Talk:List of humanities journals
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
There is an RfC regarding the standardization of journal lists names. Please comment at Talk:List of journals#RFC. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Inclusion criteria
editThe lead states the inclusion criteria for this list as including:
- only the most influential, currently publishing journals in each field [...] each field should be represented by about 5 examples, chosen for their current academic importance.
But I don't see how we could possibly determine that objectively. No sources are cited. Looking at the choices for my own field (archaeology), they seem completely arbitrary. The American Journal of Archaeology isn't even the most influential archaeology journal in the US (that'd probably be American Antiquity), never mind internationally, and honestly this is the first I've heard of Babesch and Revue d'Égyptologie.
Can we come up with selection criteria for this list that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources
? Alternatively, should we consider converting it into a list of lists? @Headbomb, Randykitty, and David Eppstein: maybe you have an opinion? – Joe (talk) 08:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- The only objective criterion that I'm aware of is the (much-criticized) impact factor, which is not well-suited for the humanities, as citation rates are pretty low in that field. Converting this to a list of lists might indeed be the best way to go. But perhaps Headbomb or David have a better idea. --Randykitty (talk) 10:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- The only criteria we ever constantly used for these lists is do they have an article on Wikipedia? There's one with redlinked journals but that has external sources endorsing the entries as top journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, for other analogous lists, the inclusion criterion is whether they have standalone bluelinked articles. This is relatively easy to decide and manage. Example: List of computer science conferences. One thing to be careful of: the journal itself needs to have an article. We would not want to list all journals from certain publishers, merely because those journals redirect to an article on the publisher. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- That could work, but then there'd be a lot of duplication of the lists for individual fields. – Joe (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, for other analogous lists, the inclusion criterion is whether they have standalone bluelinked articles. This is relatively easy to decide and manage. Example: List of computer science conferences. One thing to be careful of: the journal itself needs to have an article. We would not want to list all journals from certain publishers, merely because those journals redirect to an article on the publisher. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- The only criteria we ever constantly used for these lists is do they have an article on Wikipedia? There's one with redlinked journals but that has external sources endorsing the entries as top journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)