Talk:Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

message: ::*Below is a copy of a coversation that has developed over at User_talk:Modest_Genius#MNRAS between Modest Genius and myself Steve Quinn. We both agree that this conversation should continue here, and not on his talk page. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *The coversation began after I added an "Abstracting and indexing" section to this article Diff here, and Modest Genius removed it Diff here. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I just don't see how the list is relevant. Being included in a bunch of random databases is hardly important information, especially since the only one which actually matters (NASA ADS) isn't included. Modest Genius talk 14:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The indexes are not random. Journals are selected by these databases. Such a process helps define the notability of a given journal. The more selective databases choose journals that have a signifigant impact in their field. Also, NASA ADS is not really a selective database like some of the others. However if I didn't inlcude that it was an oversight. That is usually part of the indexing informaiton in a journal article. Also, if you read the links I provided it may help understand what I am talking about rather than refering to these as a "bunch of random databases". ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read them. I just still don't see the relevance of the journal being listed in some catalogues that no-one uses, regardless of how 'selective' they are. Journal Citation Reports does matter because of the impact factor. But the others? I've been working in astronomy for many years, and never heard of anyone using any of them. Btw, this conversation should probably be on the talk page of the article; it might also be worth asking WP:AST what they think of it. Modest Genius talk 16:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again your characterization is in error. These "catalogs", or databases, are used and referred to, and considered quite useful. Also, apparently the journal thinks that listing of indexes are relevant because it is right here on the page that has the overview, aims & scope, along with impact factor, editor in chief, the journal ranking, etc. etc. This is part of the journal's description. So the artcile's talk page is probably a better idea so I am going to copy this and place it over there. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Used and referred to by whom? And useful to who? What possible use is that list to readers of this article? Just because it's on the publisher's website doesn't mean it's relevant information. I notice in passing that the new publisher (MNRAS is currently in the process of transitioning from Wiley to OUP) doesn't include it on the new official website. Oh and thanks for moving the discussion here and informing WP:AST. Modest Genius talk 22:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. Also, I'm going to wait and see if someone will come along and explain this better than me. At least we are talking and that is a good thing. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. It is not listed on the new web site. I will see if that information is on  this web site. If not then I guess this conversation is in kind of a limbo. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

text: If the choice of databases is important, why do some of them not even have a Wikipedia article? I agree that Science Citation Index, Scopus and NASA ADS are important, but still don't see why CSA Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts, Ceramic Abstracts or Engineered Materials Abstracts are at all relevant. Modest Genius talk 11:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Indexing

message: The currently given source for David Flower new Editor-in-chief 2012 is no longer active. It can be retrieved from the WayBack Machine https://web.archive.org/web/20141216232609/http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-news-2012/2139-new-mnras-editor-in-chief, or it may be replaced by the alternative source in the article on David Flower: https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/53/5/5.39/209175?login=true
A similar edit might be necessary in the David Flower article. --2003:6:330B:1C34:8552:61F5:2C7:5D26 (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've implemented that fix, per WP:DEADLINK. Modest Genius talk 12:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for David Flower no longer active 

message: Hello.
In the box it states that the journal is hybrid and delayed.  Both hybrid and delayed should be deleted and it should now read Gold Open Access.  
The journal moved to Gold Open Access in January 2024. LSB4edit (talk) 11:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Access