User:JL-Bot/Questionable.cfg/Journals

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This page features complex syntax that interacts with User:JL-Bot in tricky ways to produce the WP:CITEWATCH compilation. If you're not familiar with this page or JL-Bot, discuss improvements and suggestions on the talk page.

Disclaimer / Warning

Shortcut

WP:CITEWATCH/SETUP

This is the setup page of The Wikipedia CiteWatch, a bot-compiled listing of potentially cargo cult, conspiracist, denialist, fake, junk, not even wrong, obsolete, predatory, pseudoscientific, quack, or otherwise unreliable publications cited by Wikipedia through the |journal= parameter of citation templates (see this Signpost article for details). It is based on several lists of unreliable or questionable publications (such as those compiled by Jeffrey Beall, the University Grants Commission, Quackwatch, or Wikipedia editors). See Q9 in the FAQ for the update schedule.

This list is a starting point to detect unreliable sources which are cited by Wikipedia, but it does not answer whether it is appropriate to cite them. Due to the somewhat arbitrary nature of what exactly constitutes an unreliable source, as well as imperfect matching algorithms, the list may feature publications and publishers which...

are flat-out promoting pseudo/junk scholarship or quackery
are flat-out predatory/vanity venues, with sham peer-review processes
were once-reliable, but have since been acquired by predatory publishers
were once-unreliable, but no longer engage in problematic practices
reflect the sources' good but imperfect judgment of what is unreliable
are problematic in some areas (e.g. pseudoscience), but reliable in others (e.g. news)
are problematic in some other way (e.g. circular references, or deprecated sources)
are problematic but used in an acceptable manner (e.g. primary sources about frauds)
are misclassified because of a spelling variation (red links especially)
are misclassified because of false positives, miscategorization, or flawed bot logic
are reliable, but share names with imposter publications and publishers
are about pseudoscholarship as a topic, rather than being pseudoscholarly themselves

While many, if not most, publications and publishers on this list have some questionable aspects to their publishing practices, these can still be reliable (or be otherwise acceptable) in limited circumstances. The CiteWatch cannot determine the full context in which a source is used, therefore use common sense and judgement before removing a citation from an article (see Q8 in the FAQ). When in doubt, discuss things on the article's talk page or at the reliable sources noticeboard – especially before a mass purge of a source. The Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector user script may also interest you.

Additions and removals from the listing – including false positives – can be discussed at WT:CITEWATCH. False positives can also be directly handled at WP:JCW/EXCLUDE.

CiteWatch Setup Table of Contents
Overview	Disclaimer										Syntax										Sources
/General	Unreliable fields					Mirrors and forks					Self-published					Unpublished					Hijacked					WP:RSP
/Publishers	Misc	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O	P	Q	R	S	T	U	V	W	X	Y	Z
/Journals	Misc	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O	P	Q	R	S	T	U	V	W	X	Y	Z

Note: Many entries on these lists will be things that should not normally in found in a |journal= parameter. They are included for two main reasons:

Misc

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Y

Z