Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Academic Journals (talk)
Resources (talk) Writing guide (talk) Assessment (talk) Notability guidelines (talk) Journals cited by Wikipedia (talk)

IEEE Photonics Society Journals[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources[edit]

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

  • 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

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.

- 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)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almagest (journal)[edit]

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

WP:JCW reaches 3 million total citations![edit]

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 JLaTondre for making this possible. You can discuss this on the JCW talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reviews and Advances in Chemistry[edit]

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

Query regarding sufficient reliable source template[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
@Nanosci: sourcing is fine for the information that's there. I removed the banners. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! :) ~ Nanosci (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need Guidance Regarding Uploading Journal Cover Image[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Update:[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]
Thank you! :) ~ Nanosci (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retraction Watch as a source[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

journal editors[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]
    In wp:category there is nothing about defining and notability of category's details. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Help talk:Citation Style 1 has an RFC[edit]

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) Reply[reply]

Publication established year ambiguity[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

If volume 1 issue 1 is published in 2017, then the year of establishment is 2017. Advanced publication doesn't count. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks! --SakurabaJun (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consistent naming of Nature publisher[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]
    I see, thanks! SakurabaJun (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Correspondences (journal)[edit]

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

RFC about the reliability of Cambridge Scholars Publishing[edit]

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Cambridge_Scholars_Publishing. Participation would be helpful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Choosing journal covers[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

RFD: World Open Chinese Studies Journal[edit]

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. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of retracted paleontology papers[edit]

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: Carnoferox and Fram --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]
    • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
This preprint is an example that I can add to the page.[1] Carnoferox (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
No, I don't. The papers describing Piltdown Man were never retracted. Carnoferox (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#How to categorize redirects due to garbage in database entries[edit]

Please participate. This would affect the categorization of several journal redirects. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]