Talk:Academic journal

message: The following paragraph under a discussion of review articles seems confused, is it a mix of statements regarding review articles and book reviews?
Unlike original research articles, book reviews tend to be solicited submissions, sometimes planned years in advance. Book review authors are paid a few hundred dollars for reviews, because of this, the standard definitions of open access do not require review articles to be open access, though many are so. They are typically relied upon by students beginning a study in a given field, or for current awareness of those already in the field.
--Vlehdonv (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing reviews and book reviews 

message: Under "Scholarly articles", why does it say "American academia"? Why not world-wide?
:because other systems differ somewhat, this has been clarified.DGG 01:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: American or world-wide?

message: This article is still not complete--links are here to several more-specific pages that have not yet been 
written--they will be written over the next few days.  DGG 01:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just done a start for List of academic journals. DGG 03:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: not complete

message: Can you give the exact place on their website where the list is located?
*And I would think this must be in a few  subjects only pertinent to their interest, please specify
**And, it is stated throughout the article that impact factors are not a measure of prestige, so I have changed the wording a little.
DGG 18:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: letter ranks

message: Isn't it ironic that this article doesn't have academic references?--BMF81 12:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes it is :) --WikiSlasher 03:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The example is probably necessary, because it is in fact not always clear that any but the major journals are important. History seems a particularly obious example to use. DGG 07:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: example

message: The image :Image:Journalcovers.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Journalcovers.jpg

message: I have reverted for the umpteenth time an edit by an anon IP who adds a section about journal locators. It is almost totally irrelevant to this article. This editor makes troll-like edits to academic and in particular journal-related articles, either to insert this section or to aggressively challenge trivial facts, usually by adding  tags. His dynamic IP address is 222.64.xxx.xxx, which resolves to Shanghai, China. andy (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "List of the journal locators" 

message: Looks like the lead should be rewritten as "An academic journal is a periodical publication, usually peer-reviewed, ...."; below are some quotations. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Valid point. Be WP:BOLD and WP:DIY. kashmiri TALK 19:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:   Gee, I'll pass; I don't want to be remembered as the guy who made peer review optional in academic journals... :o) Seriously though, if no one does it, I can do it in a couple of days. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  : You have sources to back your edits, so just go ahead :)  We don't (usually) debate minor edits on Wikipedia. This page is monitored by quite a few folks, so in case your edit is too controversial someone will revert it, no worries :)  kashmiri TALK 19:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a "minor edit" and I am sure it is not going to be uncontroversial... --Randykitty (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not unless you argue that Hindawi does not publish a single academic journal. I think  rightly spotted the problem with definition, and took pain to back himself up with sources. Also, IMHO the attribute of being "peer-reviewed" is not essential but accidental to being an "academic journal", even when it is a relatively common "accident". kashmiri TALK 00:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get that. Hindawi journals are peer-reviewed, so they are obviously academic journals. The only unusual feature is that they don't have an editor-in-chief, but that's not the issue here. --Randykitty (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that  was alluding to the fact that Hindawi at one point had been misidentified as a predatory publisher, which has has as one of its characteristics "Accepting articles quickly with little or no peer review". Fgnievinski (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

text: As background, in the 19th century the journal editor usually did the reviewing on his own authority; in the early 20th, there was often an editorial board who shared the responsibility, each in their different specialty. This board could sometimes be very large--over 100 people sometimes, and the effect was essentially the same as peer-reviewing.  Some journals published by societies, such as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published any paper from a member, or any paper that a member would submit and take the responsibility for--if the members were sufficient high-level, as here ,or comprised all the specialists in a very narrow subject, as sometimes happened, the quality control was also high, though there could be occasional aberrations. In the other direction, peer-review can sometimes be perfunctory, where an  article  will be given a cursory review and published unless ridiculous.  DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

text:  I guess part of the issue is whether editorial review is considered a type of peer review or not. If the editors are fellow researchers in the field, then editors and authors are peers, and editorial peer review ensues. Then review journals, where articles are by invitation only, are editorially peer reviewed. It seems that peer review = external peer review + editorial peer review, and editorial review = editorial journalistic review and editorial peer review. Your thoughts? Fgnievinski (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all review journals are by invitation only. Even if they are, that doesn't mean they don't get sent out for review. And if it doesn't get sent out but is reviewed by peers on the editorial board, that just means that the journal recognizes regular reviewers by naming them on the editorial board. --Randykitty (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry, I'm still traveling and won't get back to my office before January 15... --Randykitty (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

text: *The discussion about law journals is continued at Talk:Law review#Categorizing peer reviewed or not. Fgnievinski (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I was quite surprised to see the intro statement suggesting that academic journals are all peer-reviewed. I'm a little late on this discussion, but I can say in the sciences that there are definitely some well known academic journals (PNAS probably being the most well known), which are not peer reviewed. I'm going to be bold here and change that part to "usually peer-reviewed".Dig Deeper (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Usually" peer-reviewed? 

message: : The second reference appears to be cherry picking by presenting an article in an Australian newspaper that discusses the faults of pay wall publishers. If anything this article supports the view that limited access has been and still changing. According to the article, this change is happening because the internet, Google search, and Google Scholar make articles much more widely available than in the days before the internet.  Furthermore, some institutions are changing their policy resulting in broader availability. Hence, the article states that the National Institutes of Health has decided "that all medical research it funds has to be made publicly available within 12months". Also, this article was published in 2009. The push and publicity within the last four years are a catalyst for increasing accessibility, four years later. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Australian news article

message: :The recent edit appears to be a synthesis or perhaps just plain original research based on an article and university web sites disseminating a view that supports the open access movement. That's fine. But, this is about the control pay wall publishers have, and parts of the open access movement; which is covered in this article. There is no bridge between these sources and low distribution of journals and "very limited" exposure. This is about alternate publishing strategies. These alternate publishing strategies appear to be taking place in parallel with pay wall publishing. Also, as I stated earlier, since 2009 the publicity and push behind such movements is causing changes. In 2012, this UC Berkeley article shows one of the results. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, a source is needed to say "typical journal". This cannot be inferred from this set of articles because that might be construed as synthesis.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Actually, I am not seeing anything in these sources that says what a "typical journal" is. The first sentence of the recent edit appears to be promoting a point of view, not actually supported by the sources. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edit synthesis

message: : Even Sprnger adds peer reviewed OA journals , 
, . 
: So, what is the "typical academic journal" that "has very low distribution and thus provides authors with very limited exposure"? These are unsubstantiated claims in this most recent edit. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Spinger OA

message: All three sentences of this most recent do not accurately reflect what the references say. And, sorry to say, but -- in fact, I don't think these sentences accurately reflect any sources that exist. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy

message: I have reverted the recent edits and restored the last stable version, per the above detailed reasoning of Steve Quinn. Please do not restore this material without first obtaining a consensus here. --Randykitty (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted 

message: outdated concept fgnievinski (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Electronic journal]] into [[Academic journal]] 

message: Hi, reference number 2 says "Journal research papers require peer review that typically involves an editor and two reviewers", of course book reviews and the like do not require peer review. Its necessary to specify Hastengeims (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please