Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Collaboration

message: Journal information from WP:LOMJQ:
*  : Used 104 times on Wikipedia
:*Identifier: 
:*Publisher: Royal Statistical Society
:History:
:* Journal of the Statistical Society of London (1838-1886)  
:* Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (1887-1947) 
:* Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) (1948-1987)  
:* Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (Statistics in Society)  (1997 - current):  
:* Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Statistical Methodology)  (1997 - current): 
:* Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C (1997 - current):  
:* Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series D (1997 - 2003): 
----
No problem with Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, though I don't think that number of uses on Wikipedia (which is presumably counting instances of wikilinked full titles, rather than unlinked abbreviations?) is necessarily the most informative metric. I'm not sure what I'd suggest, as raw impact factor would clearly bias towards review journals such as the Annual Reviews series. 
However, I do wonder whether it's useful having a collaboration to start individual journal pages? I'd imagined such collaborations would be used for general pages (such as impact factor, though that looks in reasonable shape) or in an attempt to create a set of high-quality articles that might be suitable for submitting for Featured Articles review. In terms of new articles, it might be more useful to make a hitlist of the top 500 missing journals (by some metric or other) and encourage project members to create short articles on those journals in their subject areas, ie a drive format rather than a collaboration. Espresso Addict 15:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a list at Wikipedia:List_of_missing_journals/Queue, and the simplest thing is for people to take those in their subject area. Another good way to collaborate might be to concentrate on the journals of a single society. The major nonprofit journals are the ones we need most. DGG (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing that we're all already doing the former -- the question is how to motivate everyone to even greater efforts! Espresso Addict 00:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No there hasnt been any activity behind WP:LOMJQ for a long time.  Before doing drives, it would be good to find or write a good article.  Then we can use that to illustrate what a good article looks like.  The "104" is from the number of google hits of the phrase "Journal of the Royal Statistical Society" (over six months ago). John Vandenberg 09:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I cobbled together a history and put up a stub based off information on Jstor -- add it to your watch lists and let's start improving!  If we can find anything interesting about these journals, we should aim to submit our CotW's to DYK.  Also, as mentioned above, I'd really like to get Nature (journal) up to featured status and input from everyone here (let's do it at talk:Nature (journal) though) would be greatly appreciated! --JayHenry 16:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be useful to discuss (probably on the talk page rather than here) how to handle journals with complex histories, and multiple journals in a single article. I have no idea what should go in the infobox for a start! I agree we should submit it to DYK if an interesting fact can be uncovered -- it would get a lot more visibility for this project. Does anyone know about the history of mathematics or statistics publishing? At 1838, it seems to stand a good chance of being the oldest of something... Espresso Addict 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Journal of the Royal Statistical Society

message: I have selected Astronomische Nachrichten as it has a DYK hook ready to roll; and Journal of Biological Chemistry to follow that.  By then we will have done a few different scientific fields, so it would be good to line up a few journals in the social sciences and literary fields, or maybe we could tackle an important topic that is relevant. John Vandenberg 12:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some initial stuff at Astronomische Nachrichten, and I hope to track down some important discoveries that it published in its early years. One thing I'm not sure about is the open access thing. If someone could check. It seems to be delayed access, but I'm not sure. The history of publication is also confusing, with the number of issues varying over the years. I hope to be able to add a little bit about that at some point (the publication history should be available all the way through). The exact years when the different companies and organisations published it would be nice as well, but I'm leaving it for today. Carcharoth 19:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have left a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Collaboration‎.  I am going to work on Astronomische Gesellschaft for a bit to work out their involvement in this journal. John Vandenberg 03:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planning ahead