This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tercer (talk | contribs) at 13:23, 5 July 2023 (→Let's mark this page as "historical": Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:23, 5 July 2023 by Tercer (talk | contribs) (→Let's mark this page as "historical": Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability (academic journals) page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | Academic Journals Project‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 10 December 2016. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
SCOPUS
is so selective, that being listed auto-entitles to a standalone article? Meh. ∯WBG 14:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think C1 needs to be changed. For example: "Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals" I don't know how many journals have an impact factor calculated, but it's a very large number. Are we saying that there are at least 34,346 journals that should have wikipedia articles? Natureium (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't believe it auto-entitles to a standalone article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- 35,000 seems in the right ballpark to me. Also Scopus inclusion doesn't imply an impact factor, that's computed by Journal Citation Reports. Scopus produces the SCImago Journal Rank however. Keep in mind, many of those will be treated as series (e.g. Current Opinion) or be part of a publisher entry instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- This seems to be a frequently asked question: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academic_journals)/Archive_2#SCImago. fgnievinski (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- I went ahead and complemented 1.c based on 1.b: . fgnievinski (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
ESCI vs. SCOPUS?
Given that SCOPUS is used to separate selective from nonselective journals, I like to urge the inclusion of Clarivate's Emerging Sources Citation Index (it covered 7800 titles in 2015), and of course also the A&HCI (that is, all citation indexes of the Web of Science Core Collection). From my pint of view there is no justification to generally consider a SCOPUS journal more "notable" than an ESCI journal. oc 16:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prooc (talk • contribs)
- The ESCI is exactly for that. Emerging sources, i.e. sources which might become notable, but which aren't. That's the difference. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- So in your view the private company Clarivate Analytics decides wheter a journal is notable or emerging? Really? Is that Wikipedian style? I am sorry, but your argument does not work well. The point is selection and both SCOPUS and ESCI are by far not as selective as SCIE or SSCI. That is what I refer to: SCOPUS vs. ESCI (see title), not ESCI vs. SCIE/SSCI. Best, oc 18:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Google Scholar for C2
Google Scholar (probably the most common resource for citations) is named as a reliable source for verifying Criterion 2.b. However, Google Scholar does not provide the number of citations to a journal (correct me if I'm wrong). Instead, you can find the h-index of journals. I think it should be clarified to help the contributors in finding sources. MojoDiJi (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- H-index is what is implied here. If you see several papers with hundreds of citations, it's a highly cited journals. If you see a smattering of citations, it's (probably) not. But because GS is incomplete, that probably not is not a nail in the coffin, since it could still be highly cited/influential, just outside of things that are covered by GS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Headbomb, that's my point! If it implies h-index, it should state h-index not citations to journals. Then, Scopus should not be on the list because Scopus reports the number of citations rather than h-index. The purpose of a guide is to lead people to the sources where they can get what is needed. MojoDiJi (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- H-index is based on citations to journals. It's one of the many ways of quantifying it, not the only way. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Headbomb:, H-index is not synonymous to citations. H-index is heavily in favor of older journals. The guide should clearly lead people to where they can find h-index and where absolute number of citations. MojoDiJi (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed it's not, and that's why we're not saying h-index, but citations. As for 'favoring older journals' I don't really see what's that got to do with the price of beans, especially if you're bringing this up as a negative. It's not. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Headbomb:, newer journals have a low h-index no matter how influential they are because they have a lower number of papers in a shorter lifespan to have many papers with many citations. MojoDiJi (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- If they have a low h-index, then by very definition, they haven't had the time to become influential yet. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: it is utterly incorrect. New journals can be devoted to new topics and influential in their emerging fields. They should be compared with their counterparts. On the other hand, some most influential journals publish a limited number of papers and their h-index is not as high as their counterparts. For instance, CA with an impact factor of 508 is the exceptionally influential but its h-index is not as high as its impact factor. MojoDiJi (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I feel I'm talking past you. Yes, new journals can be notable. Citations won't show this however, and instead in those cases we rely on indexing in selective indexes like JCR (i.e. impact factor) and Scopus (i.e. CiteScore). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: believe it or not, scientometrics is an active area of research in which researchers are investigating various factors for more than 40 years. H-index, citations, IF, CiteScore or any other factor is not the ultimate answer. Anyhow, this is beside the point. As I said in the first line, a guide should direct people where to find what. It is useless to say citations are a good factor and Google Scholar is a reliable source; h-index is a good factor and Scopus is a reliable source. MojoDiJi (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Except that citations are a good factor and Google Scholar is one of the many possible ways to show that. For example, if GS show an h index of 3, that's not good enough to show notability. If GS shows an h index of 750, showing it is near the top of its field, that's enough.
- The criteria are not exclusive. If there's a bias in a certain field, or for a certain journal, that just means GS fails to show notability for that journal. It's not a blocker. If a journal has an h index of 3 in GS, but it's got an impact factor of 12.5, the impact factor trumps the GS.
- If you don't understand this, I suggest moving on from the area of academic journals and moving on to something you enjoy editing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: believe it or not, scientometrics is an active area of research in which researchers are investigating various factors for more than 40 years. H-index, citations, IF, CiteScore or any other factor is not the ultimate answer. Anyhow, this is beside the point. As I said in the first line, a guide should direct people where to find what. It is useless to say citations are a good factor and Google Scholar is a reliable source; h-index is a good factor and Scopus is a reliable source. MojoDiJi (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I feel I'm talking past you. Yes, new journals can be notable. Citations won't show this however, and instead in those cases we rely on indexing in selective indexes like JCR (i.e. impact factor) and Scopus (i.e. CiteScore). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: it is utterly incorrect. New journals can be devoted to new topics and influential in their emerging fields. They should be compared with their counterparts. On the other hand, some most influential journals publish a limited number of papers and their h-index is not as high as their counterparts. For instance, CA with an impact factor of 508 is the exceptionally influential but its h-index is not as high as its impact factor. MojoDiJi (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- If they have a low h-index, then by very definition, they haven't had the time to become influential yet. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Headbomb:, newer journals have a low h-index no matter how influential they are because they have a lower number of papers in a shorter lifespan to have many papers with many citations. MojoDiJi (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed it's not, and that's why we're not saying h-index, but citations. As for 'favoring older journals' I don't really see what's that got to do with the price of beans, especially if you're bringing this up as a negative. It's not. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Headbomb:, H-index is not synonymous to citations. H-index is heavily in favor of older journals. The guide should clearly lead people to where they can find h-index and where absolute number of citations. MojoDiJi (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- H-index is based on citations to journals. It's one of the many ways of quantifying it, not the only way. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Headbomb, that's my point! If it implies h-index, it should state h-index not citations to journals. Then, Scopus should not be on the list because Scopus reports the number of citations rather than h-index. The purpose of a guide is to lead people to the sources where they can get what is needed. MojoDiJi (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Idea for Criterion 4
There are some reliable categorizations of journals by the level of reputation. For example, Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator level run by the Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science (heavily used by Wikidata) categorizes journals into three levels: ordinary, distinguished, and exceptional. I suggest adding Criterion 4 to verify the notability of a journal quickly if it is in level 2 or 3 without going through the available three criteria, which are subjective and discipline-dependent. MojoDiJi (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's the same as Criterion 1. If DBRI points to a journal being 'exceptional', that's a clear pass of Criterion 1. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Headbomb, they're similar but not the same. Criterion 1 covers all specialized sources, but what I suggested is a speedy check through comprehensive lists. It can be implemented in Criterion 1 if establishing that listed at level 2 and 3 of Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator level automatically satisfies C1. I just wish to avoid wasting time over unnecessary and subjective discussions, as I raised the concern on Teahouse over Nano Energy. MojoDiJi (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- My advice is to ignore the teahouse/AFC brouhaha and focus on the AFD. Nano Energy is not in any danger of being deleted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Headbomb:, it's not a matter of danger, it wastes time and energy of people who could contribute something new instead. MojoDiJi (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- You're not going to get 8 billion people to agree on everything. If 8 billion people agreeing is a requirement for your participation on Misplaced Pages, you're going to have a very very frustrating experience here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: it has nothing to do with the agreement, it is about clear guidelines. I can legitimately nominate Journal of the American Chemical Society for deletion since the references do not justify the notability (there is not even an independent reference; the first one is not even a proper reference, and the page itself is weaker than Nano Energy). But no sane person would vote to delete this influential journal. It is waste of time. MojoDiJi (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Taking that journal to AfD would be a failure of WP:BEFORE. What counts is not the sources present in the article, but the sources that could be in the article. This journal clearly meets NJournals, so taking it to AfD would be as mistaken as taking Nano Energy to AfD (and would be just as successful). --Randykitty (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Randykitty: that's exactly my point! We have to reduce such mistakes to avoid wasting the time which can be spent for contributing new materials. MojoDiJi (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem. Inappropriate AfDs for academic journals are very rare and it takes just a minute to !vote "keep". --Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Randykitty:, it's not that simple. When I created Nano Energy, an editor moved it to draft space. I had to complain on their talk page to restore the page. It's not an ideal procedure. MojoDiJi (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Again, this is because there are 8 billion people on the planet, which can all edit Misplaced Pages. Yes you can take Journal of the American Chemical Society to AFD. And it would be kept. People are allowed to be wrong, have different opinions, or even be ignorant of current standards. See also Help:My article got nominated for deletion! if you haven't already. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: then, why do we have protected and semi-protected articles? Because too many edits/reverts are exhausting. Then, why do we have Notability (academic journals) in addition to the general notability? Because we wish to facilitate the process. Let people to be wrong as they like and see how long Misplaced Pages survive. MojoDiJi (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- So far it's been 22 years and we're still going strong. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: Misplaced Pages survived 22 years because it followed what I stressed. All the guides, policies, discussions (like this one) reduced the mistakes. MojoDiJi (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- So far it's been 22 years and we're still going strong. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: then, why do we have protected and semi-protected articles? Because too many edits/reverts are exhausting. Then, why do we have Notability (academic journals) in addition to the general notability? Because we wish to facilitate the process. Let people to be wrong as they like and see how long Misplaced Pages survive. MojoDiJi (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Again, this is because there are 8 billion people on the planet, which can all edit Misplaced Pages. Yes you can take Journal of the American Chemical Society to AFD. And it would be kept. People are allowed to be wrong, have different opinions, or even be ignorant of current standards. See also Help:My article got nominated for deletion! if you haven't already. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Randykitty:, it's not that simple. When I created Nano Energy, an editor moved it to draft space. I had to complain on their talk page to restore the page. It's not an ideal procedure. MojoDiJi (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem. Inappropriate AfDs for academic journals are very rare and it takes just a minute to !vote "keep". --Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Randykitty: that's exactly my point! We have to reduce such mistakes to avoid wasting the time which can be spent for contributing new materials. MojoDiJi (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Taking that journal to AfD would be a failure of WP:BEFORE. What counts is not the sources present in the article, but the sources that could be in the article. This journal clearly meets NJournals, so taking it to AfD would be as mistaken as taking Nano Energy to AfD (and would be just as successful). --Randykitty (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: it has nothing to do with the agreement, it is about clear guidelines. I can legitimately nominate Journal of the American Chemical Society for deletion since the references do not justify the notability (there is not even an independent reference; the first one is not even a proper reference, and the page itself is weaker than Nano Energy). But no sane person would vote to delete this influential journal. It is waste of time. MojoDiJi (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- You're not going to get 8 billion people to agree on everything. If 8 billion people agreeing is a requirement for your participation on Misplaced Pages, you're going to have a very very frustrating experience here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Headbomb:, it's not a matter of danger, it wastes time and energy of people who could contribute something new instead. MojoDiJi (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- My advice is to ignore the teahouse/AFC brouhaha and focus on the AFD. Nano Energy is not in any danger of being deleted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Headbomb, they're similar but not the same. Criterion 1 covers all specialized sources, but what I suggested is a speedy check through comprehensive lists. It can be implemented in Criterion 1 if establishing that listed at level 2 and 3 of Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator level automatically satisfies C1. I just wish to avoid wasting time over unnecessary and subjective discussions, as I raised the concern on Teahouse over Nano Energy. MojoDiJi (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's the same as Criterion 1. If DBRI points to a journal being 'exceptional', that's a clear pass of Criterion 1. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Is abstracting and indexing useful?
The criteria for the notability of academic journals are much stricter than the conditions for admission to any indexing system. As a result, all journals with standalone articles on Misplaced Pages are indexed by major indexing systems.
Visually, the largest parge of most journal articles on Misplaced Pages is the voluminous section of Abstracting and Indexing. I do not say not mentioning them, but is it really necessary/useful to allocate such a large part of the articles for something which is almost the same for all journals? MojoDiJi (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Almost the same for all journals". It varies a lot from journal to journal. And yes, indexing matters. Indexing is what tells us who considers the journal important. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: How many journals have a Misplaced Pages page and are not indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded and Scopus? Only very low level journals cannot get indexed. MojoDiJi (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Loads. They could be indexed in Science Citation Index instead. Or they could not be included in any WOS-related indices at all. Take for example Journal of Cosmology, or Journal des savants indexed in neither. Inclusion in SCI/SCIE/Scopus shouldn't be surprising given we use inclusion in either as a (usually) sufficient criteria for meeting WP:NJOURNALS, but there's loads of counter examples and other indices. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: How many journals have a Misplaced Pages page and are not indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded and Scopus? Only very low level journals cannot get indexed. MojoDiJi (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Let's mark this page as "historical"
I've had enough. I am of the opinion that this is a pseudoWP:PAG and that it is actively confusing the community. I believe the rules it presents are arcane, arbitrary, sometimes nonsensical, and have let to a bloat on Misplaced Pages with a proliferation of terrible (non-)articles on no-name academic journals. I argue further that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS has formed here, so a broader community WP:RfC is in order. I invite everyone who has any stake or interest in this to help draft a neutral call here. jps (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- I concur. For the sake of centralizing the discussion, let me repeat my comment from WP:FTN: while reading through the old deletion discussion, I've learned that WP:NJOURNALS was intended to be a guideline, which is why it is written as one. In the ensuing discussion it failed to gather support. It should have been tagged as {{failed}} then, but got tagged instead as {{essay}}, even though it was never intended as one. Now it's too late to fix this mistake, so the only solution is to mark it as {{historical}}.
- Hopefully this will finally stop editors confusing it with an actual guideline. This is not an idle concern, this confusion happens frequently and causes actual damage, as illustrated by the recent AfD for Physics Essays. Tercer (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)