Talk:International Journal of Stress Management

See also section of this journal and others

This journal has only one related topic placed under a recently created and unneccessary 'see also' section of the article? There are obviously a lot more related topics that should be also now be included for balance and representation. However if another 10 or 20 other relevant fields were now added it may entirely 'dwarf' the brief format of a journal? Maybe all journals should not include 'see also' sections. I notice most journals don't. Interested in other editor's opinions on this article issue and the proposal for all brief journal articles not to include a see also section?

Anyway, the see also section in this article, should be either: 1. deleted or 2. a lot more relevant topics added also.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171. I am ok with what you added. It gives the reader an idea of the scope of the journal by linking to topics it covers. At one time I thought it was best to only link to things that were closely related, but RandyKitty convinced me that it is ok to link to topics, even if they are not so closely related. Maybe other articles on journals should have more links too. Psyc12 (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I think not having a see also section at all, might be the best solution for brief journal articles. Otherwise it has the potential to 'dwarf' the article itself? It seems that most scientific journal articles don't have a see also section so my proposal is based on consistency and common sense.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• There is in principle nothing against a see also section, even in small articles. However, the entries should be directly and obviously relevant. For example, if there were only one other journal addressing stress management specifically (as opposed to journals that occasionally also address stress management), then that should be in the see also section. However, if we have, say, a neuroscience journal, then the fact that a lot of its articles use microscopes does not justify putting "physics" or "optics" in the see also section, not even if the journal occasionally publishes technical notes using a lot of physics/optics. Same here. Including "biofeedback" or other anti-stress techniques in the see also section is absolutely overkill. The same goes for occupational health psychology and industrial and organizational psychology. These should not be added to every see also section of every journal that perhaps occasionally publishes an article bearing on those fields. If the journal very regularly covers such developments, they should still not be in see also, because theywould need to be used in the body of text.

Similarly in the other journals referred to, given that we have a Category:Business and management journals that currently contains 165 entries (plus a number of subcategories with their own entries), it is rather capricious to include just one single journal in the see also section. Including all of them would be the other extreme. Of course, none need to be included, because anybody interested can find similar journals by simply going to the category. I hope this is clear enough and will remove yet again the different superfluous see also sections. --Randykitty (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

RandyKitty. This is not the position you took when I deleted organizational psychology from the see also list for Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health because it was not sufficiently relevant. You insisted that it should remain and put it back. In several articles I added I/O and other fields that regularly (not occasionally) contribute to AMJ, JOM, JOOP, you deleted them and now take the position it doesn't belong because it is not sufficiently relevant. These areas are a lot more relevant to these journals than organizational psychology was to EJWEH. There needs to be some consistency across these articles. Either it is relevant to list in the see also list, fields that are related to the article, or it isn't. If organizational psychology belongs in the EJWEH article, then there is nothing wrong with putting relevant fields in the see also lists of this and other articles. Psyc12 (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same position that I took there. Note that if you look in the history of this article that I did not delete the see also section completely, but left in "occupational health psychology". Look at the edits and you'll see that they are consistent. --Randykitty (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)