Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Assessment

message: Some thoughts on really important articles that we should work on.
* Topics
** Impact factor — so people in discussions can understand that this is, in some sense, a statistical measure of importance.
** Academic journal — our eponymous article, and the more specific Scientific journal.
** Peer review — already in surprisingly good shape.
** Academic publishing — so people understand why it's reliable.
** Scholarly method — pie in the sky, all these articles combined would be a featured topic.
* Top-priority journals, per above and from Impact factor#PageRank algorithm
** General science journals
*** Nature
*** Science
*** PNAS
** Medical/biology journals
*** NEJM
*** Lancet
*** JAMA
*** Nature Medicine
*** Cell  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JayHenry (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  High-priority articles 

message: Are we including academic publishers that are not learned societies? eg Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) Press? These are often to be found in the journal categories, and sometimes are the only article representing the journals that they publish. Espresso Addict 22:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should include them.  I think a new cat :Category:Academia publishers would be a good idea, with :Category:University book publishers as a subcat. John Vandenberg 00:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with the existing :Category:Academic publishing? Carcharoth 09:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit broad. It would be nice to distinguish publishers from general concepts. Espresso Addict 09:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Publishers of academic literature then? Carcharoth 11:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about just :Category:Academic publishers? Espresso Addict 11:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about you, but when a category sounds like it might refer to people, the word "academic" feels slightly wrong. "Academic journals" is OK, because we know the journals can be academic, but people can be academic, while not publishing academic material. Carcharoth 11:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I follow, having worked for several companies and institutions I'd call academic publishers, but how about :Category:Academic publishing companies? Espresso Addict 12:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't mind either. Have a look at other category names, and then pick one. Unless anyone else objects, or favours one of the options. Carcharoth 12:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: Can we go ahead and rate OJS as "Start-Class"? There should be no doubt about it. The reason I want it to be rated now is so that people will know that it needs improvement. --MahaPanta (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it has been rated as a start class, which looks appropriate. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Open_Journal_Systems|OJS]]  

message: Concerning the requested assessment for these journals, I don't think that the available material currently justifies the existence of four separate articles. See Headbomb's remarks on this in the journal writing manual. --Crusio (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd appreciate a link to that guidance. I did seriously consider lumping them together in one article but decided against it on the grounds that, had they forked into more uniquely-named journals, the question probably wouldn't arise. Putting the four together would mean either having four identical infoboxes, one combined infobox (which would be confusing), or no infobox at all, which inhibits automated parsing and contradicts the project's guidance for writing new articles. I've seen articles with multiple infoboxes but using different templates. WP:LAYOUT says infoboxes go at the top of the article, so four would be a layout nightmare. Multiple identical infoboxes would risk automated parsers ignoring all but the first one. Similarly, categorisation would become ambiguous in a single article. Journal of Photochemistry is defunct, whilst the others are active. JPPB is more Category:Biology Journals than Category:Chemistry Journals and vice-versa for the other three. So, on balance, I split them. Having said that, if there's consensus that a single article is better, I'll merge them. In the meantime, I'll try to add a bit more content but I'll hold off setting up more redirects for now. Thanks. KenBailey (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

text: *A link to the guide is in the project banner at the top of this page :-) It contains links to examples that use multiple infoboxes. Merging them would make for one substantial article instead of four stublike ones. The categopries "biology journals" and "chemistry journals" are not very specific and perhaps you can have a look at the subcats and find a more appropriate home (biochemistry journals?) for these journals. Also, if appropriate, there is no problem with putting an article in more than one cat. --Crusio (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks again for your feedback. I had read the writing guide and the other guidance as well but could not see any steer on the issue of one article per journal vs single articles for a collection of related journals. Forgive me if I've overlooked this. Can you point me to some examples of similar articles that cover multiple journals that share a pedigree I could use as a model please? I agree that the stubby content as it currently is would conflate to a single more substantive article but what should be done about the four infoboxes? There are several other stubby articles within the scientific journal category that are similarly brief, so I don't see initial brevity as justification for lumping. Good idea about the cats but I can't see any sub cats that would be more appropriate. I guess I could create "Category:annoyingly closely-related-but-separate journals" which might help :) KenBailey (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

text:  I've now read the Notablity Caveats number 3 which applies in this case. My apologies for not having read it sooner. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A/B/C is a similar case to Nuclear Physics (journal). That single 'umbrella' article is better than nothing but already the infobox there is cluttered and qualifies under WP:Disinfoboxes. Perhaps a single umbrella article, without an infobox, explaining the pedigree of the related journals linking to individual articles for each journal would be a better solution? KenBailey (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

text: *The infobox is very versatile and with some tweaking you could have just one infobox giving all info for the different sections together. A lot of info (publisher, for example) is common, after all. User:Headbomb could probably help you with that. --Crusio (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I could. If you merge the articles at Journal of Photochemistry then move it to its modern name Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology, I'll take care of the infobox and other details. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. Done. Probably needs some cleanup or even further surgery. KenBailey (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Journal of Photochemistry et al. 

message: for input on lists of academic journals!
Thanks! Mootros (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Please see here

message: It appears that this legal academic journal has gone under the radar for some time.  Did we lose an editor who was maintaing the legal academic journals on a daily basis?  In any event, the name has changed in the past few years and thus the article likely needs an overhaul.  I will try to devote time to this soon. —  IvyLaw 🌿 (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: ''IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review''

message: Hello.. 
I have created a page on an academic journal Draft:Nature Environment and Pollution Technology.
I have added the references to reputed and notable bibliographic databases where the journal is indexed.
I wanted to know what other content can i add to the article so that it can be accepted.
Apurva1410 (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help required for the assessment of an article on a academic Journal 

message: Greetings - For status section I added progression, pie chart, rainbow. After Logs (at bottom) I added wikilink to monthly Popular pages. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section updated - Current status; section added - Popular pages