Talk:List of scientific journals

message: I'm considering adding the journal Bone, as at http://www.journals.elsevier.com/bone/ , to the listing under "Biophysics and biochemistry". There are currently nine journals listed there, and Bone seems to be more popular than some of the others. The internal link would go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bone_and_Mineral_Society#BONE  Thoughts?  Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Considering adding BONE to Biochemistry journals 

message: Is Scientific American really not considered a scientific journal? ISI includes it in its Journal Citation Reports. Karol 16:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me scientific american seems like a special case.  It's somewhere in between a true journal and a popular science publication. ike9898 17:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, Scientific American doesn't publish original research or review articles for other scientists; it rather presents scientific breakthroughs to a larger audience. In my opinion, it shouldn't be included. New Scientist and Scientific American are for people interested in science what Nature and Science are for researchers. Nobbie 17:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely not aimed at a general audience, but includes levels of detail of use only to scientists.  It has fully sourced and annotated articles and, in my opinion, should be included here. StuRat 01:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Scientific American'' 

message: Now that we got ourselves a pretty extensive list, with alot of more specific lists, I guess it would be good to settle if we should add more information in this list besides journal names and links to their web site. Maybe ISSN numbers? Karol 21:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe abbrieviations too?  ie []  Piyrwq 16:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISSN? 

message: List of publications in biology has recently been at AfD and was narrowly kept as there was no consensus. The original nominator seemed to thing it was a long list of publications. It could happen here. Some time ago there was a long debate about criteria for conclusion but it seemed to be almost entirely from chemists. We chemists discussed this at length and came to a consensus that we should include only journals that published across all fields of chemistry and were the top ten on impact. Meanwhile, I see journals being added, often by anon editors so it is less easy to ask them why they added a journal. Normally no reason for addition is given. The only policing of nonsense seems to be done by Karol, another chemist, who has deleted entries that were clearly inappropriate. This is not the place for everyone with a POV about their favorite journal to add it. Let us have some criteria? What about:-
*Delete any entry that does not have an edit comment that clearly explains why it has been included.
*Delete any entry that puts the number of journals in any category over 10 in number.
*Force a debate on the talk page about every new entry as we do on List of publications in chemistry.
*Or perhaps we should just put the article up for deletion as being hopelessly POV.
--Bduke 23:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd advise first to define clearly the relevant terms. I am still waiting for a signle comment to the related question I asked at Talk:Scientific_journal#Academic_vs._scientific.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what your problem is or whether it is relevant. Scientific journals are a sub-set of academic journals. Journals have peer reviewed articles. Magazines do not. I have not got into those articles. I'm worried about the lists. Here, I think it is quite clear what the term scientific journals means. The question is whether the entries are notable and not just someone's favorite. There is no question that the entries are scientific journals, but this article is not to list all scientific journals. --Bduke 01:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, are there any journals that are not notable? Perhaps you will find some useful guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (specifically, note Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28books%29#Note_on_notability_criteria and Wikipedia:Notability (academics).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's pretty clear when someone adds "their favorite journal" here, and in those cases I always take the time to revert, or move the entry to the respective more specific list. As to the content here, I think the best way to decide which ten journals stay is voting. On the other hand, I'm not sure we have enough interested people editing this page (two voters makes no sense), and until we do this problem isn't really a problem. Two or three people can talk things out easily. On a related note (re Bduke), I'm actually a physicist and not a chemist, just doing my PhD at a chemistry departmet... well, at least I don't feel like one yet :D Karol 08:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, mate. If you are in a chemistry department you are a chemist. Not allowed to escape, ever! -:). Yes, you are right. Most "favorite journal" additions are easy to spot,  and there are indeed too few people here. Nevertheless, there are POV issues here and I think the chemistry part reached a good conclusion. We can but just try to make it better. --Bduke 09:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More on inclusion criteria

message: :I have noticed that currently we don't have a category for journals concerned primarily with a region in terms of social sciences, not geography (i.e. publishing articles about politics, history, culture, etc. of a given region). Examples: Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Sarmatian Review, Electronic journal of contemporary japanese studies (lowercase on purpose), Abbia: Cameroon Cultural Review, Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt (currently in :Category:Cultural journals) and Iranian Studies Journal (:Category:History journals). I'd like to create a section for area studies and corresponding :Category:Area studies journals (not happy with that name, though). 
:A brief overview of :Category:Journals by subject area shows that we are also missing the following sections: :Category:Cultural journals (culture studies), :Category:Business and management journals, :Category:Film studies journals, :Category:Media studies journals, :Category:Television studies journals (perhaps the last three can be merged together for one section?), :Category:Futurology journals, :Category:Linguistics journals, :Category:Literary journals, :Category:Music journals, :Category:Numismatics journals (which probably should go under the not-yet-created :Category:Archeological journals), :Category:Philosophy journals, :Category:Science fiction and fantasy journals, :Category:Statistics journals (add to mathematics section?) and last but not least, :Category:Theology journals. And we are probably missing quite a few which don't have their own cat...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with "Area studies" in this article is how do you limit the number of entries to around ten? You are going to be specifically POV by selecting ten areas. I do not think that section of this article should exist but I agree about the category and maybe a separate article listing all the journals in area studies. For the others I think there will be debate about whether some of them should count as "Science journals". Why not have a new article on "List of social science journals", leaving this one to the natural sciences with a clear indication of this and a link to the other list at the top?  --Bduke 22:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if so then natural science journals should be moved to 'list of natural science journals'. And I agree that 10 for each area study would clog the article - but at least they should be links to List of area studies journals, where they could be listed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all these points, but I'm not not going to do anything about them until there appears to be more interest in this page and the various specific comprehensive lists. Apart from you, only chemists seem interested. --Bduke 02:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sad, but true. Since it is unlikely we will be faced with significant influx of entries, I'll add an area studies section, and a link to the only list I know that exists (and the field in area studies I am most interested in): Slavistics#Journals. I hope you'll have no objections? Once the list of area studies fields gets to big it can be moved off, but I'd not hold my breath :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You all have made quite good points. Karol 06:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a section on Evolution, under "Life Sciences", like the "Biology" section". It needs a few more entries. Then of course there is the List of scientific journals in biology. --Bduke 22:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup I put it there, I'll add more journals when I get the chance.--Metatree 04:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing sections 

message: After recent additions, the section on Materials science is now too large. This page is not for all journals. It is for around 10 most important journals in the field. Perhaps List of scientific journals in materials science, similar to what other disciplines have done, should be started. Also no criteria for inclusion (i.e. importance) has been stated? About 6 entries should be deleted. Which are the least significant? --Bduke 23:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Materials science section

message: This seems a very odd list. It excludes Nature Medicine, probably the highest citation index of any preclinical medicine journal, as well as Annals of Internal Medicine & Archives of Internal Medicine, two highly respected and widely cited general clinical journals (and probably loads of others I'm blanking on at the moment), yet includes International Journal of Medical Sciences, which I'd never heard of (having worked in medical publishing for decades). Additionally, several of the journals here don't directly relate to medicine, either clinical or preclinical. Espresso Addict 07:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As no-one commented, I've been bold. These journals are based on 1999 impact factors for general medical journals, plus a small selection of very highly cited biomedical journals. Espresso Addict 05:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. It might even have been me that wrote the medicine section, when I created this page. But it is totally not my area. Thanks. Karol 08:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what I can do about converting the red links when  get a moment. Espresso Addict 17:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Medicine section 

message: These sections have been moved to List of social science journals and List of humanities journals. A broader list has been added, List of academic journals meant to contain ONE most-important title from each subject, and refer to the other lists. I hope this will give a little more flexibility. 
For the three large lists, some of the subject sections are well populated. Some are not. Please add if you see a lack.
In each of the three, the section has been limited to 10 in each field, to avoid accusations to listcruf. and provide a rationale for removing the obviously unimportant. Looking at what is there, I see  some combination of importance and representedness, which seems appropriate to me.  Then it is not   just a finding list, for which the more specific list of journals in X are more suitable, but a list designed to encourage the user to see the variety of both journals and specialties in the field, and encourage following the links to the detailed lists. Obiously a few of the sections in some of the areas have very unimportant  ones added, but I think it would be very impolitic to actually remove journals without asking on the talk page. 
I suggest that in adding new journals you consider adding the articles fror them after the model of the other journals in the subject or related subjects. But please don't hesitate, because there are projects to add the articles for them. Does every journal deserve an article? I think the only way of avoiding fights over deletion is to  say, yes. DGG 19:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I have to say that choosing ONE journal to represent an entire science seems hopeless to me. In chemistry, which is my field, there are bound to be fistfights over whether the most representative journal is the Journal of the American Chemical Society, Angewandte Chemie, Chemical Communications, or something else. Itub 01:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: economics, social science generally, and humanities

message: *So few ISSNs are listed on this page, I'm wondering if it'd be more appropriate to untag this page as needing an ISSN and tag the individual pages on publications that could have an ISSN listed but do not. Thoughts? --Keesiewonder talk 13:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed - the tag seems intended for individual publications anyway. Dl2000 00:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISSNs 

message: The number of journals in this section is now 16, well above the criteria of "more or less ten positions, chosen by their impact factors and other ratings". It is also not clear what "special field" ("the intention here is to list the top journal in each special field") each of the journals fits. Some should be moved to List of scientific journals in earth and atmospheric sciences. Another concern that applies elsewhere in this list is the presence of redlinks. Surely if a journal is notable enough for a special mention here in this restricted list, it should have an article of its own. I propose we delete all redlinks after ensuring that they are in the more general links. What do others think? If you agree, what time scale to we put on this, to allow time to create the new articles? --Bduke 08:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Earth and atmospheric sciences

message: It is quite clear that this list is for the most influencial journals in each field of science. That means each entry should be notable enough for the journal to have its own artcile. I am going to be bold and move all entries that do not have their own article (redlinks) to here. Please put them back after you have written an article on the journal concerned. The moved entries are:
=== Astronomy and astrophysics ===
* Acta Astronomica (journal home)
* Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences (journal home)
* Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics (journal home)
=== Earth and atmospheric sciences ===
* Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
* Journal of Earth System Science
* Water Resources Research
* Atmospheric Science Letters (journal home) 
* International Journal of Climatology (journal home) 
* Meteorological Applications home)
* Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society home)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke (talk • contribs) 01:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. They should all be listed in the subject lists. It is not as if this is keeping them out of WP. If they deserve to be here, they should be very important journals and that means they should not be redlinks. I'll try to do some myself, particular in areas where I really know which are important and which not. --Bduke 05:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability of journals listed here

message: * Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
* Journal of Earth System Science
* Water Resources Research
* Atmospheric Science Letters (journal home) 
* International Journal of Climatology (journal home) 
* Meteorological Applications home)
* Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society home)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke (talk • contribs) 01:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth and atmospheric sciences 

message: * Agronomy Journal
* Applied Engineering in Agriculture
* Bioresource technology
* Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
* Journal of Applied Entomology
* Journal of Phytopathology
* Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science
* Soil Science Society of America Journal
* Journal of Animal Science  
* Journal of Dairy Science  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke (talk • contribs) 09:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agriculture 

message: In general I would not be happy with this sort of move,  but i think of this particular use as a very good idea indeed, in order to stimulate the writing of the necessary articles about the important ones. DGG (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. They should all be listed in the subject lists. It is not as if this is keeping them out of WP. If they deserve to be here, they should be very important journals and that means they should not be redlinks. I'll try to do some myself, particular in areas where I really know which are important and which not. --Bduke 05:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: comments

message: I noticed we don't have a section for nutrition. Would this go under Medicine, you think? I'm thinking about starting a list. Also, what do you guys think of having both comprehensive lists and basic lists of journals? In the latter, I imagine all would be wikilinked and highly notable; in the former, we could feel free to add just about any journal. People want to give up on adding all journals and I don't really think that's necessary. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there are that many, especially when categorized into specialties. ImpIn | (t - c) 07:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Making a comprehensive list may be more daunting than you think. The Journal Citation Reports currently lists 6166 in its "science" version and 1768 in its "social sciences" version (there is some overlap between the two). ISI is fairly selective about inclusion in their databases, so there are many more scientific journals than even this number indicates. --Crusio (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I still think it's a worthy, if unfulfillable, goal. I remember a few months ago I began adding run-of-the-mill, mid-notability journals on agricultural economics to the list, and they got promptly deleted. I definitely think we should attempt to include these mid-level journals at some point. Also, like I said, I don't think it would be as bad if we separated them into specialized categories. Also, I agree with you that impact factors should not be added -- maybe when science breaks free from Thomson's grip (through getCITED perhas), and we can automate a bot to do it for us. ImpIn | (t - c) 01:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I still think it's too much hassle, but don't have anything against it either, so go ahead! I agree that impact factors are far from perfect. There are several new initiatives. As far as I know, getCITED works on the same principle as ISI (counting simple citations). Some alternative approaches can be found at SCImago and eigenfactor.org. --Crusio (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: *I'd put them under Medicine, I guess. --Crusio (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But remember that this is intended to be a very selective list. DGG (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't disagree with you. Making a complete list will be near impossible anyway. In fact, I'm not even convinced that the current list is necessary: notable journals will have an article (or get one sooner or later) and then their category listings would basically duplicate the current article, correct? --Crusio (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer lists to categories in general. See WP:CLN. This oft-repeated remark that they are redundant bothers me, and conflicts with the consensus guideline. If you'd like to change that guideline, raise it on the Talk page. ImpIn | (t - c) 01:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing me to WP:CLN, that was enlightening, I didn't know this yet. Learned something! :-) --Crusio (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: well, there will still be a point in having a selected representative list of top journals, with a usable criterion. And  it probably will take another few  years to get all the WoS titles alone.  DGG (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of nutrition journals 

message: I really like lists, but I noted that they should be annotated and headlined over at the general list of academic journals page. They're annotated a little with the homepage, and categorized, but I think it would be nice if whether they had free content could be annotated. Ultimately, we could create tables for some of these things noting founding date, impact factor, ect. ImpIn | (t - c) 08:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * I would argue against making tables with impact factors. These factors change yearly and it would be abithc to kep such tables up to date. Also, Thompson/ISI does not allow this, based on their copy-right. If Wikipedia would list all those impact factors, nobody would use ISI's services any more... --Crusio (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your position is the one I previously took. ISI's services comprise a lot more than this, so I assume you are talking about JCR? do people buy it just to get he impact factors of a  journal--probably not, and most journals now cite the impact factors on their home pages and advertisements, I have no doubt with the tacit agreement of ISI, for it gives them publicity. (I asked about this on the relevant listserv, liblicense-l, and such was the unanimous consensus). So I see its fine to list them on individual journal pages. But people do buy it for the comparisons, & listing them all in a table would probably in fact be a violation any reasonable way of looking at it..  As for updating, they are updated annually, and our pages on the various journals should be checked when the next update comes out this summer for 2007. DGG (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was referring to the JCR, the annual high point in my existence as an editor... :-) (although this year our IF will drop....). Indeed, individual journals list their IF on their home pages (and we list them in the corresponding Wikipedia articles) and ISI doesn't seem to object to that. But the main reason to go to the JCR is indeed the comparative rankings, as an IF of 2.343 in itself does not say much, because it may be very low in one field but very high in another. I have heard of cases where people put lists of rankings on their personal websites and got into trouble with ISI. Preaching to the converted, I know, back to serious work... --Crusio (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annotating the lists 

message: Just wondering. Can we have something like a List of scientific journals by abbreviation or something like that? Just thought about it while searching for a few ones which I couldn't identify. IMHO, such a list could be useful to people who are searching for the full name of an abbreviated reference.  Shrumster (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not recall its name but there was such a list and it was deleted or rather transwikied to wiktionary, if I recall correctly. It would be too long anyway. --Bduke  (Discussion) 10:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New, similar list 

message: Journal of Medicinal and Aromatic Plant Sciences
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&as_publication=Journal+of+Medicinal+and+Aromatic+Plant+Sciences&start=0&sa=N
--222.67.217.186 (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone verify if the journal exists...??? 

message: unless an accurate reference is cited for European Journal of Biochemistry  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.17.113 (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not auto-direct the journal to other topic.... 

message: International Journal of Food Science & Technology has been created based on the following
http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0950-5423
--222.64.23.236 (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A topic of... 

message: 222.64.22.104, it would help if you registered for an account and then you could communicate with other editors on you talk page. It is not necessary to tag articles on this list, as long as the journal exists. Concerns should be tagged on the article on the journal itself. BTW, I am not tailing you. Some of the articles you are editing are on my watch list, so I notice your edits. --Bduke  (Discussion) 02:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagging this list

message: This article is for a few very notable journals in each area of science. It suggests no more than 10 in each section. Some sections are larger. There are other lists that are intended to be more complete. Given this high level of notability required, this list should certainly not contain journals that do not have a WP article. I have therefore removed those and links that are redirects, not to a journal but to a subject area article. If editors object, please write the article first to demonstrate its notability and then it can be included. I think there are still entries that do not meet the high standard necessary here. Please work on the more specialized lists and create some where they do not exist. --Bduke  (Discussion) 12:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: A new sub-section has been created by a new editor. I vetted the list. I removed three links that were not titles to scientific journals. Other than those three, the other links appear to be titles of scientific journals produced by established publishers. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree this list-article as a whole needs some serious work. I think it was appropriate to clean out this section. I was just noting that the rest of the list in the section were in fact journal titles. How their notability compares to the most notable of this list, I have no idea. I will research the matter over time. Also I wouldn't mind helping out with the cleanup of this article by selecting the most notable in each subsection. Also, notice that User:Bduke's comment was one year ago this month :>) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Some other journal lists were worse, they were basically huge collections of external links and incredible spam magnets (like this one still is). Nobody indeed seems to have much interest in maintaining these lists, which is indeed a problem, I think. --Crusio (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Robotics and Automation

message: There is an RfC regarding the standardization of journal lists names. Please comment at Talk:List of journals#RFC. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Lists of journals#RFC|RfC on journal list names]]

message: I added the following peer-reviewed journals with links to their sources. However, the changes were reverted. The only response I received was "We are talking scientific journals here". I am happy to discuss their inclusion or exclusion. I don't understand why they would not qualify as scientific. Each of them is peer-reviewed, and as far as I know they follow the scientific method. Also, each one has the marks of scholarship, with an abstract and other features of academic writing. Titles of articles, one from each source, include "Karyotype Variability within the Cattle Monobaramin", "An Analysis of Astronomical Aspects of the Hydroplate Theory", "A Reconsideration of the Photoelectric Effect Alpha Decay", "Fossil jellyfish from the Pilbara, Western Australia."
--Scientific journals with perspectives from religion or philosophy--
---Creationist perspective---
* Answers Research Journal http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj
* CRSQ http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html
* ICC Proceedings http://www.creationicc.org/papers.php?ser=y
* Journal of Creation http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-formerly-technical-journal-tj
--137.104.83.43 (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Peer reviewed" by other pseudoscientists isn't peer review. Having the "marks of " science, but not being science, is the sign of pseudoscience, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific journals with perspectives from religion or philosophy 

message: The Wikipedia Library is an open research hub, a place for organizing our amazing community of research and reference experts to collaborate and help improve the encyclopedia.
We are working together towards 5 big goals:
:Connect editors with their local library and freely accessible resources
:Partner to provide free access to paywalled publications, databases, universities, and libraries
:Build relationships among our community of editors, libraries, and librarians
:Facilitate research for Wikipedians, helping editors to find and use sources
:Promote broader open access in publishing and research
Sign up to receive announcements and news about resource donations and partnerships: Sign up
Come and create your profile, and see how we can leverage your talent, expertise, and dedication: Join in
Introduce yourself   :-)
-Hope to see you there, Ocaasi t | c 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Come and join '''The Wikipedia Library'''

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of scientific journals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050831041704/http://gort.ucsd.edu:80/ejourn/jdir.html to http://gort.ucsd.edu/ejourn/jdir.html#lists
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050911221253/http://info.lib.uh.edu:80/wj/webjour.html to http://info.lib.uh.edu/wj/webjour.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120101000944/http://nanoguru.org:80/advanced/international-journals-with-impact-factor/ to http://nanoguru.org/advanced/international-journals-with-impact-factor/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121112200225/http://arastirmax.com/views/dergiler to http://www.arastirmax.com/views/dergiler
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Joel B. Lewis believes Alexia rank is nonsensical in this context.
They are defiantly sensical(meaningful) but I think he means not relevant.
I believe scientific journals are important to professionals, news, and others not active the the field,
and therefore the rate of online access is a relevant measure of consumption/popularity (and revenue) where h-index is only a measure of creation/citation. Additionally both are important measures of notability. In either case readers are free to use the column that interests them most.
Tim (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I mean it makes no sense.  All journals at nature.com have the same Alexia rank (as implemented), which makes no sense in a list of individual journals.  Similarly, for at least one journal the listed page on Alexia is mit.edu, and this rank conveys no information about that journal whatsoever.  Likewise IEEE, etc.  This column of the table is meaningless, and its inclusion makes it harder to extract actual information.  I strongly oppose any attempt to restore it. --JBL (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Also, obviously, journals without Wikipedia pages are not going to be among "the most influential in their fields."  You are free to look up the impact factors of the two I removed (as I did) and confirm that they are not among the top pharmacology journals.  In general, I think it is likely that this list suffers from over-inclusion of spammy low-quality new journals (though often they are removed as soon as they are added, thankfully) and would benefit from a careful trimming. --JBL (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexia rank 

message: The chemistry list has not been changed in more than a decade. I have just found this source - https://blog.typeset.io/top-10-international-chemistry-journals-a-template-guide-a452b923a885 which is actually taken from this Wikipedia article! That is not good. I came across this list -https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=1601, which is more recent than the sources we used long ago. Should we take the top 10 of this list? They are:-
#	Chemical Reviews	
#	Nature Materials	
#	Chemical Society Reviews	
#	Nature Reviews Chemistry	
#	Nature Chemistry	
#	Accounts of Chemical Research	
#	Journal of the American Chemical Society	
#	ACS Energy Letters	
#	Nano Letters	
#	Nature Communications
or does anyone have a better idea? --Bduke (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemistry list 

message: Would it be considered appropriate to add any of the following American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) journals to this page? Two in particular have strong impact factors (which I believe is one of the criteria used to consider additions), and are highly ranked in their JCR categories. Three of AAAS's other journals (Science, Science Advances, and Science Translational Medicine) are already present on the list. 
---
Under  “Life Science”/”Biology in General” heading: Science Signaling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Signaling) [2021 Impact Factor: 9.714, 30/297 in Biochemistry & Molecular Biology | 34/195 in Cell Biology]
Under  “Immunology” heading: Science Immunology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Immunology) [2021 Impact Factor: 30.658, 5/162 in Immunology]
Under  “Robotics and automation” heading: Science Robotics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Robotics) [2021 Impact Factor: 27.541, 1/30 in Robotics]
---
Full disclosure, I have a direct COI as a staff member of AAAS (the publishing society of these journals), so I fully understand if this edit request cannot be approved.
Mphelan123 (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential addition of AAAS Journals