Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Academic Journals (talk)
Resources (talk) Writing guide (talk) Assessment (talk) Notability guidelines (talk) Journals cited by Wikipedia (talk)

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

'Frontiers Media' on the reliable sources noticeboard[edit]

RSN discussions about using Frontiers Media for genetic studies were recently opened here and here. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More eyes are needed on those please. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some extra eyes here would be welcome. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The list of articles? Seems the new editor/IP gave up... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Most of them are essentially specific journals redirecting to publishing giants. The more eyes on this, the better. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_9#Bunch_of_academic_journals_(2). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More eyes are needed, please comment Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]
SPG is a bit of a special case, being a predatory publisher, these redirects exists mostly to get picked up by WP:CITEWATCH and warn people that the Journal of Foobarwhatever is shit if they search for it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion will affect a class of redirects on which WP:CITEWATCH relies to function, and would affect how we can detect predatory journals on a go-forward basis. Please chip in. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
Yes. There are alternatives, but they do not scale, and involves blowing up User:JL-Bot/Questionable.cfg subpages by megabytes of raw text. See the paragraph that starts with "I don't exactly know the magic sauce in the bot" for an example of just how much things would blow up. Here we'd need about ~846 distinct lines (roughly 27KB of text) for 1 publisher, on a page that that covers ~1400 publishers in 114KB of text. Or a 24% increase in page size to cover 0.07% of the publishers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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: Bioprocess Engineering, for example, can also refer to another, unrelated, journal as well as to a field of engineering. Another example is the article Education Journal: for more than three years since its creation, it remained inaccessible to readers searching for it via its ISO 4 abbreviation, because that abbreviation redirected to the publisher of a predatory journal with the same name.
  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)Reply[reply]

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

Project-independent quality assessments[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Bad news[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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

Conflict-of-interest editing[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]
    OK, thanks! SakurabaJun (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]