Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1/FAQ

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 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).^{[note 1]}
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.^{[note 1]}
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.

^ ^a ^b 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,^[1] which often rank sources according to metrics like the SCImago Journal Rank and the impact factor. Indexing is how academics determine quality.^[2]

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 generally nutjob venues) 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.

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.

^ 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...

[:1-1] 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.

[2] 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.

[3] 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...

[note 1]

[1]

[2]