are defining. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That's one way of reading it. Most people read this as meaning that cats should be based on defining characteristics. --Randykitty (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * We have always been selective in which journals we count editorship as cause for notability in WP:PROF and which we do not. This goes back to the 2008 addition of this criterion, which already said that the person had to be editor-in-chief and the journal had to be a "major well-established" journal. I think it's very reasonable to use a similar cutoff for categorization: if it's not a major journal, it's not a defining characteristic. (Possible COI: I am co-editor-in-chief of a not-yet-notable journal.) —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with RK and DE here. The category is only useful if it's about EiCs of notable journals. EiCs of predatory journals or run-of-the-mill journals are not noteworthy. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I dont understand. Then for example, magazine editors should be editors of notable magazines? Zoo owners should be owners of notable zoos? Businesspeople should be staff of notable businesses? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Help talk:Citation Style 1 has an RFC
Help talk:Citation Style 1 has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC) updated RfC location after it was moved Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Publication established year ambiguity
Hi! I've come across several journals established in the 2010s which have published articles prior to the official establishment year. So e.g., volume 1, issue 1 is published in Jan 2017, but a few articles were published in late 2016. What year should we use? 2017? I found that indexing databases, e.g., Scopus, seem to handle this inconsistently. --SakurabaJun (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If volume 1 issue 1 is published in 2017, then the year of establishment is 2017. Advanced publication doesn't count.&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks! --SakurabaJun (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Correspondences (journal)
This AfD could benefit from some more participation by knowledgeable editors. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Consistent naming of Nature publisher
There are a few different names of the publisher of Nature journals being used, so I would like to make it consistent. If I understand it correctly the current name is Nature Portfolio which is a part of Springer Nature. "Nature Research" and "Nature Reseach Group" are from before Springer acquired Nature. So should all be changed to Springer Nature or is Nature Portfolio better since its more specific? SakurabaJun (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It depends. SN uses Nature Portfolio as an imprint, but also still uses its different Springer imprints. Our practice (such as with Wiley VCH) is to categorize journals under the imprint and the imprint category under the mother company.--Randykitty (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks! SakurabaJun (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

RFC about the reliability of Cambridge Scholars Publishing
See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Participation would be helpful. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

RFD: World Open Chinese Studies Journal
There's an RfD going on here, which seeks to delete a single redirect from this mass of redirects. This has huge implications for the project and for WP:CITEWATCH. Please comment. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

List of retracted paleontology papers
A new article intending to be a list of retracted paleontology papers. Frankly I can't figure out whether that is a good idea or not. Reasonable topic from one angle, weird SYNTH list from another. In some disciplines it would be a bottomless pit, but I suppose there is a possibility that retraction is relatively rare in paleontology. The editor has added secondary sources to these cases, which do show reasonable coverage. Any opinions? Not marking reviewed as of now. Ping: -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Are there any reliable sources on the subject of "retracted paleontology papers"? If not, then this looks like an eclectic/idiosyncratic SYNTH collection. --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It would help to read the reference section of the page before commenting. I have added several independent, reliable sources which comment on these retractions. I could find more if necessary, but I don't want it to become excessive. Retractions have historically been extremely rare in paleontology, but they are becoming a notable problem lately. There have been 3 high-profile retractions in just the past 2 years. Carnoferox (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It would help to try to understand comments before making snarky remarks about them. Yes, each occurrence of fraud in this list has been sourced. What is missing are sources that show that the subject "retracted paleontology papers" is notable. Not the same thing. --Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Randykitty refers to the requirement to have some sources that treat the article topic as a unit - e.g., sources that comment on the fact you alluded to, that retractions in this discipline are becoming more common. That's the main requirement to avoid the WP:SYNTH trap; someone else must have done the basic synthesis into one topic already. Are there some sources like that? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This preprint is an example that I can add to the page. Carnoferox (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * A preprint is not something you cite, because it hasn't been peer-reviewed yet. And "publish or perish" is a modern phenomenon. It doesn't really apply to hoaxes like Piltdown Man... --Randykitty (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Preprints can be cited if their authors are reliable sources (which they are in this case). It is no different than citing a non-peer-reviewed blog or science news website with reliable authors (e.g. Retraction Watch, National Geographic). Not sure what Piltdown Man has to do with this. These retractions are all recent and are relevant to modern science ethics, including "publish or perish" culture. Carnoferox (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * You're making a list of retracted paleontology papers and you don't see the relevance of Piltdown Man??? --Randykitty (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. The papers describing Piltdown Man were never retracted. Carnoferox (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is the type of coverage we would be looking for; it does talk about the phenomenon of "retractions in paleontology". Two issues: a) preprints are to be avoided, for the dual reasons of the small but real possibility of them failing peer review (in which case we definitely don't want to use it), and probably being available in a published version a few months in anyway, so just wait for that... and b) we'd need multiple sources to establish that the topic-as-unit is a thing. So in the current state I would suggest moving this to draft until the linked paper is published and at least one similar item of coverage is presented, at which point it would seem acceptably sourced to me. (Don't know why Piltdown came in now - historical hoaxes != modern retractions)

WorldCat
WorldCat has changed its website and search machine. The immediate problem is that the OCLC numbers in our infoboxes don't work any more. Another problem is that I haven't been able to figure out how to find the entry for a particular journal (which we need to find the OCLC number and things like library holdings). Anybody else having the same problem or is it just me being too stupid?? --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Randykitty I have no problem accessing the WorldCat entries for journals from their infobox, at least for now. SakurabaJun (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I came here to say the same thing. Can you give an example of a page you are having problems with? I'm also not sure what your second problem is. Cheers! Merrilee (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking. I just checked the links where I had problems and now all seems to be in good order again. It must have been a temporary glitch. --Randykitty (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Glad the issue with Worldcat is solved. Just a note that it's often possible to easily retrieve metadata about journals from Internet Archive Scholar or fatcat: see for instance container page for Glossa. Nemo 11:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Village pump (idea lab)
Please participate. This would affect the categorization of several journal redirects. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Choosing journal covers
Hi! Quick question about choosing journal covers for articles. I think it’s quite important for visual identification to have a journal cover in the article, so I have slowly started to add covers to articles without them. For journals started in the last 20 years (quite a few…) it is often possible to find all journal covers on their website. So I have often taken volume 1 issue 1 with the rationale that the first issue will always be the first, but the latest issue keeps changing. Yesterday an editor (admin) commented “usually use up-to-date image” so I wanted to hear what the experienced editors here think. Is volume 1 issue 1 fine, or would it be better to just take the latest available cover? SakurabaJun (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I prefer Volume 1, Issue 1, since I feel that's the most encyclopedic of all choices you could make. Or alternatively, the first issue using the current name. Random issues might be more up to date, but they also stop being the most recent issue very quickly. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Headbomb Thanks a lot for the quick reply! I'm happy to hear you agree. Follow-up: This is not high priority, but I was thinking that some journals might deserve an image with slightly higher resolution. Still within what would be considered fair use of course, but 200 pixel width instead of 100 pixel width makes a lot of difference in my opinion. Is this OK? If the existing grainy image is from a random issue in the mid 2000s, could I replace it with vol 1 issue 1 or is it better to take the same issue in higher quality to maintain the visual identity of the page? I'm not describing this so well, but I feel like there is a small conflict in this case between the rationale of using vol 1 issue 1 and not changing a page too much. SakurabaJun (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Apart from very long-established titles where "Vol 1 Issue 1" offers a certain historical element, I'd say that a "typical" current cover is probably more useful than 1(1), as helping to visually identify the title (which is, after all, our grounds for "fair use"). Not particularly the most recent issue, but perhaps the most recent major redesign of the cover. Pam  D  08:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @PamD Thanks for the input! I agree that using a cover after a major redesign has its merits. SakurabaJun (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I also prefer a journal cover which has the contemporary design because that is the most recognizable to contemporary readers.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  13:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I was probably the editor referred to above, but not notified (re Nature Medicine, as I recall)? I think we should generally be using a reasonably representative issue of the most recent design, both because it's the most useful and because the fair-use rationale states the image is for identification purposes. I generally choose either the most recent issue or a cover from the past year or so that's typical and also visually appealing/comprehensible at the thumbnail size. If we were allowed to have two non-free images (which afaik we are not), then the first cover might also be of interest, but these are often much more generic cover designs, depending on age, sometimes without images.
 * In the case of Nature Medicine, looking at recent covers, there looks to have been a redesign and a trend away from false-colour ems to diagrams, so perhaps the best course would be to take a more-recent cover? But generally it might be polite to discuss it with the editors who have worked on the article to come to a consensus as to what is the most useful image to use? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks as if the Nature Medicine redesign was Dec 2019, so it would make sense to use an image of that or a more recent cover. Pam  D  07:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd already started a discussion at the Nature Medicine talk page, if anyone's interested. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that a typical cover that works at the thumbnail size is important. And yes, in many cases the first volume has a generic design and a more recent one might improve the visual identity of the article.
 * As for discussing cover images in the talk pages, I'm a bit skeptical. I certainly believe this is a good approach in general, but given the huge number of journals and (from what I can see) very few active participants in this project, it would be more effective with general guidelines/consensus here that we can apply to most journals. Difficult edge cases will arise as well as disagreement, but then we can have a discussion in the talk pages. A bit along the lines of WP:BOLD perhaps. SakurabaJun (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I agree general guidelines from the project are useful, and I think this has been a productive discussion.
 * The problem, I think, with being bold in the case of replacing non-free images is that the editor who added the old image (often the page creator) is notified by a bot telling them that their image is about to be deleted, which doesn't feel all that friendly. And once the file has been deleted, a non-admin user can't readily undo the edit. Imo, always best to first drop a note on the talk page before making any hard-to-reverse change; that way if someone complains later, one can point to the discussion. One trick I tend to use when considering potentially controversial changes to an article is to check whether the creator was active recently. If they retired five years ago, one is less likely to cause upset by wading in. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right, the semi-automatic deletion makes it less than ideal. SakurabaJun (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 10
Please comment. This is related to the Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31, of interest to this project. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Academic Journal Metrics - Why Only Impact Factor from Journal Citation Reports?
There's a discussion on my talk page whether we should abandon our long-standing practice not to include journal metrics, except the impact factor, in our articles on academic journals. I copy the discussion here, as this page is a better location for that discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion copied from Randykitty's talk page
Hello! You recently deleted an addition I made to the Wikipedia article for the journal Socius where I mentioned the CiteScore for the journal. You wrote "we only list the IF". Could you point me to where in the WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide it says that Impact Factor is the only appropriate metric to mention? I see in the Writing guide instructions to include the Impact Factor but not it is the only metric that is appropriate to include. Thanks! Joeyvandernaald (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is not just that already keeping one metric (the IF) up-to-date is a continuous battle, but that more importantly the IF is the metric that everybody cares about (for better or for worse). There are dozens of metrics, but have you ever heard a researcher say "let's publish in Journal of Foo, because that has a high CiteScore" (or h-index, or SNIP, or SJR, or Eigenfactor, or...)? Most likely not. Almost all academics aim for a journal with as high an impact factor as they can get. All those other metrics, even though some of them are possibly superior to the IF, are completely ignored. WP is supposed to follow what happens in real life, so we list the IF, but not the other metrics. --Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that most researchers I'm familiar with (I'm an academic sociologist, so I mostly talk with social scientists) are concerned primarily with a journal's Impact Factor when making decisions about where to publish. But I'm not sure I agree that we can conclude a particular metric is significant or not based entirely on our anecdotal evidence or assumptions about what most researchers think. CiteScore is the leading contender to Impact Factor, and unlike Impact Factor is freely accessible. A cursory search through academic databases reveal several publications on CiteScore in journals like Scientometrics, and at |least one paper I could find notes that CiteScore created a separate subject area for a discipline that more accurately allows for scholars to measure significance (in the linked example above, the discipline is pharmacy). This would at the very least suggest that CiteScore is relevant to particular scholars in real life. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between research on the validity or possible utility of some measures and that what a reality is being used. There's no shortage of articles/editorials/declarations criticizing the use/abuse of impact factors, thereby documenting the fact that they are, in fact, being used. We don't have such sources documenting that, say, the CiteScore is actually used by anybody. We may like it or not (I don't, I'm from the school where you choose a journal based on whether it allows you the public that's most likely to be interested in your stuff), but that is not relevant for WP. We don't give our opinion, we document general practice. --Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I still think your argument hinges on a kind of anecdotal understanding of what most researchers do or don't think is important. What would even be an example of an appropriate source that would "[document] that ... the CiteScore is actually used by anybody"? I can find examples of researchers on, say, Sociology Job Market Rumors (a commonly used, though controversial, forum in my discipline) where actual researchers weigh the value of journals based on their CiteScore. Surely this is documented evidence that real people in general practice use the metric, even if it isn't the dominant metric.
 * Perhaps we should expand this conversation a little bit and get the opinions of other editors in the WikiProject? Joeyvandernaald (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds like a good idea. --Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Further discussion

 * It seems quite important to include metrics that are comparable from article to article, at least across a wide subject discipline, otherwise publishers are just going to be finding the metric that makes their publication look best and repeatedly substituting that. At the moment, that's impact factor. I agree with Randykitty that the burden of updating the data is substantial and would tend to mitigate against including multiple factors. Somewhat cynical about any Elsevier-led initiative (I bet it makes their journals look better on average) and December 2016 is rather recent, cf IF's 1975. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I’m not well versed in Wikipedia policy, so I’m not sure if this is considered a good argument, but I agree with Randykitty that there is a backlog of IF numbers to be updated so adding a new metric makes little sense for the AJ project as a whole.


 * As for CiteScore, although I’m aware of it, I have never heard another researcher mention it. Anecdotal evidence for sure, but adds to Randykitty’s point. I also concur with Espresso Addict’s skepticism for Elsevier. My understanding is also that CiteScore provides essentially the same information as IF, but it is less selective, which isn’t that great in my opinion. The only redeeming factor is that it’s freely available, but given all else, that’s not enough I think. SakurabaJun (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Association of University Presses needs attention!
I created a stub as the easiest way to fix a bad redirect. Association of University Presses was incorrectly redirecting to International Association of University Presses which is a different organization. Both of these pages need review. I've done what I could to reference AUP quickly from web sources, but I'm hoping somebody can improve this! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It appears the AUP already has a page, but with the former name Association of American University Presses. SakurabaJun (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't check for that. I'd welcome a merge of these, or even just a redirect to the older page if relevant! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the long-existing article at Association of American University Presses should probably be moved to Association of University Presses, and a hatnote added to point to the IAUP (which appears possibly defunct, certainly much less significant). It'll need a request at WP:RM unless there's a friendly page-mover around. Pam  D
 * I've added a logo to the existing article, so if it is moved, the "Fair Use" rationale will need to be updated - but it seemed worth doing while I thought about it. Pam  D  19:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Online integrity hub tools
Hello, I have suggested updates to the Frontiers Media article at Talk:Frontiers_Media with regards to prototypes of tools meant to help publishers flag and reject fabricated scientific articles. Do any editors at this WikiProject care to vet that potential update? I do not edit the article myself because I am an employee at Frontiers Media. Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

List of MDPI academic journals
has put an enormous amount of work in expanding this list. However, I disagree with the inclusion of literally hundreds of external links to Scopus percentiles. This is info that we don't include in journal articles per longstanding consensus, so why include it in this list? Indexation by Scopus is something that we list, as it makes a journal meet WP:NJournals. So I would not have a problem with a column "listed in Scopus" with simple yes/no entries. Any other opinions on this are welcome, I am curious what other editors here think of this. --Randykitty (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, if being indexed by Scopus is enough to justify a separate article, then a whole lot of redirects could be turned into articles now. Scopus is presently indexing 190 of MDPIs journals (including the ones without a percentile rating, which I'm marking as "Not rated"; the – in the table indicates that it is not indexed there).
 * But let's say that we want to write "Indexed" in that column. Now what?  Well, if that's a notability-proving claim, then it should be cited.  What do we cite it to?  The obvious answer is: the URLs that I'm adding.
 * If you agree with me so far, then it sounds like your complaint is strictly with the formatting, rather than with the inclusion of the URLs per se. That is, where I've typed this simple, quick, and straightforward link:
 * 62nd percentile
 * you would prefer to see this more complex formatting:
 * 62nd percentile
 * or even just:
 * Indexed
 * AFAICT the practical differences – explicitly leaving aside which one has the look and feel of a Wikipedia article – are:
 * Fewer readers will click the link, to find out whether the number is correct/has been vandalized.
 * It'll be harder for editors to update the numbers later, because you'll have to click the ref tag, which will scroll you to a different part of the page, click the URL there, and then go back up to the top of the page to check the percentile number.
 * My purpose for adding the percentiles, by the way, is primarily for the convenience of editors. MDPI's journals run the gamut from some of the best to some of the worst.  Scopus rankings make it easier for Wikipedia editors to figure out where a specific journal falls in the range.  I would like to use an external links-style template for this, similar to Scopus id for people.  I imagine something like , to produce "62" (from the readers' perspective), but having the virtue of one-edit updating if the URL format ever changes.
 * In terms of future development for the article, I think we should also add as many missing impact factors as we conveniently can (it would be very nice if someone could find a single comprehensive source for that, rather than a different page for each journal), and I hope that over time we will be able to include discontinued journals. I have the impression that MDPI starts a lot of journals, but is also willing to shut them down if they don't meet certain metrics (e.g., a semi-respectable impact factor). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the detailed answer. I'm suddenly rather busy in RL, so I have to keep it short (not necessarily a bad thing...:-)
 * Yes, Scopus indexes currently 43400 journals (765 of which have been discontinued). We have a little bit over 10,000 articles... There's work to do.
 * What to cite for Scopus inclusion? There's a link to a regularly-updated Excel file with a list of all included (and discontinued) journals here, which could be cited for the whole "indexed" column.
 * "It'll be harder for editors to update the numbers later". It'll be hard already now. As it stands, each year all those percentiles will have changed and need updating. Oh, and all the (as yet unreferenced) impact factors, too. And that's only this list. As it is, we already fail to update just the impact factors in a timely fashion in our 10,000 articles. And if we make a list like this for a MDPI, we should do this for other publishers, too, multiplying the update problem by an order of magnitude.
 * Another point is that AFAIK researchers don't pay any attention whatsoever to Scopus scores or percentiles. Ever heard somebody say "we submitted to Journal of Foo because it has a high percentile in Scopus"? Neither have I. Love it or loath it, the impact factor is still reigning supremely.
 * --Randykitty (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * PS: just thought of another complication: how do you plan to handle journals that are included in more than 1 Scopus category, they'll have different percentiles for each category... --Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the Scopus rankings are a bit less variable than impact factors, so I figured that we wouldn't update them every year, exactly like we don't update the number of people who got cancer every year. Once every few years (five?) should be enough.  Unless Scopus rearranges their website, updating looks like clicking the link and then changing the number if necessary (plus changing the date at the top of the column).  For journals in multiple classifications, I've been taking the top ranked one, as that's what Scopus lists first.
 * I don't propose doing this for all journals. I proposed doing this for MDPI, and I could see the utility (for Wikipedia editors) if we did the same for List of Hindawi academic journals.  Both of these publishers are flagged by WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1, and the journal quality is highly variable, rather than uniformly poor.
 * The (few) impact factors are all taken from the journal's websites. They will eventually need sources, but I was hoping to find a more comprehensive source before doing much else with that.  It would be simpler to cite a comprehensive list ofimpact factors a hundred times, rather than noting that https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph/stats says that the five-year impact factor for this one journal was 4.799 in 2022, followed by a different source for each one.
 * The reason I prefer the Scopus numbers, especially in the context of Wikipedia editors, is that most editors tend to think of Impact factors uniformly: 0.5 is bad, 1.5 is okay, 3.5 is good.  Except that 0.5 is actually a middle-of-the-pack decent journal in some fields, and 1.5 is kind of weak in other fields.
 * What I'd ultimately prefer is to have Scopus and Clarivate import their numbers into Wikidata each year (with a bot set to prevent unauthorized changes), and then be able to call those numbers directly. Then we wouldn't have to do any manual work at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Speaking of getting numbers into Wikidata:
 * JBFrontiers, have you ever looked at Wikidata? They have a different policy around paid editing:  d:Wikidata:Disclosure of paid editing (and I'd check in at d:Wikidata:Project chat before doing anything).
 * If you look at Q180445 (Nature), there's a "Statement" about the review score that gives impact factors for each of several years. Such claims need a citation to a source, and you can see what they used by clicking the arrow to expand it.  Is that something your employer would be willing/able to post?  AIUI if the impact factors were in Wikidata, the infoboxes here (and at other Wikipedias) could call the most recent numbers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Moving computers I lost the Chrome extension showing comments on peer reviewed articles
Can anyone here point me to it? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Impact factor changes
Up till now, only journals included in the Science Citation Index Expanded and the Social Sciences Citation Index get included in the Journal Citation Reports and hence obtain an impact factor. As of next year, journals included in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index and the Emerging Sources Citation Index will also be included in the JCR and obtain an IF. Up till now, we regard inclusion in the first three indices mentioned above as evidence for notability, but not inclusion in the ESCI. Personally, I don't think that this change of policy by Clarivate should change the way we determine notability: all that need change is that journals included in ESCI but notable because of inclusion elsewhere (Scopus, for example) will get an IF listed in their infobox. However, other editors here may have a different opinion, if so, let us know here. --Randykitty (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree that ESCI isn't enough. AHCI is fine though. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It'd be prudent updating WP:NJOURNALS C1.c before the June 2023 release of JCR with a barrage of fresh JIF. fgnievinski (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Communications in Development and Assembling of Textile Products
This AfD suffers from insufficient participation. Perhaps some knowledgeable editors here can have a look. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 26
More eyes are needed, thanks. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

"Journal" or "magazine"
This discussion may be of interest to editors from this project. --Randykitty (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * And another one that could use some input: Race Traitor (publication) see history) --Randykitty (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The Journal of Finance
Some input from knowledgeable editors would be welcome. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of MDPI academic journals
This discussion is of interest to members of this project. Input welcome. --Randykitty (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Review of Business and Economics Studies
Yet another discussion that can use some input from editors here. Some of the above still needs some input, too. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

'Frontiers Media' on the reliable sources noticeboard
RSN discussions about using Frontiers Media for genetic studies were recently opened here and here. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

AFD: Juniper Publishers and Austin Publishing Group
More eyes are needed on those please. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

NLM Technical Bulletin
There's a disagreement here about which infobox to use (see also talk) that could use the input of knowledgeable editors here. --Randykitty (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Bunch of journals redirects at Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7
Most of them are essentially specific journals redirecting to publishing giants. The more eyes on this, the better. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * See also Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_9. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * More eyes are needed, please comment &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I came here to ask whether there was the bizarre custom of creating redirects to the publisher for every journal ever published. The above RfDs suggest that that is not the case. But then see the very short article Science Publishing Group: there are over 1,100 incoming redirects for the various journals. – Uanfala (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's one more RfD of the same type: Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 13. – Uanfala (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * SPG is a bit of a special case, being a predatory publisher, these redirects exists mostly to get picked up by WP:CITEWATCH and warn people that the Journal of Foobarwhatever is shit if they search for it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 13
This discussion will affect a class of redirects on which WP:CITEWATCH relies to function, and would affect how we can detect predatory journals on a go-forward basis. Please chip in. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to understand how that RfD will affect CITEWATCH. The assumption appears to be that for CITEWATCH to function, there needs to exist an article space redirect for every potentially dodgy journal title out there. Is that correct? – Uanfala (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes. I'm starting to think that this should be a case of WP:IAR... --Randykitty (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. There are alternatives, but they do not scale, and involves blowing up User:JL-Bot/Questionable.cfg subpages by megabytes of raw text. See the paragraph that starts with "I don't exactly know the magic sauce in the bot" for an example of just how much things would blow up. Here we'd need about ~846 distinct lines (roughly 27KB of text) for 1 publisher, on a page that that covers ~1400 publishers in 114KB of text. Or a 24% increase in page size to cover 0.07% of the publishers. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So, the main problem is that the configuration file would otherwise get too big? It's easy to imagine solutions (like splitting that configuration into several files) that don't involve off-loading its content into a myriad mainspace redirects. The RfDs above give a hint of the problems with the current approach, but the main points are:
 * Were it not for CITEWATCH and maybe the fact that the journals are dodgy, those redirects would be almost universally considered bad (see e.g. this 7 Mar RfD). The fundamental reason is that Wikipedia doesn't have content about the topics of those redirects, nor is it likely to ever have any (that's why these redirects have been characterised in the RfDs as confusing and misleading to readers).
 * Being in mainspace, those redirects can interfere with reader searches and make it more difficult for readers to find existing articles. This is especially the case for titles with ambiguous names: Bioprocess Engineering, for example, can also refer to another, unrelated, journal as well as to a field of engineering. Another example is the article Education Journal: for more than three years since its creation, it remained inaccessible to readers searching for it via its ISO 4 abbreviation, because that abbreviation redirected to the publisher of a predatory journal with the same name.
 * Maintenance. It's easier to add a large number of entries to a configuration file than to create the same number of redirects. It's also much easier to remove lines than to seek mainspace redirects deleted.
 * Of course, the above issues are not urgent, but I don't think they can be avoided indefinitely. – Uanfala (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Myanmar Historical Research Journal
This debate could use the input of some knowledgeable editors. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Bad news
Our colleague and friend David Goodman has passed away (see his talk page). David was a pillar of this project and a fount of knowledge and wisdom. He will be sorely missed. --Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That is a gut-puncher. I'm extremely saddened by this. DGG was a huge part of WP:JOURNALS and of Wikipedia in general. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Florida Law Review
Some extra eyes here would be welcome. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The list of articles? Seems the new editor/IP gave up... <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Conflict-of-interest editing
I just saw a new journal article (Small Science) written by a new user with a name that is similar to a member of the journal’s editorial board. What’s the standard procedure? 1) Clean up the article if notable? In this case the journal has no IF yet so I guess draftify or delete? 2) Notify the user that they must disclose conflict-of-interest issues and not directly edit journals they are involved with.

Sidenote: The article name is Small Science, but there is already an article named Small science, i.e., small “s” in “science”. I think this is a bit too similar so I would append a “(journal)”. Do you agree? SakurabaJun (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Good catch! I regularly trawl the new pages feed for new journal articles, but would have missed this one, as it is an overwrite of a redirect that existed already. I have posted a notice about COI editing on the editor's talk page. The journal misses NJournals, so I've PRODded it. If it becomes notable at a later date, a dab would indeed be a good idea. --Randykitty (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks! SakurabaJun (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Serials Review
Serials Review looks notable, but there's no article on it yet. Pages about the journal: Should I start an article on Serials Review? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=16611&tip=sid
 * https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/usrv20
 * https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/16611

✅ :-) --Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The lead for one journal containing controversy Talk:Frontiers in Psychology
In Frontiers in Psychology, the talk page has a long discussion on whether or not the publisher's controversial inclusion on Beall's list is relevant to the specific journal.

Notably the journal in question was not included, but the publisher was. The talk page is currently a back and forth, with me raising the point that it is inconsistent to include the controversy about the publisher in a specific journal's page, when no other large publisher has this in specific journal pages.

I guess some clarification is needed here. What belongs in the lead? And why is this particular journal singled out, even in the same publisher? I find it odd, considering that Beall didn't mention this journal.

Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Beall again at Talk:Frontiers in Psychology
An RFC this time. Please go there and kill this thing once and for all. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It has already been noted above. May I please make a request you delete this, as it clutters the page? Instead, just replying to it would be best. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You can make it, but I will not delete this. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Redirect-Class Academic Journal articles
I just noticed that this category has completely been emptied with all redirects having been moved to NA class. Anybody any idea who did this and why? I find it weird that such a change was made without any discussion here. --Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * That is weird indeed. File namespace detection also seems busted. @MSGJ any idea what's going on? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it's related to above. The project is assumed to be using the standard extended quality scale, and you may be surprised to learn that Redirect-class is not yet included in that. I did suggest that it be added but there hasn't been much comment yet &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * this is still busted. What do we need to do to unbust this? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect-class has now been added to the standard scale, so your category should start filling up again &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

2022 IFs
The 2022 impact factors have arrived. They now are presented with only one digit after the period, which I think is an improvement. I haven't checked yet, but ESCI- and AHCI-listed journas should now have an IF, too. --Randykitty (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Randykitty, ESCI-listed journals have 2022 IFs, however can't find updated IFs for AHCI-listed journals. Checked a few AHCI listed journals, here is an example. Nanosci (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're looking at the publisher's website. It may take them a while to update. Better to look directly at the JCR. Starting mid-July the IF will be available via the master journal list. They can already now be seen if you have access to the JCR itself. --Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I checked the JCR and this journal has a 2022 IF of 3.1. However, it already was getting an IF because it's included in the SSCI. Nevertheless, the journal page lists not only the SSCI categories in which it is included, but also the AHCI ones. I clicked around to find a "purely AHCI" journal and found Frontiers of Architectural Research. It's a Chinese journal that as far as I can see is only included in the category "architecture" of the AHCI. It has a 2022 IF of 3.5. There's no ranking "until the release of 2023 data in June 2024". --Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh okay. I will take a look at directly JCR for them. If I get stuck, I will let you know. Thank you! :) 18:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nanosci (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at RS Noticeboard
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Just making sure. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals)
Some people want to deprecate this page or significantly alter its criteria. Please opine, this would have a significant impact on the project. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes! Please do! I am particularly concerned with the way indexing is being used often to be a presumption of notability rather than just evidence for such. I think the essay in no way makes it clear that this criterion might be problematic. Others have noted issues with the way "peer review" is sourced in descriptions of journals and other issues. I think that if we get enough buy-in from the contrarians like me who have been somewhat disdainful of this essay, and if we could edit it to achieve broader consensus, this could be elevated to a notability guideline. But we need your input and cooperation to make this happen. Otherwise, I fear we will go down more acrimonious paths. jps (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please opine at the existing discussion linked above rather than spreading the discussion to multiple talk pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I was asked to comment here by . I have asked you once already to stop policing where you think the best place for discussions to happen or comments to be included should be. Just stop already. jps (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, this wasn't the discussion I had in mind. What I meant was to go ahead and propose wording for this guideline. And I mean by this, wording that is reasonable, not wording that is likely to encounter strong rejection right out of the gate. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * jps: Please see WP:FORUMSHOP. Trying to start a new discussion somewhere else because you're unhappy with an already-ongoing discussion is exactly forum-shopping. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Good thing that's not what I'm doing. Perhaps you should read WP:WIKIHOUNDING. jps (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Journal of Institutional Economics
Journal of Institutional Economics, published by Cambridge University Press, might be worth an article. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-institutional-economics  https://www.jstor.org/stable/26263710  Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

✅

Annales Geophysicae history
From what I can piece..

merge into which splits into
 * Annales de Géophysique
 * Annali di Geofisica
 * Annales Geophysicae
 * Annales Geophysicae, Series A
 * Annales Geophysicae, Series B

Series B then goes on to merge with two others to form
 * Geophysical Journal

Series A then reverts to simply being called but also merges with "parts of Series B"
 * Annales Geophysicae

Do I have that right? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It's a bit more complicated, as www.annalsofgeophysics.eu split from www.annales-geophysicae.net:
 * In 1948, it started as Annali di Geofisica, published by Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica (ING).
 * In 1982, it merged with Annales de geophysique, creating Annales Geophysicae, sponsored by the European Geophysical Society.
 * In 1993, it split from Annales Geophysicae (which continued) and returned to the ING, presumably as Annali di Geofisica;
 * In 2002, it was renamed to Annals of Geophysics, at the same time the ING became Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV).
 * In 2010, it started the online version.
 * (I couldn't source Geophysical Journal.)
 * "'Annals of Geophysics vanta una longeva attività editoriale attraversata da cambiamenti e fasi di rinnovamento. Il progetto nasce nel 1948 con Annali di Geofisica, come rivista ufficiale dell'Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica (ING). La sua pubblicazione è proseguita fino al 1982 quando si fonde con la francese Annales de Géophysique. Nel 1993 torna all’ING e, nel 2002, approda alla versione inglese Annals of Geophysics, con la trasformazione dell’ING in Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV). Nel 2010 la rivista intraprende la sua più recente riorganizzazione quando l’INGV ne attua una totale trasposizione in versione elettronica online. (...) Annali di Geofisica, rivista internazionale, nacque nel 1948... La rivista è stata pubblicata con regolarità fino al 1982 quando si unì alla rivista francese Annales de Geophysique diventando Annales Geophysicae dell'European Geophysical Society.' (Marandola, R. (2016). 'Open journal system, two case-studies in italy: Annals of geophysics and between.' JLIS: Italian Journal of Library, Archives and Information Science = Rivista Italiana Di Biblioteconomia, Archivistica e Scienza Dell’informazione: 7, 1, 2016, 1. https://doi.org/10.4403/jlis.it-11307)" fgnievinski (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:MDPI
A discussion about how to cover the proliferation of special issues in MDPI journals is ongoing. If others could chime in, that would be nice. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * See also Talk:MDPI. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-01/In focus
A heads up for an upcoming piece focusing on the history of JCW. Anything I missed or should highlight? Any feedback welcome. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Now live! &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to ping. This piece may interest you. You've certainly helped along the way. If you have comments, please make them on the piece's talk page! &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Great job! fgnievinski (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure what I would add to it. It was a great read! Thank you for the shoutout.  The SandDoctor  Talk 04:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You operated Sandbot 5 for a bit, hence the shout out. It's published, so too late to add anything now! &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sensational work, congratulations! Johnuniq (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Great read and you're way too modest in attributing this to "we", as this is 99% your work! --Randykitty (talk) 07:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent article. It's good to let people know what's going on. Also, I appreciate all the work Headbomb has contributed to WikiProject Academic Journals over the years (and WikiProject Physics). This goes under the category of Unflagging efforts. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is well written and think adding the history and development sections will be instructional for others. Thank you for all your work on this! A little more work and we could create our own Wikipedia Impact Factor (WIF) for these journals. -- 17:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Superb article! I learned a ton reading it. Your history led me to visit WP:CITEWATCH for the umpteenth time. I was reminded of your sterling introduction ("Disclaimer/Warning") for its erudite yet readily comprehensible explanation of the bot's strengths and limitations, and the importance of contextual decision-making. Thank you for all your hard work, especially in identifying pseudo-academic publishers who cause actual, significant harm with their misleading and erroneous "facts". All the very best - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 00:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals)
Please participate. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging all AJ editors...

&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 24
This has been relisted twice. Participation would be welcomed. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

European Digital Mathematics Library
In writing Lexell's theorem, I found several of the 19th century sources I used had pages at the European Digital Mathematics Library, https://eudml.org, so I added a template to be used to make e.g.  for use in citation templates. But notice the red link: Wikipedia doesn't currently have any article about this repository. I don't really have time/interest to research or write an article about it right now, but perhaps someone here at the Academic Journals wikiproject would be willing to make one? It seems like a pretty useful source of metadata and links about at least 19th century math journals. (All of the ones I have seen so far were open access with a link to a scan provided, but it's possible there are some non-open-access papers described there as well.) –jacobolus (t) 20:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Fringe_theories/Noticeboard
This concerns an edit war at Journal of Cosmology. Please comment. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that Headbomb seems to be of a mind that he should be allowed to WP:PROFRINGE edit in favor of the insipid Journal of Cosmology. It's not an academic journal, so it doesn't really concern this project. jps (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It claims to be a scientific journal, so it falls within the remit of this project. That it publishes pseudoscientific crap is irrelevant. --Randykitty (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * To call my edits WP:PROFRINGE is completely disingenuous. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It passes the WP:DUCK test, guy. jps (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your duck test is wildly miscalibrated then. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You are reinstating verbiage in the article which WP:COATracks for the website's own self-important claims. It's embarrassing. Do you take all fringe sources at their word or only those that claim to be journals? jps (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

See also Talk:Journal_of_Cosmology. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Now at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Journal of Cosmology
There's many discussions ongoing at Talk:Journal of Cosmology, many that have to do with basic description of basic things that should be non-controversial, but because it's a shit journal, it's becoming a brouhaha. More opinions would be welcomed. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of doi prefix for journal-publisher articles
An issue has been raised at MDPI over whether an article about a journal publisher should list the publisher's DOI prefix, with an eye towards making that inclusion a standard part of publisher articles. Therefore, this is a widespread issue, not one-off for that article, and I don't see anything in this wikiproject's guidelines about it, so I'm starting this centralized discussion. Seems like three options: I oppose #2, since it seems like it's not very useful to general readers and for those who actually want this key data value it might be hard to find it in the article, but instead would support #3 so it's easy to find and analogous to ISSN and similar fields in individual journals' articles. This value is already in wikidata, so it would be easy to automate this site-wide (or flag articles where wikidata needs to be updated) without having to hand-edit any of the articles.
 * 1) Exclude
 * 2) Include in article body
 * 3) Include in Infobox publisher

Pinging Walter Tau and Headbomb, who were involved in this content at MDPI. DMacks (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Should note that I'm not strongly in favor of inclusion, but if so then definitely infobox not article. DMacks (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't seem to include the ISBN prefix in our articles on book publishers, so it would seem inconsistent to include this but not that. Perhaps the discussion should be broadened? Pam  D  07:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support #1. A doi prefix is a completely boring factoid. No reason whatsoever to include this in articles on publishers or journals. --Randykitty (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Let's say we want to do this for Elsevier. We would have to list For MDPI, we would have to list I don't see what's to be gained by listing those anywhere. TBH. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 10.1006, 10.1016, 10.1053, 10.1054, 10.1067, 10.1078, 10.1157, 10.1197, 10.1205, 10.1240, 10.1331, 10.1367, 10.1378, 10.1383, 10.1529, 10.1533, 10.1580, 10.1602, 10.2111, 10.2353, 10.3129, 10.3182, 10.3816, 10.3921, 10.4065, 10.7399, 10.7424, 10.7811, 10.14219, 10.21967, 10.25013
 * 10.1989, 10.3390, 10.20944 (for Preprints.org), 10.32545, 10.35995 (for Journal of Controversial Ideas, published on a platform owned by MDPI)


 * I agree, that (3) displaying doi prefixes in infobox publisher is the most appropriate place. I also understand, that this may result in having too-many-to-list prefixes for some publishers. For this reason, I withdraw my proposal. Walter Tau (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Project MUSE
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Project MUSE that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HouseBlastertalk 21:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

AFDs
The following two AfD discussions could benefit from the input of knowledgeable editors here: Articles for deletion/Al-ʿArabiyya (journal) and Articles for deletion/Kansas History. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The first one has closed, but the second one still needs more input from editors that know academic journals. --Randykitty (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Finding sources for ISO 4 abbreviations?
Is there a reliable place to use as citations for ISO 4 abbreviations of academic journals?

My home wiki is Chinese Wikipedia (zhwiki). Recently in zhwiki I am requesting to blacklist a domain on grounds of copyright infringement of enwiki (yes, no attribution) and content farming. But an admin argues that this website can be used to generate the ISO 4 abbreviation for journals, therefore it can be used as citations and should not be blocked in its entirety.

I still wish to completely block this site, but I agree that for verifiablility purposes we may need citations for ISO 4 abbreviations. If there is a better site that can fulfill this purpose, I think I can persuade him to deprecate and blacklist it. Milky  Defer  03:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The LTWA is the authoritative source on this. In practice, TokenZero's site is way quicker.
 * As for citations, Academic accelerator is a spam site and should be probably be blacklisted if it's not already the case. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

JSTOR
JSTOR provides access to over 2000 journals. But how selective are they? Selective enough to meet the requirements of NJournals? Wish I could ask DGG...

Any opinions? --Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * JSTOR provides the contents of those journals but they don't provide the sorts of evaluative content that one would expect of indexing services (such as the quartile ranks of SCImago Journal Rank) so it would be harder to argue that they provide the independent depth of sourcing on which GNG-based journal notability is ultimately derived. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, all JSTOR journals are high quality. Very high quality. So it does seem a highly selective service. However, I have no idea how JSTOR is run, and how journals end up on it. I've never seen any Elsevier or Springer journals on JSTOR for example. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's their selection criteria:
 * https://support.publishers.jstor.org/hc/en-us/articles/360044318434-Editorial-Review-Process fgnievinski (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

NJournals
With the latest brouhaha, I fear that the days of WP:NJournals may be counted. We have tried in the past to get it to guideline status, but that ended in "no consensus", just like the current discussions. Look at Articles for deletion/Kansas History, that article missed GNG by a mile, as well as NJournals, but still there were several "keep" !votes with arguments like "it's a peer-reviewed academic journal". Compare that to Articles for deletion/IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, which passes NJournals brilliantly, and see how many people still !vote delete because "NJournals is an essay and this misses GNG". I'm baffled that these two crowds don't intermingle, but also sceptical about the future of our journals project. Many (most?) of the "must meet GNG crowd" apparently see no problem with deleting our thousands of journal articles.

How to proceed? I think it is essential that some semblance of NJournals be accepted as a guideline, accepting that journal articles (like articles on academics) may meet notability requirements even if they don't meet GNG. Simply putting up the current NJournals will not work. I think we should go about this with baby steps. I propose to start with an RfC at the Village Pump with a question like (rough draft):

Most articles on academic journals do not meet WP:GNG. Should we delete all those articles (several thousand) or is it more desirable to formulate a SNG that defines under which conditions such articles should be kept, even if they miss GNG?

If the consensus would be that articles should meet GNG, no exception, we're done here and for the few journals that meet GNG (most likely because there's some scandal), we don't really need a separate project. However, should the consensus be that deleting the vast majority of journal articles is undesirable, we could then go through NJournals one line at a time, to avoid that people get too much into details (like one editor arguing that C1 is fine but not C3 or what exactly "selective indexing" means).

Interested to hear what editors here think. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with your general prognosis. In addition to damaging the encyclopedia, deleting thousands of journal articles would entail deleting a great deal of verifiable information without considering alternatives, against our ATD policy.
 * We might start with what may be considered uncontroversial: selective indices are reliable sources that provide verifiable information about a journal. Selective indices are built by experts in the field of academic journals and their determination of whether a journal is included in their index is an expert opinion about the journal--inclusion confers some degree of notability in the real world. Less uncontroversial: non-predatory peer-reviewed journals have many experts who give freely of their time to review articles for a journal they deem worthy of their efforts. This is a kind of collective expert endorsement.
 * Trying to connect this with GNG: should we require multiple selective databases to include the journal? What criteria for a selective database entry for a journal would allow it to be considered in depth? Comparing to NPROF, what level of expert endorsement is needed to elevate a journal to a notable status? -- 18:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a significant conflict between the attitude of GNG that the only good source is an independent source, and the tendency of academics who write about the history of their journals to publish them as editorials in the same journals. This means that, in those cases when we do have the sort of in-depth and reliably published sources that would normally count towards GNG-notability, they are passed over and often avoided even as source material for the articles on those journals, because they are not independent. For this reason, I tend to think that judging significance by depth of coverage in independent sources works even less well for this subject than it does for many others.
 * Another issue is that journals are a topic for which it is very difficult to search for sourcing, because most search hits will be articles in the journal or references to them rather than publications about the journal. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about this last night re journals with a single word title which is the subject area; no amount of searching is ever going to come up with anything useful for those, whether or not it exists. Feeling really depressed about the state of Wikipedia at present. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * An example of a major and famous journal like this for which one could easily argue that it does not appear to pass GNG: Cell. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like Cell Press is already a target, but surely there's some indept coverage for them somewhere; I cleaned up a completely pointless unreferenced tag on Immunity (journal) the other day from the same editor. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't phrase the question that way. "Should everything meet the GNG?" provokes a knee-jerk cry of "yes!" from a lot of people who, if pushed, would admit that the reality is more nuanced. The closing statement of the last RfC (which I'm assuming is accurate even though the closer is very inexperienced) said that the main problem was the reliance on selective indexes in criterion 1. Why not try to workshop that particular issue, then try again with an RfC in a year or so? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe try to garner support at the broader Notability (media), since it's a shared problem with them. fgnievinski (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent AfDs
Is there any useful information to be gleaned from the stark difference between Articles for deletion/IEEE Transactions on Green Communications and Networking (unanimously kept) and Articles for deletion/IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications (no consensus on reopening)? Green Communications and Networking is a peer-reviewed journal, has IF of 4.8 and was founded in 2017. Computer Graphics and Applications is characterised as a magazine, doesn't mention peer review, has an IF of 1.8 and was founded in 1981. My back-of-the-envelope is that perhaps we should try to differentiate between non-peer-reviewed publications and peer-reviewed journals. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Peer review doesn't matter. The only thing that really influence those is if GNG extremists show up, that care more about enforcing their interpretation of GNG, than about making Wikipedia reflect the sum total of human knowledge. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that the differences here come down to how the AfD was publicized and who participated. IEEE CGA is (to my mind) clearly the more well known of the two publications. Impact factors are meaningless when compared across different disciplines. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

There's a few at AFD right now with low participation, please chip in. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

How should we treat postpublication peer review with invited reviewers?
See Open peer review and ScienceOpen. Do we treat them the same way as we do traditional peer review? Doug Weller talk 13:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Interesting question. F1000Research does this. Articles only get into MEDLINE and other databases if they pass the (open) peer review. --Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * As for ScienceOpen, I found them when I found this terrible article. he Hopewell Cosmic Airburst Event: A review of the empirical evidence Kenneth Barnett Tankersley . Stephen D. Meyers 2 ,.Stephanie A. Meyers.
 * This is published in "Airbursts and Cratering Impacts" who have an interesting editorial policy:
 * "Our journal collection, "Airbursts and Cratering Impacts," covers all aspects of impact events on the Earth by comets and asteroids. It is open-access, peer-reviewed, and multidisciplinary, and it encourages submissions on significant, cutting-edge, impact-related investigations that:
 * Are broadly multidisciplinary, making them difficult to review;
 * Run counter to a prevailing view;
 * Are too novel to receive a fair review; or
 * Have been rejected by other journals. "
 * There's more but I won't quote it here.
 * As for Tankersley, he's a weird choice given his specialty is Native American sociopolitical issues and human adaptation to catastrophic events. Not sure why he's first on this. There are other serious issues to do with him but no need to bring them here. The point is that this is a fringe journal. Doug Weller  talk 14:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Journal of Health Psychology
I think editors are needed to take a look at recent edits at Journal of Health Psychology and see what should be considered acceptable. An enthusiastic IP has made some edits in good faith, adding links to Special issues and Special collections. But these types of edits are not usually acceptable in Academic Journal articles.

Also, is it necessary to explicitly quote and retain these remarks pertaining to a controversy about the journal? . ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia
Acta zool. cracov. is on the list of most-cited journals that don't have an article, in the top 10. However in trying to remedy the missing page I found barely anything independent about it, not even a list of places it's indexed. Has anyone else tried to document this before and ran into the same issues I've had? (For anyone interested, I've made a draft: Draft:Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia) Recon  rabbit  20:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * http://www.isez.pan.krakow.pl/en/acta-zoologica.html says Indexed in: BIOSIS Previews, Zoological Record, AGRO, Index Copernicus International, PBN - Polska Bibliografia Naukowa. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * According to Clarivate's Master Journal List, this journal is indexed in Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS Previews, and the Zoological Record. That makes it (borderline) notable, I think. --Randykitty (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Half of the journals in Polish Academy of Sciences doesn't list an impact factor. In case their notability is disputed, they could all be merged into a new List of Polish Academy of Sciences academic journals. fgnievinski (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:TACL
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TACL that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Correspondences (journal) (2nd nomination)
This one, too. --Randykitty (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It has now been relisted twice with still only minimal participation. --Randykitty (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Journal of Anime and Manga Studies
This AFD could use some input from knowledgeable editors. --Randykitty (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Relisted for a third time, please participate in the discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)