Talk:Energy & Environment

message: I am lost with Dave Souza's revisions, where he changes the dates on the Monastersky reference. Whats that all about, bearing in mind last time I clicked on the link it didn't actually take us to the reference; merely some typescript which could have been written by anyone but anyway Stephan said it was OK because it supported his POV so it must be OK. So what, now we have unverifiable references of movable provenance, proving what, pray?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.213.54 (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a full reference given. The link is only for convenience - if it goes bad, use a library. However, it took me about 10 second on Google to find the official article at the CoHE.: . The full text is paywalled, but for that see WP:PAYWALL. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To help the lost IP, the date of publication of S&B is a bit unclear as the press release was on 31 March, it appeared in the May issue, and Monastersky wrote "Spring" so I've changed it match his account at cited. . . dave souza, talk 23:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm confused. Do you deny that Peiser served as the co-editor? Or do you want to hide it? I think we all know that he did indeed do so (or at least that the journal page claimed so), so unless there is a reason to remove him, we should rather look for a new source to support this known true fact. The simplest seems to be to use the Wayback machine and just get the mission statement from last year: http://web.archive.org/web/20110716153424/http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee-mission.htm. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest revisions 

message: That article in the Guardian was based in part on Pielke's opinion of the journal when it hadn't yet been indexed by ISI. Pielke had published there when E&E was *expecting* to be indexed but the process took longer than expected, Pielke got flack for publishing there as part of the general piling-on in wake of the M&M Hockeystick articles, and that made Pielke grumpy about E&E. Now that E&E *has* been indexed, nobody needs a couple of talking-head quotes claiming the impact factor is low - the factor is listed right there in the lead paragraph. So I propose to get rid of that paragraph/section. I'll do so if nobody objects here in a reasonable period. --Blogjack (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why didn't you post this at the bottom? It wasn't just Pielke noting its low impact in science, it may have more traction as a social studies publication but the point stands in the area of climate science. . dave souza, talk 16:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

text: *I have checked the JCR. the journal is not listed in the Science edition, only in the Social Science one. I have added the IF and the ranking in its category to the article. Seems like the "low impact" criticism still holds, also in the social sciences. --Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I see its very much at the bottom of the class in the category 'environmental studies'. I wonder what other kinds of journals are in that category, and how comparable they actually are. Also would be interesting to try another category, say, 'energy policy' and see where it comes there.81.130.52.29 (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the "criticism" section still relevant? 

message: I see the reference from ISI has been specially selected to make the journal look as stupid and irrelevant as possible. How about - for balance: creating a neutral page is what WIkipedia si all about, isn't it - including some facts from Scopus - that E&E is 26th out of 188 in the category 'Energy miscellaneous - a category which includes Energy Policy,Energy Economics, Applied Energy - and has an H index of 16? the link is http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?area=0&category=2101&country=all&year=2012&order=sjr&min=0&min_type=cd or if it doesn;t work just go to the journal finder bit and, under categories, look up Energy miscellaneous. I would much rather one of you approved people made the change to the EE page (or can come up with a good reason why Scopus 'doesn't matter', 'doesn't count'), rather than having to do it myself, because when I make changes there is always some boring little fanatic pops up who removes my attempts at balance after a nanosecond.81.130.76.50 (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's neither inappropriate nor tendentious, we include these rankings in many articles on academic journals. --Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

text: *Just checked to make sure, but that is the only category that it is listed in. --Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  SCOPUS 

message: Perhaps the page should be updated to show that this journal is now owned by Sage Publishing; and I believe its ISI ranking has improved since the 0.319 of 2012  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.130.81 (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transferred to Sage 

message: The relevance of the mission statement here is not that it is promotional blabla, but instead the relevance is that the part that is quoted in the article makes clear that the journal editor was using the journal as a venue for climate sceptic views. This ties in with what the rest of this section is about. TimOsborn (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm not sure I'm on board with a full quote of their statement. I know I'm not on board with a full quote of their scope in the lead. I might be on board with an "in Wikipedia voice" summary of either.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

text: In general, I do not think it is a  good idea to include fulll mission statements in articles on journals, ans they are usually repetitive and comprehensive and nonspecific. There is of course more reason yo include it when ther journal is controversial, as this one, and the current excerpt seems OK. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mission statement