Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Archive 6

• 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. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

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

WP:AfC for pointers to information on how authoring works for CoI editors. — 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. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Randykitty: Very kind of you, thanks! I didn't expect to get a reply this quickly, let alone an article. Much appreciated. Modest Genius ^talk 17:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the wording of {{R from journal}} is confusing and have opened a discussion at Template talk:R from journal. PamD 10:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This AfD could use the input of some knowledgeable editors. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

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

I have been trying to publish an article through AfC on

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)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• 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

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.

-

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

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

With the latest dump, the

Again thanks to JLaTondre for making this possible. You can discuss this on the

I'm wondering if anyone has thoughts on proposing Wikipedia: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)

Some input from knowledgeable editors would be welcome. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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)

@

b

} 04:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! :) ~ Nanosci (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

• Nanosci 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 Wikipedia: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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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.

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 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)

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.

b

} 02:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks! --SakurabaJun (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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)

See

There's an RfD going on here, which seeks to delete a single redirect from

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:

• 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.[11] 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 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)

Please participate. This would affect the categorization of several journal redirects.

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.

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. PamD 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)

@SakurabaJun: 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. PamD 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, SakurabaJun. 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)

Please comment. This is related to the

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 Wikipedia: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 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)

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

WP:RM unless there's a friendly page-mover around. PamD

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. PamD 19:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I have suggested updates to the Frontiers Media article at Talk:Frontiers_Media#Online_integrity_hub_tools 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)

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^[1]

or even just:

Indexed^[2]

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 {{scopus source|id=21100836581|percentile=62|year=2021}}, 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 Wikipedia: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 thathttps://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

  Wikipedia: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 d: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)

Can anyone here point me to it? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

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.

b

} 14:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It'd be prudent updating

fgnievinski (talk

) 20:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This AfD suffers from insufficient participation. Perhaps some knowledgeable editors here can have a look. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

More eyes are needed, thanks.

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)

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

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

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)

RSN discussions about using

More eyes are needed on those please.

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)

Most of them are essentially specific journals redirecting to publishing giants. The more eyes on this, the better.

See also

b

} 18:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

More eyes are needed, please comment

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 [12]. – Uanfala (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's one more RfD of the same type: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 13#Humanities and Social Sciences. – 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

b

} 01:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

This discussion will affect a class of redirects on which

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

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:

1. 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).
2. 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:
   its ISO 4 abbreviation
   , because that abbreviation redirected to the publisher of a predatory journal with the same name.
3. 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)

This debate could use the input of some knowledgeable editors. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia: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 |QUALITY_CRITERIA=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)

Our colleague and friend David Goodman (DGG) 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

b

} 05:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

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... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

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 looks notable, but there's no article on it yet. Pages about the journal:

• https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=16611&tip=sid
• https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/usrv20
• https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/16611

Should I start an article on Serials Review? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

An RFC this time. Please go there and kill this thing once and for all.

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.

b

} 05:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

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. @

b

} 13:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes it's related to #Project-independent quality assessments 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 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@

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 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.

b

} 13:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

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.^[1] 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)

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

Some people want to deprecate this page or significantly alter its criteria. Please opine, this would have a significant impact on the project.

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 Steve Quinn (talk · contribs). 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, 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)

 Done

From what I can piece..

• Annales de Géophysique
  CODEN AGEPA7
• Annali di Geofisica
  CODEN AGFRAI

• Annales Geophysicae
  CODEN ANNGEA

• Annales Geophysicae, Series A
  CODEN AGASEY
• Annales Geophysicae, Series B
  CODEN AGBPEU

• Geophysical Journal
  CODEN 0952-4592

• Annales Geophysicae
  CODEN ANGED2

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)

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.

See also

b

} 08:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to

A heads up for an upcoming piece focusing on the history of JCW. Anything I missed or should highlight? Any feedback welcome.

Now live!

b

} 03:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to ping @

Great job!

fgnievinski (talk

) 04:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Not sure what I would add to it. It was a great read! Thank you for the shoutout. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@

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. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 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)

Please participate.

Pinging all AJ editors...

This has been relisted twice. Participation would be welcomed.

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 {{EuDML}} to be used to make e.g. EuDML 183090 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)

This concerns an edit war at

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

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.

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)

There's many discussions ongoing at

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:

1. Exclude
2. Include in article body
3. Include in {{Infobox publisher}}

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.

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? PamD 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

• 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

For MDPI, we would have to list

• 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 don't see what's to be gained by listing those anywhere. TBH.

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)