Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals

WikiProject Academic Journals (talk) Resources (talk) Writing guide (talk) Assessment (talk) Notability guide (talk) Journals cited by Wikipedia (talk)

---

How should we treat postpublication peer review with invited reviewers?

See Open peer review and ScienceOpen. Do we treat them the same way as we do traditional peer review? Doug Weller talk 13:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Interesting question. F1000Research does this. Articles only get into MEDLINE and other databases if they pass the (open) peer review. --Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• As for ScienceOpen, I found them when I found this terrible article.[1] he Hopewell Cosmic Airburst Event: A review of the empirical evidence Kenneth Barnett Tankersley . Stephen D. Meyers 2 ,.Stephanie A. Meyers .

This is published in "Airbursts and Cratering Impacts"[2] who have an interesting editorial policy:

"Our journal collection, "Airbursts and Cratering Impacts," covers all aspects of impact events on the Earth by comets and asteroids. It is open-access, peer-reviewed, and multidisciplinary, and it encourages submissions on significant, cutting-edge, impact-related investigations that:

Are broadly multidisciplinary, making them difficult to review;

Run counter to a prevailing view;

Are too novel to receive a fair review; or

Have been rejected by other journals. "

There's more but I won't quote it here.

As for Tankersley, he's a weird choice given his specialty is Native American sociopolitical issues and human adaptation to catastrophic events.[3] Not sure why he's first on this. There are other serious issues to do with him but no need to bring them here. The point is that this is a fringe journal. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia

Acta zool. cracov. is on the list of most-cited journals that don't have an article, in the top 10. However in trying to remedy the missing page I found barely anything independent about it, not even a list of places it's indexed. Has anyone else tried to document this before and ran into the same issues I've had? (For anyone interested, I've made a draft: Draft:Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia) Reconrabbit 20:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

http://www.isez.pan.krakow.pl/en/acta-zoologica.html says Indexed in: BIOSIS Previews, Zoological Record, AGRO, Index Copernicus International, PBN - Polska Bibliografia Naukowa. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• According to Clarivate's Master Journal List, this journal is indexed in Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS Previews, and the Zoological Record. That makes it (borderline) notable, I think. --Randykitty (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Half of the journals in Polish Academy of Sciences#Periodicals doesn't list an impact factor. In case their notability is disputed, they could all be merged into a new List of Polish Academy of Sciences academic journals. fgnievinski (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Journal of Health Psychology

I think editors are needed to take a look at recent edits at Journal of Health Psychology and see what should be considered acceptable. An enthusiastic IP has made some edits in good faith, adding links to Special issues[4] and Special collections [5]. But these types of edits are not usually acceptable in Academic Journal articles.

Also, is it necessary to explicitly quote and retain these remarks pertaining to a controversy about the journal? [6]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Anime and Manga Studies

This AFD could use some input from knowledgeable editors. --Randykitty (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted for a third time, please participate in the discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Correspondences (journal) (2nd nomination)

This one, too. --Randykitty (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It has now been relisted twice with still only minimal participation. --Randykitty (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:TACL#Requested move 12 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TACL#Requested move 12 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_5#Security_&_Privacy

If people could comment on this, that would be great. It's an obvious case IMO but people are bringing weird arguments into it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases

I started an article on the journal Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases, based on a translation from the German Wikipedia. I have a question about the ISO 4 abbreviation. Should the B of borne in the abbreviation be a cap, as it is in the German Wikipedia? Also, the impact factor from 2014 is out of date, but I don't know where to find a more current value. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

For the infobox caps, yes, we capitalize systematically. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Society for Occupational Health Psychology

There is a content disagreement on this article's talk page concerning the section on its academic journal Occupational Health Science. The issue is discussed in this section of the article's talk page. The participation of knowledgeable editors would be welcome. --Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot_requests#User:RetractionBot,_v2

Some of you may have some thoughts on the proposed bot task. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)