Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals

WikiProject Academic Journals (talk) Resources (talk) Writing guide (talk) Assessment (talk) Notability guide (talk) Journals cited by Wikipedia (talk)

---

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

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. PamD 10:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia: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

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

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

• 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.

- 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)

Wikipedia: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 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)

Notability

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)

Wikipedia: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?

Vielen Dank!

~ 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)

@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)

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!

Vielen Dank!

~ 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)

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)

• 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. 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)