Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:09, 10 August 2022

Shortcuts WT:CITEWATCH WT:JCW/CW This talk page is to discuss the Misplaced Pages CiteWatch, both the listing itself and its setup page (including what sources to base The CiteWatch on). See Frequently Asked Questions below, especially if you are new to the CiteWatch. If you want to discuss other WP:JCW-related pages, use WT:JCW instead. See User talk:JL-Bot for information on the latest tweaks being developed.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: A questionable source is cited in an article inappropriately! What should I do? A1: First, see the disclaimer. If the source is inappropriate, you have several options depending on the situation. Replace the source with a reliable one. (WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, ideally) Replace the source with a {{citation needed}} template. (WP:MINREF – "Any statement that has been challenged") Remove both the source and the associated article passage. (WP:BLPSOURCE/WP:UNDUE/WP:EXTRAORDINARY/WP:MEDRS situations) Keep in mind that an unreliable source with respect to facts can still be reliable about certain WP:ABOUTSELF claims. When unsure, discuss the source at the relevant article's talk page, at the Reliable Source Noticeboard, or at a relevant WikiProject. If you are uncertain, you can also use the {{better source}} template to request a more reliable source. If you remove the source from an article, there is no need to update The CiteWatch yourself – the compilation will automatically be updated by JL-Bot after the next WP:DUMP (see Q9). Q2: A questionable source is cited in an article appropriately! What should I do? A2: If you want to flag an unreliable source as appropriately cited, so others do not remove it, you can put a comment in the |journal= parameter, such as |journal = Nonsense Journal<!--This source is cited in accordance to ] --> or similar. The CiteWatch does not currently have a way of tracking which sources are appropriately cited, but this could change in the future. Q3: I don't understand why a source is listed! How can I find out why? A3: First, see the disclaimer. Additionally, each target column should have at least one link or explanatory note detailing why a source is listed. Follow these links, and you should have your explanation. Keep in mind, false positives do happen! See Q4 for more details on what to do if that's the case. Q4: A false positive is listed! What should I do? A4: Report it here! Make sure to include the rank number and the false positive. For example Real J. Foobar is reported as a match for Rank #470 Fake Journal of Foobar, but these are not the same journals! is a clear report, but Real J. Foobar shouldn't be listed! or Fake Journal of Foobar is wrong! Fix it! are not. If you are comfortable with templates, you can add {{JCW-exclude|TARGET|FALSEPOSITIVE}} to the relevant section of WP:JCW/EXCLUDE yourself. For the above case, this would be {{JCW-exclude|Fake Journal of Foobar|Real J. Foobar}} in WP:JCW/EXCLUDE#F. After a source has been added/removed from The CiteWatch, there is no need to update The CiteWatch yourself – the compilation will automatically be updated by JL-Bot after the next daily run (see Q9). Q5: I think you should add/remove a source from The CiteWatch! What should I do? A5: For most sources, you should discuss this at WP:RSN first. If consensus is that the source is questionable enough to at least be worth watching (or reliable enough to be removed from the CiteWatch), leave a notice here and it will be added/removed to WP:CITEWATCH/SETUP. Note that the threshold for inclusion in the CiteWatch is somewhere between WP:MREL (unclear reliability) and WP:GUNREL (generally unreliable). After a source has been added or removed, there is no need to update The CiteWatch yourself – the compilation will automatically be updated by JL-Bot (typically on the next daily run). See also Q6 for how to deal with unreliable publishers. Q6: A new problematic publisher has popped up / a current problematic publisher doesn't list some of its journals! What should I do? A6: Report it here! For predatory publishers like OMICS Publishing Group and their ilk, please provide A link to a source describing the problems of the publisher A link to its list of journals (including defunct journals), if available Its DOI prefix (10.xxxx/...), if available After a source has been added or removed, there is no need to update The CiteWatch yourself – the compilation will automatically be updated by JL-Bot after the next daily run (see Q9). Q7: A journal with an article (e.g. Journal of Foobar) has some red linked variations of its name (e.g. Journal of foobar or J. Foobar)! What should I do? A7: In the case of a legitimate variation, create a redirect and tag it with {{R from ISO 4 abbreviation}}, {{R from abbreviation}}, {{R from former name}}, {{R from acronym}}, or similar. In the case of an illegitimate variation, like a typo or a capitalization mistake, simply fix the article. If the mistake is common or likely to occur again in the future, you can create a redirect and tag it with {{R from typo}}, {{R from miscapitalization}} or similar. If dealing with a false positive, see Q4. There is no need to update The CiteWatch yourself – the compilation will automatically be updated by JL-Bot after the next WP:DUMP (see Q9). Q8: How do I find out if a 'borderline' source, or a source not listed here, is good or not? A8: Bad signs Absent from standard comprehensive databases. An open access medical journal should at the very least be included in DOAJ and PubMed. An astronomical journal should at the very least be included in ADSABS. Inclusion is not a guarantee of being good, but an absence is certainly a red flag Advertising of non-selective services (Google Scholar/CrossRef/ISSN), especially if disproportionate Advertising of inclusion in junk databases (like Index Copernicus or Open Academic Journals Index). Being included in blacklists like Beall's list or Cabell's blacklist. Cessation of coverage in selective/comprehensive database for reasons other than the demise of the publication. If a publication is removed from a database, it usually is a sign that its quality came under question, and was no longer considered acceptable. Listing of fake impact factors like those from the International Impact Factor Services or the International Scientific Indexing, and other misleading metrics, like 'impact factors' self-calculated through ResearchGate or Google Scholar. Lying about being indexed in databases like DOAJ, Scopus or Web of Science. Reputable academics have criticized the peer-reviewing process and practices of a publication or publisher. ^ Note: You do not need to search those junk databases or fake impact factors, particularly the Open Academic Journals Index, since those website might try to infect your computer or phone with viruses. The point here is that if a journal or publisher brags about being included in one of those junk databases or brags about having a fake impact factor, it is not a good sign. Good signs The publication or publisher is listed in reputable and selective bibliographic databases like Index Medicus, Journal Citation Reports/Web of Science, or Scopus, which often rank sources according to metrics like the SCImago Journal Rank and the impact factor. Indexing is how academics determine quality. Publications or publishers at the top of selective rankings are probably good sources, while those at the bottom have more chance of being questionable. These rankings will rarely include flat-out predatory publishers, although it does still occur occasionally. Many predatory publications and publishers will straight-up lie about being included in selective rankings and impact factors. Always verify claims about inclusion in a specific database/ranking through the database/ranking itself. The publication or publisher was established before 2000 or so, before online publishing really took off. Prior to the 2000s, and before online publishing in general, setting up successful pay-to-publish (or nutjob venues in general) was considerably more difficult, as it required much more expenses and skills than simply running a website. Still not a guarantee of anything, of course, but it's a good sign. Kendall, Graham; Linacre, Simon (September 2022). "Predatory Journals: Revisiting Beall's Research". Publishing Research Quarterly. 38 (3): 530–543. doi:10.1007/s12109-022-09888-z. ISSN 1053-8801. S2CID 249050948. Scopus is usually considered a reliable source to indicate that a journal is reputable. Van Noorden, Richard (2014-08-01). "Open-access website gets tough". Nature. 512 (7512): 17. Bibcode:2014Natur.512...17V. doi:10.1038/512017a. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 25100463. Beall points out, many researchers and universities will instead judge a journal's quality by whether it is indexed in major citation databases, such as Elsevier's Scopus index... Things that count for nothing/not much Many publications and publishers claim being 'under consideration' from selective databases, but unless and until they are actually included in those, this counts for nothing as this is often an attempt at appearing legitimate. Inclusion in databases for new publications, like the Emerging Sources Citation Index. These bibliographic services are designed to keep track of new and less-established publications, and will as such contain a mix of good and bad sources. Q9: When is The Citewatch updated? A9: The Citewatch is on a dual update cycle. Major updates: The CiteWatch makes use of database dumps, which are normally generated on the 1st and 20th of each month. These database dumps take a few days to generate, take a few hours to download, and then take about a day or so to process. Which means The CiteWatch normally gets a major update 2–4 days after the 1st and 20th of each month. These updates will reflect new citations, updates to existing citations (e.g. typo fixes), new articles/redirects, and updates to existing articles/redirects made since the last dump. Minor updates: The CiteWatch will update daily following changes to WP:CITEWATCH/SETUP and WP:CITEWATCH/EXCLUDE, and in the categorization of articles and redirects. If no changes happened, no update will occur. Sometimes the bot logic is tweaked, which may also result in updates. Q10: What is the difference between The Citewatch and Headbomb's unreliable/predatory source detector script? Which is better? A10: The Citewatch looks at data dumps and reports what is found in the |journal= and, to a lesser extent, the |doi= parameters of {{cite xxx}} templates. Headbomb's script instead looks at the URLs found in live version of articles. While both are developed in parallel, they are independently maintained and operate based on different principles and not all sources picked by one will be picked by the other. In general, The Citewatch is a good tool to find articles with bad sources, while Headbomb's script is a good tool to detect which sources are bad. Both have their uses, but the script will catch more things since it is not limited to only the |journal= and |doi= parameters of citation templates, but rather all URLs and all source types, regardless of template usage.

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Academic Journals This page is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal Open Access Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Misplaced Pages/Questionable1 is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Open AccessWikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task forceTemplate:WikiProject Open AccessOpen access WikiProject Open Access to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Creative Commons licensing (to replace Creative Commons license); Creative Commons Attribution License (currently a redirect), reproducible research (currently a redirect), supplementary material. Scholarly Open Access (currently a redirect) Cleanup : Access2Research Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stub-Class Open access articles. Other : add {{WikiProject Open Access}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess; Check media files uploaded by the Open Access Media Importer for missing or incomplete categorization or lack of descriptions, or put the files into suitable Misplaced Pages articles. See also recent uploads of open-access files more generally. Reliability This page is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Misplaced Pages articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability

Can false positives be removed?

So I was scanning through this, and noticed that the Robert M. Rennick Manuscript Collection is listed under the "conspiracy theories" tab, likely because one of the other entries involves the name Robert M. The Robert M. Rennick Manuscript Collection is a collection of place names in Kentucky I've used a source before (mainly to determine the nature of the place). It is most certainly not a conspiracy theory. Hog Farm _Talk 04:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, quite easily. see #Q4 in the FAQ above. It's listed because Robert M. Rennick Manuscript Collection is close enough to "Robert M.", which redirects to Amsterdam sex crimes case. I've bypassed it here, so it should get removed in the next run. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

North American Journal of Psychology

I believe that the North American Journal of Psychology (NAJP) is probably questionable, but I'm hardly an expert so I thought I should check. I've made a list of potential red flags:

• Editorial policy makes it pretty clear that they'll accept papers that many reliable journals wouldn't This is up to and including them saying that they are seeking papers on "Topics that are 'unpopular' in other journals".
• They publish papers that have very major methodological and theoretical flaws. For example - an article where part of the justification is The Secret, and the study picks out and compared 2 individual questions from a questionnaire (NOT how a questionnaire should be analysed), with no justification as to why they picked those specific questions.
• They advise people to add other authors onto their paper in order to reduce cost of application. It seems really weird to me to advise that authors give credit to people who weren't involved for the sake of authors saving money.
• The publisher of the NAJP is NAJP.
• Bad impact factor and SCImago ranking, with no improvement over time.
• As far as I've seen, the articles don't have DOIs. Potentially relatedly, they encourage authors to upload their articles to ResearchGate, etc, with an implication that getting the research accessible to people is the responsibility of the author.
• I checked the issues they've released over 2021 and 2020, and the journal's editor, McCutcheon, has published at least one article in every issue. And they're not even editorials, they're research articles. In every issue at least one other member of their advisory/consulting editors has also published a research article.
  • I'd normally assume it's fine, but because (as far as I can tell) there's a habit of publishing their "inner circle's" papers, it seems worth mentioning that there are a handful of other perennial authors, e.g. Clark and Ready.

I don't know heaps about what's normal practice in journals, so feel free to tell me if any of these aren't actually a problem. Please ping me if you respond. Cheers! --Xurizuri (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

References

1. NAJP Editorial Philosophy
2. NAJP Types of Papers Encouraged
3. Against All Odds - Are Abundant Thinkers Really Wealthier? The Cross-Country Analysis on Abundant Thinkers and their Income Scale (on Research Gate)
4. ^ NAJP Helpful Hints

It does seem borderline, but it's also indexed in Scopus as a middle-of-the-pack journal. I'd suggest getting consensus at WP:RSN and asking for WP:PSY people to opine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very helpful! I'll do that. Also, apparently it's middle of the pack for specifically sociology and political science, which is unexpected, but here we are. (39th percentile for sociology and pol sci, 29th for education, 18th for developmental/education psych, 17th for general psych - strange stuff). --Xurizuri (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

International Journal of Information Research and Review

I've stumbled across this article published in what is claimed to be a fully peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

The article reads, however, like a bad translation from Google Translate, and apparently some of it is maybe from Azeri: For example, mol! to be a report of the American historian. R. Hovhannisyan on "the Crisis in the Caucasus", which was read at the conference organized" Corporation "Rand". On 28-29 August 1993, in Co - livornica Year, or Russian: Armenians deystvitelno have taught us the horrors of modern war, (действительно = really), These were monstrous zverst Armenian murderers to the beginning of Sumgayit events. and We believe it is necessary to note that the Sumgait event is wholly the handiwork of the Armenian ekstremistov. Provakatsii prepared long before February 1988 on the territory of Armenia. Not to mention that it lays the blame for the Sumgait pogrom on Armenians.

This can't possibly be a good journal if the "peer reviewers" can't notice that submissions are written using copy-paste from Google Translate. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It should already be picked up by the Citewatch. It's just not been cited on Misplaced Pages as of the last dump (1 February, see #Q9 above). I'll add it to WP:UPSD however (which I recommend using if you don't already use it). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

International Journal of Coronaviruses

So I've come across this and don't know what to make of it. It's not listed on Scopus or on Beall's list, or anywhere else at all from what I could find. One of its papers is presently being used to claim that there was insignificant undercounting or data manipulation on Covid-19 cases in India and China using Benford's Law which looks dodgy as it contradicts most other sources. Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here, I don't deal with predatory journals often. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Project-Class Academic Journal pages
• WikiProject Academic Journal articles
• NA-Class Open access pages
• NA-importance Open access pages
• WikiProject Open Access articles
• WikiProject Reliability pages