Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Superseded

It would seem that this AfD decision renders this essay obsolete. --Crusio (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

How so? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Very simple: If we want to be consistent, this AfD means that each and every academic journal ever published is notable. All get some GS hits, all have at least one issue, and for all there is always a way that one can argue makes them unique. I have not problem with the position that we should have an article on every peer-reviewed journal. That position lakes a lot of sense: otherwise we would have the situation that a particular journal could be a reliable source, but might at the same time not be notable enough to merit an article and readers of WP would see a reference to Journal of Foo, without having any further info on that journal. Same here, the JoIS obviously does not meet any of our notability guidelines, but equally obviously is a reliable source. --Crusio (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it means that in the least. This guideline says keep on those which are "1) considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area", "2) frequently cited by other reliable sources" or "3) has a historic purpose or has a significant history". As far as I'm concerned 1) is met, but even if it weren't 3) is certainly met, this being one of the only journals ever written in Cree. And we should also note that some journals may even fail all three criteria, but could be notable for other reasons. I can't help but feel that you're being pointy here... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

How to find independent sources

Relatively few existing journal articles (especially stubs) actually name any independent sources. I think it would be helpful to suggest standard places to look for such things. Citing impact factors to the source (rather than the publisher's website) is one option. What are others? Are there any industry trade magazines that might report on newly created journals? Any books about the publishers? Any "guidebooks" to help academics figure out which journals exist and might be appropriate for a given type of writing? Any other ideas? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Aren't impact factor all verifiable in the same place, namely Journal Citation Reports?

The "guidebooks" are usually called indexing services, and of course there are a lot of them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Carl is correct, that's where the IFs come from and JCR is an independent third party source. I usually include the following phrase in journal articles: "According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2009 impact factor of 1.234". I could add "<ref>''Journal Citation Reports'', 2010</ref>", I guess, but usually am too lazey for that? I'm afraid. Apart from that, there are very few trade magazines that report on new journals. One is the Times Educational Supplement, but it is only a very small number of new journals that they cover. As Carl notes, other indexing services are a guide to notability: for instance, if MEDLINE decides to cover a journal, that means they are confident it will survive and think that it provides good material. Although that doesn't give much material that can be added to a journal, it is an independent third party source for establishing notability. Again, we generally don't bother adding sources for this, although Steve Quinn, for example, is very good about the latter and generally includes a reference. (Although I am not sure that is according to policy, because this generally means linking to a search result, which, I think, policy tells us to avoid). --Crusio (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course that phrase is rather redundant if |impact= and |impact-year= are populated in {{infobox journal}}, but if it is the chief reason for claiming notability, JCR probably should be cited, if only to preempt challenges. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional criteria

• Journals are often represented as "an official journal of XYZ society". Should we not consider this in the guideline? Certainly for major non-fringe learned societies this ought to establish notability, even before indexing has had time to establish an impact factor.
• Journals produced by noted individual editors will often contain editorials of note, even though these are wp:PRIMARY sources. This is especially so when such editorials address controversial subjects: other publications may reply in their own pages rather than as comments or letters in the subject journal. Citations of editorials may be fairly easy to find in such cases.
• Journals which published groundbreaking papers may be notable on that account alone. This is particularly the case when such papers present ideas previously rejected as fringe by established journals only to become accepted later.
• Pre-1923 journals are often available in entire volumes in online archives, particularly the internet archive. These often contain year-end indices.

Comments? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Essay says it's a guideline

The essay appears to say it is a guideline but it is not a guideline. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• This was a proposed guideline and therefore is written as a guideline. The tag on top clearly identifies it as an essay. Nevertheless, it should be noted that it is used (like similar essays) regularly in AfD debates and rarely challenged. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Piotrus' thoughts on this proposed guideline

I think this is a good start, and I'd like to see this transformed into a proper guideline, however I have to agree with some previous commentators on several issues to be addressed. I agree with the editors wo argue this should be more inclusive. Let me point to a related discussion atWikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Notability_of_learned_societies_with_weak_coverage, where the consensus was that for a lot of academic organizations (and journals, even more so), but there are few if any reliable sources - yet that doesn't mean those organizations (journals) are not notable. In fact, an editor in a closing statement suggested we use IAR over GNG when dealing with some academic topics, and I think this is important in this case. I am really leaning towards the position that any and all peer reviewed academic journals should be notable.

On another note, this article needs to acknowledge the fact that with Academic Spring and open content publishing, the reliance on traditional publishers and indices in the field is undergoing a major change. The past few years have seen the emergence of many open content publications that are increasingly important, but are not indexed, nor published by any big name. At the very least, this guideline needs to clarify how to deal with those type of journals. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Piotrus, after all the effort that I put into this proposal, I'd love to see it elevated to guideline. Unfortunately, I don't think it'll happen. If you read the discussion at the time, you'll see that it got slammed as much for being not inclusive enough as for being too inclusive. If you'd make it even more inclusive, then my guess is that even more people will be upset about it and the proposal will never fly. Better to keep it as it is. Even though it is only an essay, it's used regularly as justification in PROD or AFD discussions (in the latter case, bot to argue for deletion or for keeping articles). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • These are the journals we have trouble with in AfD. They are now so easy to produce and require so little investment, that there are many publishers which are almost totally untrustworthy. The problem is, there are are also some that are , let us say, over-optimistic: they will list 50 OA journals, of which only a few have any real content. This depends mainly of whether they can get a good editor in chief, who is the person responsible for getting good scientists to submit decent manuscripts. I tend to judge them by the quantity and quality of their contents. Many of these are quite borderline, and a few years will tell if they take off: I don't hesitate to say what I'd say of many people of organizations is any field "not yet notable" . A person pushing for entry of a journal with only 2 or 3 articles is almost certainly trying to promote it: they may succeed, but we can't know that ahead of time. Established publishers usually know not to release a new journal until they have a convincing number of good articles. DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Defining "Selective Database"?

Hi folks! I've noticed several times in different AfDs and PRODs that folks are pointing out whether a journal is indexed in a scholarly database and/or a selective scholarly database. Can someone point me to the place where those distinctions are defined? Or where there's a list of databases that fall under each category? Thanks! Phoenixred (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, I don't think we have a definition or a list. For most databases, things are pretty clear: Google Scholar strives to cover everything and is thus not selective. DOAJ strives to cover every OA journal and is not selective either. MEDLINE (but not PubMed) has a very stringent review procedure to decide which journals to cover, as does Thomson Reuters (formerly ISI, produces Science Citation Index and its variants), and therefore these are selective. Scopus is a bit less restricitve, but we still generally accept it as indicating notability. Things get more difficult with more specialized databases covering only more restricted fields. In case of doubt, we generally consult User:DGG, a very knowledgeable academic librarian and more or less accept his verdict. It might indeed be worthwhile to create a list of databases, grouped according to selectivity. Could be handy in AfDs (or even in deciding whether or not to go to AfD), although such a list never could be binding, of course (as even WP:NJournals is not binding, being only an "essay"...). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That sounds good, Randykitty. I'm an academic librarian as well (not that it matters that much here on WP), so I think I could contribute to a list of selective of databases for other areas (like ATLA/S for religious studies, or MLA International Bibliography for literature). Could you start such a page? I'm not really sure where such a list would be best located, in relationship to WP:NJournals. Phoenixred (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• We could place it somewhere here in the WPJournals project space and link to it from NJournals. At the moment, I'm rather busy (writing a grant application and correcting book proofs...), so if it depends on me, this will have to wait till January. BTW, ATLA and MLA are indeed generally regarded as pretty selective and good evidence for notability. --Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change

Related this this, I recently used inclusion in Scopus alone as meeting evidence of meeting criteria 1 of this essay, but having reviewed DGG's archives, he notes the selectiveness of Scopus may be significantly lower than Web of Science, for example. The particular AfD I was involved in is probably evidence of that. Should Scopus be removed from Notes and Examples #1? Else some note added about it having potentially lower standards? Jebus989^✰ 15:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The selectivity of the two services is currently not very different; basically, ever since Scopus was founded, they have been trying to leapfrog each other. Initially Scopus had more material from outside the main US & Western European publishers, & outside the English language; SCI copied them. Previously Scopus had more material in the social science and the humanities; WOS copied them here also, to a lesser extent. I consider being present in either as notability enough.

Not being present in either is to me a fairly strong negative indicator for publications from US & western European academic and society publishers in the sciences. For other fields, countries, or languages, absence is irrelevant also. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Selectivity, like reliability, is not a simple measure but a matter of degree. There are some good selective services, such as MLA, or Chemical Abstracts, which will include an individual item from almost anything if it has a single valuable article, and never include it again. A key word for some indexes is "indexed compelteely" or "cover-to-cover".

I would replace the wording by : the major academic index in the discipline or the selective general indexes WoS and Scopus.

Background: In the days of manual indexing, it cost money to add a journal. first you had to buy it--not all publishers are willing to send them free. Second, you had to manually index it, which is normally done by experienced para-professionals supervised by professionals with subject knowledge--sometimes, very high-level professionals. (Until about the 1950s, many indexes relied on volunteer scientists & worked more or less like the present day book reviewing--it exchange for getting a journal which you would read anyway, you indexed it and, often, wrote an elaborate manual abstract.) Third, you had to print it, which required a specialized printer, and mail it, and unless it was a subject of very wide interest, such as chemistry, there were a very limited number of purchasers,

All aspects of this are different. Most indexes are prepared on the basis of the title and abstract alone, and this is almost always available even to no-subscribers. The depth of indexing is usually not very great, because it can be supplemented by keyword searching. (some indexes do no actual indexing; they simply include the titles as they stand, sometimes without even bothering with the abstracts) This can be an almost entirely automated operation. And, as we know here, it costs very little to increase the size of a database. From the publishers point of view, especially if doing entirely automated indexing, there is usually very little value in selectivity, and the advertisements usually stress is the very wide coverage. That the user will find only the material they might actually find valuable is generally a secondary consideration: it is assumed the ideal user is a researcher or patent searcher looking for everything. If there were better or worse indexes it a field, there could be ones of varying selectivity, but there is now really only one major international index in a field; the others are in some sense supplementary. I can certainly prepare a list , based on what I regard as the most reliable sources: the actual index holdings of research libraries. Libraries have to actually pay for these, at a cost of usually between $2,000 and $100,000 per index, and are therefore selective , not adding what their users do not actually want. (I do not regard guides to the literature as necessarily reliable in this regard: they usually try to include as much as they can.) DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Does a listing in DOAJ fulfill criterion 1?

In order for a journal to be listed at DOAJ, it undergoes a review process that looks at things like the editorial board and the review process in the journal (cf. guidelines for publishers). Is this a way to satisfy criterion 1 of these notability guidelines? -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Far as I can see, all DOAJ asks is that information is displayed clearly, which should indeed be a minimum requirement for any journal to be taken seriously. However, DOAJ does not do any quality check or more in-depth review and I think that most journals that are on Beall's list of predatory publishers are actually included in DOAJ. In any cae, I don't think DOAJ is nearly selective enough for criterion 1 and it has not been taken as such in AfDs up till now. --Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you clarify why Directory of Open Access Journals is continually not considered a selective indexer for the WikiProject Academic Journals when their inclusion criteria has become notably more selective over the last few years - for example, it now requires that a journal publishes at least five articles a year - or indeed what DOAJ needs to do to meet the criteria of being selective? Without recognition as a selective indexer many born-digital Open Access journals will not be considered notable despite their growing presence outside of more traditional indexers which have preference to index journals with print components. Sjh88 (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Because those are really the absolute minimum characteristics to even consider a website an academic journal. At best, iIf DOAJ manages to get their act together, they'll be an index of legitimate OA journals (i.e., excluding the fake, predatory ones). Being a legitimate journal is not (and has never been) sufficient for notability. It's not even a necessary requirement, because some non-legitimate journals or publishers sometimes become notable exactly because they are fake... So I don't think DOAJ will ever become selective enough for NJournals, nor should it be, because that is not its function. And "more traditional" indexers, at least nowadays, have no bias against online-only journals or OA. Most BMC journals, all PLOS journals, and many other online OA journals are included in Thomson Reuters databases or Scopus. Given the latter's relatively lax criteria (and coverage of absolutely every academic field, be it science or humanities), it never has been easier for a journal to meet our inclusion criteria. --Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt

The premiere reviewing and indexing sources for mathematics are Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt MATH. These cover about 1900 and 2300 journals respectively, constituting a more-or-less comprehensive coverage of the peer-reviews literature. It occasionally happend at AFD that coverage by one or other is taken as satisfying Note 1 to Criterion 1, "the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field". While this might be reasonable in general, since the major science indexes specifically promote themselves as selective, it is not the case here. Indeed, the value of these two sources to researchers, which is huge, comes largely from their comprehenive coverage. Coverage by MR or ZM certainly does not imply that a "journal is considered [...] to be influential in its subject area": it implies only that the jounral publishes peer-reviewed papers in mathematics.

I suggest a rewording of Note 1 to:

The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major selective indexing services in its field. Examples of such services are Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus. Comprehensive indexes such as Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt MATH, would not establish Criterion 1

(new wording underlined). Deltahedron (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Good proposal, I support this change. I propose a minimal change in wording: "Inclusion in comprehensive indexes such as, for example, Mathematical Reviews, Zentralblatt MATH, or Google Scholar would count toward fulfilling Criterion 1". First for grammatical reasons, scond to not focus exclusively on mathematics, and third to make it clear that this is not an exhaustive list of comprehensive indexes... --Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• While I agree that the criteria should be clarified to selective databases, I disagree that MR and ZB are such counter examples of that that they need to be specifically mentioned. See also previous discussions about MR and ZB. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• However, perhaps it would be best to clarify that we require MR journals to beat the average MCQ to establish influence (or top 33%, or whatever threshold we decide on. WP:MATH could help here). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Headbomb. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal The proposal is based on a faulty assumptions and inaccurate information. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, if editors would go to the linked discussion that Headbomb provided, we have already established that Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt MATH are acceptable for determining notability. So, I really don't understand this proposal nor the resistance in the current AFD Discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Please state what assumptions is being made that you think is faulty and why it is faulty: please also state which information you think is incorrect and give evidence for a correct version. Mere assertions of this nature are unhelpful. Deltahedron (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Furthermore, I'm well aware that a discussion was held three years ago: I think it was based on an incorrect premise, namely that MR and ZB are selective, and hence provide some kind of guarantee of notability. On the contrary, the evidence is that they are comprehensive, as is indeed well-known to working mathematicians, for whom their comprehensive nature is invaluable. Deltahedron (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate this summation of the very long and drawn out conversations that we had three years ago to establish the viability of MR and ZH. It cannot be so easily be dismissed and reduced to the statement they are merely "comprehensive". This is why working on Wikipedia is so difficult sometimes.

For one thing the use of the word "comprehensive" in this instance reduces this argument to either / or which is incorrect. There is much more to this issue.

I believe the word "comprehensive" in this instance is being misunderstood. "Comprehensive" means comprehensive coverage of a limited number of journals. Both MR and ZH limit the number of journals they cover; there is a cutoff - this means they are selective. So, no they are not quite the opposite in meaning.

Also, User:JeromKJerom in the AFD discussion has explained how Mathematical Reviews works - "please note that MathSciNet is, as a matter of fact, selective. It strives to be comprehensive, but only about journals of a certain level, as shown in my opinion by two simple facts: i) not every mathematics journal is indexed in MathSciNet, and all major ones are ii) in all 2013 (the year in which Memocs was indexed) MathSciNet added just 16 journals to its database".

User Codairem, stated at the AFD discussion "and any mathematician will tell you that they will take MathSciNet's ranking and selectivity over Web of Science's for journals in the field. Also WP:NJournals specifically mentions MathSciNet as a valuable resource in judging the notableness of a mathematics journal".

The same think came up in discussions about MR and ZB. We encountered similar issues. Therefore, I say let's listen to the mathematicians, who know their field. And basing an entire argument on the word "comprehensive" is not he best argument. Here is why....

Although ZH "covers the entire field of mathematics" - this is not the same thing as covering every single published mathematics journal in existence, as has been explicitly stated or implied.

This actually means ZH covers a limited number of journals (about 2000) which also cover the entire field of mathematics.

Heck, one journal can cover the entire field of mathematics, or in other words, cover all the major disciplines in mathematics - and ZH is a reviewing service - so, yeah, they could certainly cover the entire field of mathematics.

There are Physics journals that cover all the major disciplines in Physics. I am sure there are Chemistry journals that cover all the major Chemistry disciplines. It all depends on the research papers the particular journal accepts or decides to include. So, comprehensive in this instance means, comprehensively covering all the disciplines in mathematics, but limiting the number of journals covered to 2000, or 3500, or whatever. And that means there is selection process. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, I apologize if my previous responses seemed terse. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Some comments

• "Let's listen to the mathematicians". It will be clear from my contributions (linked from the user page) that I am a mathematician. I use MR and ZM as working tools in my daily life. I value them precisely because there's a very good chance that any paper I am likely to want to know about will have been at least indexed and probably reviewed by them.
• Comprehensive vs selective. MR and ZM are selective, in the very weak sense that they select journals which are actually published and peer-reviewed, and publish mathematics. This is not selective in the strong sense in which we are using it here. Selective for the purpose of this discussion means choosing a subset of journals considered to be important, influential or noteworthy in some way. MR and ZM are comprehensive in the strong sense that they attempt to cover all the articles likely to be useful or interesting to a mathematician, and this they do very well.

• Then what criteria do you suggest should be used to determine if the journals covered are important, influential, or noteworthy? I have to say the MCQ is an indicator of a given journals influence in the mathematical field. Look at the MCQ section in the Mathematical Reviews article.

• Evidence. I have repeatedly called for evidence that MR and ZM are selective in any strong sense. So far no-one has produced any evidence that they are selective in the strong sense of only covering journals they believe to be important or influential. Indeed, I have quoted the ZM selection criterion which makes no mention of any such condition. The figures show that MR and ZM cover a far higher proportion of mathematics journals than the selective science indexes. The opinions of other editors are interesting, even valuable, but not evidence. Since no-one can show any statement from the MR and ZM websites, or anywhere else, stating that they have strong selection beyonf the minimal exists and is peer-reviewed quoted before, it must be concluded that they are not in fact selective in that sense. Deltahedron (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• On the other hand, since MR and ZM limit the number of journals that are indexed, it must be concluded that they are in fact selective. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. For the purposes of this guideline, inclusion in an index is only used as a proxy for measuring the impact of a journal in its scholarly discipline. In order for it to be a suitable proxy, its inclusion criteria must be selective. This is already discussed in the guideline, but perhaps could be made clearer. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe Mathematical Reviews is mentioned in the WP:NJOURNALS guideline is because it uses a citation database [1] and a Mathematical Citation Quotient, which is apparently similar to computing an impact factor, for a given journal. The Charleston Advisor [2] reviewed the two databases in an article entitled "Mathematics Sites Compared: Zentralblatt MATH Database and MathSciNet" [3]. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

An interesting document, and I wonder whether you would care to comment on the sentences "Zentralblatt fur Mathematik provides comprehensive indexing of the mathematics literature from 1931, when the print version began, to the present" "Comparison of search results for identical searches in theZentralblatt MATH Database and MathSciNet indicates that each has a good claim to comprehensiveness" "Mathematical Reviews, the comprehensive index to th emathematics literature published since 1940". To what extent does this document support the claim that MR and ZM cover only the important and influential journals in mathematics? I suggest that it supports the opposite conclusion. Deltahedron (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, it doesn't actually support any claim either for or against. It only shows that these databases are comprehensively cover pure and applied mathematics.Steve Quinn (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

If you agree that they comprehensively cover pure and applied mathematics, how can you claim that they select only a limited subset of journals? Deltahedron (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Because they comprehensively cover the field of mathematics in a limited number of journals. MR covers 1900 journals - see first statement in this section above. ZM covers 2300 journals - see first statement in this section above. Also see: Here is a reference [4] that says coverage in MathSciNet is 1,799 journals. This is close to the number '1900' stated above. It is in fact the Mathematical Reviews article on Wikipedia that says '1900'.

In any case, that reference and this reference for ZM it is 3000[5]. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional comments:

• MathSciNet is indeed mentioned in the WP:NJOURNALS essay (not a guideline), twice in fact. Once is to point out that it is a paid service, the other is in the following context: "Coverage in PubMed alone is therefore not enough to fulfil the requirements of Criterion 1. The same applies to MathSciNet." This proviso, which has been in the essay for four years, explicitly contradicts the claim made above that "we have already established that Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt MATH are acceptable for determining notability".

• This doesn't contradict any claim. It only means that the results or conclusions reached in the discussion three years ago were not included in WP:NJOURNALS. That's what I was referring to. Also, it seems that WP:NJOURNALS contradicts itself in #3 and # 5 in the "Notes and Examples" section. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• MR does indeed maintain and use the citation database to organise and complement its reviews. However while MR produces the MCQ list, there is no reason to suppose that it uses it for anything [6]. Deltahedron (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• I thought the MCQ determines a given academic journal's impact in the mathematical field. Please see Mathematical Citation Quotient. Is this what you mean? I'm not sure I understand the statement. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a number than can be used if you wish to measure impact or influecen or importatnce. We mught use it if we wish, and as been suggested. It does not "determine" anything. In particular, if does not determine whether a journal is covered in MR. If there is evidence of its use to do so, please present it. Deltahedron (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Evidence

Some quotes from the AMS, publisher of Mathematical Reviews, and from other entities. Firstly the AMS.

"Mathematical Reviews® is a database (the MRDB ) for the mathematical sciences; it is now maintained electronically. Information in the MRDB is published in several different formats.

Since its founding in 1940, Mathematical Reviews® (MR) has aimed to serve researchers and scholars in the mathematical sciences by providing timely information on articles, books and other published material that contain new contributions to mathematical research. In addition, the MRDB contains data on advanced-level textbooks and expository books and papers that may not contain new research, but that appear to be of interest to scholars and research mathematicians. It is MR policy to cover articles and books in other disciplines that contain new mathematical results or give novel and interesting applications of known mathematics. Elementary articles or books, or articles that have not been refereed are ordinarily not listed. Articles and books that are not in the published literature are not considered for coverage. [7]

MR is not doing anything different than other databases. The other notable databases cover books, conferences, general reference material, and so on. And it's not remarkable. This is changing the subject. We are talking about academic journals. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a statement of MR's policy, which makes it highly relevant. You will note that is does not say anything about selection. Deltahedron (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it does - and you say so yourself at the top of this discussion when stating that only 1900 and 2300 journals are covered respectively. The number of journals covered is limited - as stated by you - at the top of this page. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"MathSciNet contains close to 3 million items and over 1.6 million direct links to original articles in more than 2000 journals from more than 250 publishers." [8]

Millions of records or items is very common for the databases we discuss or reference on Wikipedia. See Scopus. This is no big deal, and it is not remarkable. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue is the number of journals covered, which is the vast majority of the mathematics research journals that exist. Deltahedron (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That's right - the issue is the number of journals covered - which is only 1900 and 2300 respectively according to you in the above statement. Please stop promoting sweeping inaccuracies. I see a possible inaccurate statement in the last response --- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If you use the term "sweeping inaccuracy", I suggest you (1) quote me exactly (2) say what it is you dispute and (3) provide evidence to support your version. Deltahedron (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The inaccuracy to which I am referring is, and I quote from just above here: "The issue is the number of journals covered, which is the vast majority of the mathematics research journals that exist." --- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Evidence? Deltahedron (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

How isthe 'vast majority mathematics research journals that exist' to be determined? I am not saying anything that says that. Where is the evidence for that? This is not the same as comprehensively covering the mathematics field with a small number of journals. It is very possible to do so with a small number of select journals, because even a single journal can comprehensively cover the field of mathematics. See: Results in Mathematics, published by a Springer imprint (Birkhäuser Basel). The numbers 1900 (see above), 2300 (see above), and 3000 [9] is a small number of journals for either database. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"Coverage is current and extensive ... Excellent, broad-based coverage of mathematical and related materials. ... Good, comprehensive coverage by date ... (Comments from a mathematics professor): `MathSciNet gives instant convenient access to the entire wealth of mathematical knowledge collected over the last six decades.' " --from a database review by California State University Electronic Access to Information Resources Committee (EAR) [10]

"MathSciNet® is an electronic publication offering access to a carefully maintained and easily searchable database of reviews, abstracts and bibliographic information for much of the mathematical sciences literature." [11]

"A journal that I find valuable does not seem to be indexed in MathSciNet. Can it be included in the future? Mathematical Reviews makes every effort to obtain journals with mathematical content within the current editorial scope. " "MathSciNet currently indexes almost 1800 journals, so if the journal you are interested in has any mathematical content, it is highly likely that it is indexed" [12]

And now a couple of libraries

"MathSciNet is a comprehensive database, created and maintained by the American Mathematical Society, covering the world’s mathematical literature since 1940. It includes subject indexing of recent and forthcoming mathematical publications, as well as reviews or summaries of articles and books that contain new contributions to mathematical research. Approximately 1700 current serials and journals are reviewed in whole or in part. Links to fulltext in databases such as JSTOR and Science Direct are available for some articles." [13]

"MathSciNet is a comprehensive database covering the world's mathematical literature. It provides access to Mathematical Reviews from 1940 to the present, with links to articles in it and in other mathematics journals in full text." [14]

In view of this, is there any doubt left that MR is comprehensive in its coverage, and is not selective in the sense we are interested in: that is, that MR does not aim to slelect only the important and influential journals but that it does precisely the opppsite, namely strives to cover all the published peer-reviewed research of interest and use to mathematicians? Deltahedron (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• This is not the correct conclusion. This coverage is not unique to this database. There is still no explaining why the academic journal coverage is limited to 3500 journals or whatever. The fact that this database covers other stuff does not detract from limited journal coverage. The number of journals and serials are stipulated in the descriptions I read. Why is this so?

There is no evidence that MR coverage is limited to any specific number of journals: you have said so before, I have asked for evidence before, and you have not produced it. The numbers cited are descriptive, that is, they tell you how many journals are currently covered. As to the conclusion -- I have presented substantial evidence which supports the assertions I have made. You have presented precisely no evidence to support yours. The reader may decide. Deltahedron (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you have said so before, at the top of this discussion. Please see the top of this discussion. I was just throwing out 3500 because I saw it somewhere. In the above opening statement you have said both databases limit the number of journals cover to 1900 and 2000 respectively.

Below, you also quoted Zentralblatt's coverage is limited to 3,000 journals - take a look just below this statement.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The statement below does not say the coverage is "limited" to anything. My statement above did not say that databases limit the numbers. Either you are incapable of reading plain English correctly, or you are deliberately mis-stating the evidence, or you are making random assertions to perpetuate a discussion which has already gone on too long, in other words trolling. I suspect the laast of these. In any event there is no point in continuing to correct your incorrect assertions. Deltahedron (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Similar quotes relating to Zentralblatt.

"Zentralblatt MATH (zbMATH) is the world’s most comprehensive and longest running abstracting and reviewing service in pure and applied mathematics" "The zbMATH database contains more than 3 million bibliographic entries with reviews or abstracts currently drawn from more than 3,000 journals and serials" [15]

"zbMATH covers all available published and peer-reviewed articles" [16]

"Zentralblatt MATH, the oldest and most comprehensive information service in mathematics" "Today, Zentralblatt MATH is the oldest and most comprehensive bibliographical information service in mathematics" [tt_news=752]

"Zentralblatt Math provides comprehensive coverage of the published international mathematical research." [17]

"Covers all available published and refereed articles, books, conferences as well as other publication formats documents from more than 3,500 journals and 1,100 serials and covers the period from 1868 to present" [18]

Again, would anyone still like to assert that ZM selects only the important and influential journals in mathematics? Deltahedron (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• The more I read, the more I am inclined to say - as the discussion has evolved - that we should go ahead and change WP:NJOURNALS to say that MR or ZM on their own do not satisfy criterion 1.

However, it may be useful (for some reason) to show that a given journal is listed in MR. But right now the same cannot be said for ZM.

I am also thinking the MCQ should be added into WP:NJOURNALS somehow. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps MR can be an adjunct for determining notability. Whatever. I think User:Deltahedron has done a very good job in presenting their case. At this time, I have no idea how selective MR is compared to WOS. I only know that WOS is selective, and that its indexed journals are important and influential. I will revisit this issue if I find relevant or useful information pertaining to selectivity of MR. Who knows ZM might surprise us one day.

It is important on Wikipedia, that we be clear on what does serve us for determining notability. Right now, MR and ZM are not clear about this. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• The combative tone here needs to be turned down a few decibels.

I'm not going to manufacture gobs of text here. User:Deltahedron you have stated in the opening statement above (at the tippy top of this page) that "Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt MATH...cover about 1900 and 2300 journals respectively". Take a look at your opening statement!!!

Where did you get this selected number of covered journals?

Also, I am not sure what "constituting a more-or-less comprehensive coverage of the peer-reviews." Yes there is comprehensive coverage of each paper covered, but I don't see anything wrong with that. It seems similar to abstracting to me, which could be useful for indexing. If you wish, you may clarify this statement. Either way, this is a limited number of journals (1900, 2000, etc.), and a select number of journals. I think what is meant is that MR comprehensively covers the entire field of pure and applied mathematics, within a selected number of journals - which by the way - are important to mathematics.

For myslef, I saw the number 3500 somewhere, I'll try to find it - but the point is - these are a select number of journals at either around 2000 or some other number.

Furthermore, the below evidence appears to show relevant selectivity [19]:

"[Since 1940] Mathematical Reviews...provid[es] timely information on articles, books and other published material that contain new contributions to mathematical research ... It is MR policy to cover articles and books in other disciplines that contain new mathematical results or give novel and interesting applications of known mathematics. Elementary articles or books, or articles that have not been refereed are ordinarily not listed [Also,] articles and books that are not in the published literature are not considered for coverage... MRDB entries for recent items in a selected list of journals..." [20]

Addtionally, the reviews in MR are "reviews written by a community of experts" [21] - this means the reviews are not written by history experts or literary authors - people who might not have expertise in mathematics.

Also, MR builds on previous literature with novel advancements[22] , but also if it lacks integrity according to MR standards then "If a journal currently indexed by Mathematical Reviews® does not adopt these best practice standards, coverage of that journal will cease and the editors of the journal will be informed. Coverage will be resumed only when the journal agrees to these basic standards of scholarship". [23].

Consequently, I am seeing more and more selectivity with MR, as I study this problem. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If you think this is evidence that MR and ZM restrict coverage to journals that they assess as important, influential or noteworthy, then we have such radically different views about the meanings of words as to render further discussion fruitless. I assert that MR and ZM do not do this, that there is evidence to support that assertion, and no evidence to support the contrary. Deltahedron (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The number of mathematics research journals

It seems curiously hard to answer the question of how many peer-reviewed research journals in mathematics are being published currently. The figure of "well over 1800" for 2005 is given in S. G. Krantz (2005). Mathematical Publishing: A Guidebook. American Mathematical Society. p. 40. ISBN 0821872591.. Deltahedron (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Pseudo-scientific journals

Can pseudo-scientific journals like the Journal of Historical Review and the The Occidental Quarterly be included in the Journals-categories? On the one hand, they are not scientific. At least, I would not call them that way. On the other hand, as the main page says, since they may still be notable under the general Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Fringe theories guidelines. Moreover, Wikipedia is a neutral source, which makes it somewhat harder to keep them out. Well people, what do you think? Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, there is a category called w:Category:Fringe science journals. I've put them there. Please correct me if I am violating rules here. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Globalizing

We need reliable sources for regional-coverage journals; I've just created Chinese Science Citation Database, there are other databases/indices mentioned in Journal of China Pharmacy (please use {{Infobox bibliographic database}} in creating articles about other databases). There was also related discussion in National lists of approved journals. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Its certainly a reliable source, I would say, but is this database selective enough that we can use it to establish notability? I'm pinging @DGG:, who is our expert librarian. --Randykitty (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

At the moment I know of no library in my area that has access to it, so it's hard to say. There's link of the Thomson web site for the journal list, but it isn't working for me at the moment. From the company's web site, apparently all or almost all of the journals it covers will be published in Chinese, though there will be bibliographic information in English. Even so, I would then have to evaluate the Chinese language journals it covers, which I cannot do except through the bibliographic data to show what journals cite them. My impression is that the major Chinese articles are published in English in an international journal covered by science citation index. This of course will not include articles on specifically local topics, where even important work in such things as agriculture and public health and some aspects of medicine are normally published everywhere in national language journals. I wouldn't accept it yet--it would mean including about 1200 journals for which we have no real information.

This also applies to some extent to the companion Chinese Social Science Citation Database. There's a difference here, that local articles in the fields it covers are likely to be of much more interest outside China than in the sciences --to those who know Chinese, but this ought to include all non-Western scholars studying Chinese social science topics. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Degree of selectivity

Considering selectivity a matter of degree, could inclusion in multiple less-selective bibliographic databases (themselves notable) be accepted in lieu of inclusion in a few high-selective databases, so as to establish journal notability? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Some of the journal articles I have created have faced the problem that while they in my view have a clear notability (by the prestige, authors that publishes there, amount and notability of research, and historical context etc.) they are not included in selective databases. This is particularly the case of some regional journals that do not publish much work in English. Fgnievinski proposal might help "rescue" journals that fail to (or do not pretend) to qualify in the big databases. Dentren | ^Talk 13:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think this is similar to the GNG (multiple in-passing mentions do not equal a good in-depth discussion of a subject and do not establish notability): I don't think that mention in multiple non-selective (or barely selective) databases is enough for anything to become notable. And concerning "regional journals": if they are worth covering by us, they should be worth covering by selective databases too. If the latter don't, then the restricted circulation/subject matter/author base (choose whatever you like) of the journals apparently is not sufficiently appealing to generate sources (and remember that sources need not to be global: regional sources are perfectly fine, too). One example of a regional journal that does not meet NJournals but does meet GNG is the Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal. Not indexed in any database when the article was created last year (I don't know what the situation is now, I didn't check), so a clear fail of NJournals. But there were 3 good sources so it meets GNG and that is sufficient. If it doesn't even have such sources, then the journal has not been noted: not enough citations to its articles to justify inclusion in Thomson Reuters citation databases or even the much less selective Scopus. Yes, it will be in Google Scholar, or in some regional databases like Referatvni Zhurnal that try to include any journal within their purview, but that really is the same as saying that my cleaning lady's website can be found on Google and she is listed in the local phone book, so she must be notable... --Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal passes GNG. Those sources just announce that a new journal was established. It's local news at best. I could easily find 3 sources that announces the creation of a local store, and I garantee you that if I tried to created Moncton Cabela's it'd be SNOW deleted/redirected to Cabela's. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to AfD. But my experience in the past has been that even lesser sources than that will make people !vote "keep" on articles about journals, to my admitted frustration. But a newspaper article about a new journal being established (in no less than the Jerusalem Post) is actually quite rare. The article actually reports that the journal was discussed in a committee of the Knesset. My prediction would be that an AfD for this journal would result in a clear "keep". In addition, your comparison is not really apt: an independent journal is not the same thing as a local outlet of a chain. But if you can get the community to agree on tightening the notability criteria for journals, you'll have my support (even just actually enforcing NJournals would already make a huge difference). Remember this discussion? Even a notability tag was fought fanatically to protect this "gem" (with the references not even supporting the content of the article). Or the AfD for the other "small gem" mentioned in that discussion (resulting in this abominable article... Maintaining some decent standards for academic journals is a rather thankless and almost impossible task and I for one am almost ready to throw in the towel and leave the field to all the spammers and POV-pushers out there. --Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of Cretica Chronica and Journal of Indigenous Studies, especially Journal of Indigenous Studies being an abominable article. I think it's one of our good ones, with actual context beyond the usual barebones stuff. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

With most content unsourced (Cretica Chronica) and with detailed descriptions of issue contents (Journal of Indigenous Studies)? With sourcing for both articles being highly deficient (as outlined in excruciating detail in the AfDs for those journals)? Like several of the entries in Category:Mormon studies journals, these articles are a prime example of how editors game the system by adding "references" that sometimes not even mention the journal in question, use library catalogs (or WorldCat) as "sources" (despite their known unreliability), just to beef up the number of references so that other editors who don't look close enough (and who wants to do that with 20-something references) think that the article is well-sourced and leave it alone. --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Guideline status

I think this page should become a guideline so it will carry more weight when cited in deletion discussions. What do others think? Everymorning (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I think so too, but it needs to evolve a bit (along the line of WP:NASTRO) before it gets renominated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to make a summary of this essay a sub-section of WP:NMEDIA

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(media)#Introducing_notability_criteria_for_academic_journals. I expect that this is noncontroversial and an obvious next step in confirming the usefulness of this essay. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• In principle I have nothing against this, but I don't think it is a good idea to copy the criteria without the accompanying notes. --Randykitty (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Criterion 3

I propose to delete this criterion, for the following reasons. To start with, it is often misinterpreted ("the journal we started yesterday is the only Bantu-language journal on the Patagonian cockroach, so this has a historic purpose"). Second, it is ill-defined. What exactly is a historic purpose? What is a "significant history"? Surely having existed for x years is not enough to qualify as a "significant history"? To make this objective, we would require reliable sources confirming the historical purpose/significant history, but then the article would meet WP:GNG and we don't need C3 any more either. We actually already say this in note 11... --Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I would be in favor of removing the first half of the criterion, but not for removing the second half; I think that the reason for doing specialized notability guidelines is to provide either alternates to GNG or explanations of how GNG applies. I think that saying that significant history qualifies is a good idea. Significant purpose though seems too vague, as you noted. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

But how is "significant history" less vague than "historical purpose"? Unless we stipulate that this has to be shown by references to independent reliable sources and then it just duplicates GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals

Found this website [24], seems like a useful tool for our purposes but not sure. Timmyshin (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports Lawyers Journal and WP:NJournals

An editor at this AfD has brought to my attention the fact that WP:NJournals in fact does not require inclusion in databases only counts for notability if that database if selective. Either this was overlooked when HJournals was written, or it has been edited out without anybody noticing. I'm currently traveling and cannot look into this, so I'm posting here so that perhaps other interested editors can have a look. I'll cross-post to the talk page of the Academic Journals WikiProject. --Randykitty (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

SCImago

Does a journal having a SCImago Journal Rank qualify it as notable under this guideline, like having an impact factor does? I'm asking because I'm thinking about creating Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, which doesn't list an impact factor on its website but does list a SCImago ranking. Everymorning (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• SCImago is based on data from Scopus, so if something is in SCImago, it means that it is in Scopus, which we take as indicating notability. A bit belated, hope this still helps. --Randykitty (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Constraining SNGs

@Headbomb: The purpose of an SNG is to exist outside other notability guidelines. Those in the community that oppose SNGs generally typically want to leverage particular notability minimums to tightly constrain the SNG in question. Your addition of material talking about inherited notability and such is out of step with this essay. You can have your own feelings about it but you need to show there's consensus, especially since I've reverted you. I'm fine discussing the matter but do not assume you represent the majority. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing I've added goes against anything that was already in the guideline, or any other guideline that currently exists. I've modeled it after WP:NASTRO, which has been accepted by the community. In fact, the additional material specifically says that notability is not inherited, again in full agreement with WP:NOTINHERITED. I don't understand your objection. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Going to ping @DGG, Randykitty, Steve Quinn, Everymorning, and Fgnievinski: here. This concerns [25]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Headbomb: My objection is that this essay need not include guidance or opinion found elsewhere. I don't disagree with NOTINHERITED. My issue is that you're specifically proscribing the use of NJOURNAL by adding content NJOURNAL does not and need not state. I don't care that the content you adapted was based on NASTRO and that the consensus there was ok with it. The consensus here might differ and again, since you can't understand, NJOURNAL is different. It's not supposed to repeat what you may have read elsewhere. This effort by you looks pretty transparent to me unless you really don't get it. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It does not change what WP:NJOURNALS says, it clarifies it and brings it in line with how WP:NJOURNALS is actually used. And I've got zero idea of what nebulous behaviour you're accusing me of, but feel free to clarify, since it's apparently 'transparent'.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So. "It does not change what WP:NJOURNALS says" Yes it does. You added text which changes what it says. "it clarifies it" Does someone other than you think the essay was unclear? Who are you to say what clarifies the question? "and brings it in line with how WP:NJOURNALS is actually used" Asserts facts not in evidence. NJOURNALS like anything, says what it says. You seem to have anecdotal beliefs about how editors interpret or cite it. Their use has nothing to do with what this says. "And I've got zero idea of what nebulous behaviour you're accusing me of, but feel free to clarify" and I will. This SNG makes assertions of notability based on certain aspects of journals. It has nothing to do with any other ideas of notability nor is it constrained by other essays. Editors might site this essay but be countered by others. That's how this works. Essays are not part of a cohesive whole; they're differing opinions representative of some consensus of thought. Changing essays (or guidelines) without consensus re-writes what we as a community agree upon into what you as a single editor believe. This is intellectually dishonest and I'm really struggling to AGF with how you claim you don't see that. As an analogy, this would be like me repainting speed limit signs on the highway and telling the police that I'm clarifying what the limit really is and bringing it inline with common practice. We as a community determine these things and you still don't have consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• There is no uniform rule on SNGs. Some of them are explictly alternatives, like WP:PROF, and say directly that anyone meeting it ddo is notable regardless of the GNG, but that professors can also become notable by the GNG, even if they do not meet the WP:PROF SNG. Others have portions that are alternatives, such as the rule than athletes who compete in the Olympics are notable , even if nothing else is known about them. Some can be limitations, and the rule that musical recording must chart of a list of specified charts i usually interpreted that way, as are some of the parts of WP:CREATIVE. The community can make any rule it pleases. It can do this formally by approving guidelines in a RfC, or by consistent decisions supporting them. The fundamental policies behind the notability guidelines are WP:NOT and WP:V; no SNG that violate them has been or is likely to be accepted by the community--though of course the community could change that also, doing so would be a really momentous decision. The meta-rule that says this in WP:5P5: Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions

NOTINHERITED has over the years been subject to man misunderstandings : inheritance goes downwards normally, not upwards. Normally, if a composer has written several notable works, their notability implies that he is notable also, but it is usually not the case that every piece written by a notable composer is notable (with an exception if he is truly world-famous, as for JS Bach).

The reason for the special guideline of academic journals is really quite simple: there is no other rational way of handling them: The nature of the wart of the world in which they exist is that there will almost never be references providing truly substantial coverage, unless one argues in a somewhat artificial fashion (we do that at AfD quite often, actually; it's the only way of accommodating common sense and the GNG--but this is a case where we don't need to, because we have an alternative. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: (and others), I'll be more direct, do you support the inclusion of the basic notability section / feel it clarifies how to interpret the guideline / address longstanding misunderstandings of journal notability in various XfD processes ? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a discussion, not an RfC. But, if it wasn't obvious from what I said, I consider the section "no inherent notability" as contrary to policy, because it essentially negates a well-established guideline and is directly opposed to the practice used in interpretation of the SNGs . I consider the section on no inherited notability a little dubious, because although it doesn't directly contradict other guidelines, in could be interpreted that way. However, its third paragraph on including a journal in WP lists is a good addition to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

But notability is not inherited for journals! That's always been the case. That a journal is published by Elsevier is irrelevant to whether we consider the journal notable or not. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a factor in some cases. That it might be published by, say, the Royal Society would and should be considered. Elsevier is a different matter. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Are there journals published by the Royal Society that don't meet WP:NJOURNALS#C1/WP:NJOURNALS#C2 or WP:NJOURNALS#C3? Because to my knowledge, all are clear passes of C1 and C2, and don't need a 'but the publisher is...' exception. And WP:IAR always exists. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

First, I wish to compliment @Headbomb: in taking the initiative here and modeling these subsections on WP:ASTRO. I find it interesting that what Headbomb has written seems to clear up issues that have come up in deletion discussions. I think we should take into consideration what DGG has said about NOTINHERITED. But also, if a journal is published by a highly notable publisher, the specific journal's notability still should be at least weighed according to the selective indexes. For example, if the Royal Society puts out a brand new journal, then that publisher of course could be a factor in a deletion discussion. Yet it is indeed a gray area if it were not listed in acceptable indexes, because then it seems to lean toward deletion, unless arguments for "keep" outweigh delete.

This seems to be based on established norms here at NJOURNALS. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Although a few SNGs do have "inherited" notability criteria, the norm at NJOURNALS is - this has not. been the case. This norm is based on the many deletion discussions up to the present. I think what Headbomb has written clarifies the norms that have been developed over time at NJOURNALS. The "No inherent notability" section is right on point, as is the "No inherited notability" section. This is exactly how we have conducted ourselves at deletion discussions. Also, my view has been that the acceptable journal indexes, such as Thomson Reuters, are considered reliable third party sources. This then fulfills GNG and the content policies - policies which are viewed as the core of Wikipedia. So, this is an excellent rationale for having this criterion. This is our SNG caveat. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Unless, I hear stronger rationales against including these subsections, I think these should be included in NJOURNALS. I would like @DGG: to clarify further, in case there is something I am not seeing. Also, I have a question. Have we had deletion discussions where inherited notability was such a strong factor that the discussion resulted in keep? (I am only curious, and not being argumentative). Steve Quinn (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

We can keep in mind there is always WP:5P5, and in such instances hopefully common sense prevails. I have been involved in discussions where a few literature or humanities journals have developed a "keep" consensus, although these were not listed in selective indexes - because they appeared to have value. I also wish to note, having these subsections is not unique. As Headbomb has shown, WP:AST has this.

WP:ORG has these sections as well. Please see: WP:ORGSIG and WP:INHERITORG. I believe these are fundamental concepts that are part of Wikipedia's foundation. I have a basic test for anything like these sections (whenever I come across such issues). I look to see if the content in question is consistent with Wikipedia content policies and the GNG guideline - across the board. If I thought these additions were not consistent, then I would strongly recommend against including them. Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for your time. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

You are making an argument for the second section, about inherited notability; the status with respect to the GNG is however, as I have stated it. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• I am pretty busy right now, so I don't have time to go into detail. However, this essay really needs an overhaul. I think we should let Headbomb work on it for a while and when he's done have a good look at the result. We can then either decide to go back to the version before he started his re-write or, hopefully, tweak and improve it further and then perhaps propose it to the community to be used as a guideline, instead of just an essay. --Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I have researched the argument about inherited and inherent notability. GNG for its part plainly states that notability is not inherited and there is no inherent notability. The SNGs that do have an inherent notability caveat within some small aspect of it is based on experience on Wikipedia and deletion discussions amounting to common sense. This results in saving time by not having to wade through GNG, or an AfD, to come to the same conclusion. So, as far as I am concerned NJOURNALS has not developed such a norm and this is supported by content policies and GNG, with rare exceptions within some SNGs.

Therefore, we can include a blurb about WP:IAR in what Headbomb has already written to account for those rare instances when it occurs. Then we can point to this guideline and say there it is. This will help to discourage an overenthusiastic attitude during talk page discussions or deletion discussions. In this regard, DGG does have a point. So explicitly including IAR should suffice. For example, if we found a lost manuscript by Einstein, then the published book or manuscript would probably be inherently notable and have inherited notability, all at the same time. And it would be a rare instance. Hopefully, this helps. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

In looking at WP:CREATIVE I notice that the only way any one of these line items (1 thru 4) can satisfy notability is with significant coverage in independent third party (secondary) reliable sources to back them up. Otherwise how would anyone know? So this is not actually about inherited or inherent notability. The person satisfying one of these line items becomes inherently notable only after support is garnered the old fashioned way - significant and acceptable coverage. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

In giving more weight to DGGs input, maybe we can actually create a list of publishers where their journals are considered inherently notable. For example, Royal Society journals, Oxford journals, any professional society journals such as IEEE (and which a Royal Society is).

Or what about this? If the journal is published by already notable editors and the journal articles appear to significantly contribute to the field or advance the field then is might be considered notable.

For example, (from WP:BIO#Additional criteria) "Journals are likely to be notable if they meet any of the (above) standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a journal should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Just throwing it out there - food for thought. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited, and the IEEE publishes a bunch of low-level crap (mostly proceedings) in addition to their premier journals. Royal Society journals are all notable, sure, but that's because they all meet WP:NJOURNALS#C1 or WP:NJOURNALS#C2, so again there's zero need for special exceptions for the Royal Society journals. For professional societies, very often their journals are not notable, and should be covered in the society's article. Concerning editors, it's the other way around. Editors of notable (and reliable) journals are considered notable because the EiC of those journals is position that can only be filed by top academic in their fields. But journals edited by notable people aren't necessarily notable, because it could be a journal that never took or, or because the editor is a quack. Again, the metric is the impact and significance of the journal, not of who edits it Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Headbomb: You still don't have consensus and I reject you continuing to change content while the discussion is still underway. I warn you this is not the optimal solution. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The section is marked under discussion. I don't know what more you want, but no one requires your personal approval to edit things and make improvements to the guideline / bring it in line with how it's actually used. So go make your threats elsewhere. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

You are clearly disregarding the discussion to force you own way, which is not how things should be done here. I don't want to edit war over this but I can only assume you intend to provoke or you hold me in such contempt that you don't care. Either way, this is not how Wikipedia is done. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia is not done by reverting construction and productive edits because YOU don't agree with them. There is clearly support for the section, or at the very least leaving it in for now while we discuss it. It's very hard to edit and tweak something and discuss something that doesn't exist. I'll let others revert your pigheadness. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with @Headbomb: that notability is not inherited and inherent notability does not work. This is clearly stated in the Notability guideline. And I am unable to find support for this in the core content policies. I gave it a shot, and it doesn't wash. The only reason other SNGs have their caveats is because it is a shortcut derived from experience, ultimately supported by GNG and content policies.

Also, in agreement with Headbomb, I support the additional text he provided. I thought this was clear from my above posts. I was just trying to think of extra stuff to add to that. But, really none of it is necessary. Maybe we could explicitly note WP:IAR, but that is about it. I am restoring the content so Headbomb and others can tweak it. I believe Headbomb and I gave sufficient rationale for keeping this text in the guideline.

Randy Kitty has stated their support by giving permission for Headbomb to write it and then see if we can propose to the community that this be elevated to an official guideline. So right now it is three to two. And I don't agree with Chris being suspicious of Headbomb's motives. I have worked with Headbomb off and on for years, and he is productive editor who edits in accordance with policies and guidelines.

He has incredibly contributed to WikiProject Physics and WikiProject Academic Journals. He also developed Wiki-Books (I think it is called that) and he might be responsible for developing the various task forces in WikiProject Physics. Essentially, Headbomb has a good head on his shoulders :-) I couldn't resist. It was an opportunity that presented itself :-) Steve Quinn (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The only thing I'll add to that, is that we do mention IAR (3rd paragraph in the lead), and you're thinking of Wikipedia:Books. Not that it's particularly relevant here, but might as well clarify that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Randykitty:, alright, I think I've more or less clarified, tweaked, and brought the guideline in line with current practice as much as I can on my own. Things should be a lot clearer now, both on why we need such a guideline (WP:NJOURNALS#Basic notability), on what exactly the criteria is (significant coverage / significant impact), on how to apply the criteria (WP:NJOURNALS#Remarks), and on what to do when failing to meet notability criteria (WP:NJOURNALS#Best practices/WP:NJOURNALS#Failing all criteria). I think this overhaul has been a long time coming, and we're about to finally get it right after all these years. Of course, there will still be corner cases, but I believe WP:NJOURNALS now covers pretty much 99% the deletion discussions that occurred in the last 5 years+. For the rest, we have WP:COMMON and WP:IAR. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• NO. "In the sense that a journal has been published, it may have been noted by its readers." You;'re presumably using journal in the sense of journal-as-a-whole, not the articles within a journal. If you mean the articles, then any journal which has been cited two or more times with significant discussion in the citations is notable. This would apply to almost of the non-predatory journals in the world. If this becomes policy, I could argue on that basis. That's a very forced interpretation. Better to eliminate the wording taken and misused from the GNG. We have the right to have policy completely independent of the GNG, and should not restate it.

Also NO because I continue to disagree about inherited notability in this case. The example given above of the IEEE newsletter is irrelevant. That's a newsletter or magazine , not an academic journal. An academic journal is a journal that publishes research level primary or review articles.. (technically, even J Chem Ed. and Physics Today are magazines, not academic journals.) What we may need to include is not just the two alternatives of articles or lists, but of combination articles.

If you already counted me in the opposition, it's 3 to 2. And that counts Randykitty, though he has not commented on the final version. You can't assume that you have someone's implied consensus . Even if he does agree, and my guess is that he might --in spite of the fact that he and I have agreed with each other in 99% of the journal afds, that is not sufficient consensus to overturn a settled guideline used in many hundreds of AfDs. Regardless of motives, this change will have the effect of greatly reducing the inclusiveness of ?WP for academic journals. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

No what? I have no idea how I'm presuming "using the journal in the sense of journal-as a whole, not the articles within the journal", or what that even means. Or how you can possibly read that it's suggested a journal that's been cited more than once = notable. Likewise we are not trying to circumvent the GNG, and never have tried to circumvent the GNG. Nothing has changed here. Also, not sure why you're trying to bring IEEE newsletters in this. I've talked about IEEE proceedings above, and and a good chunk if not most of them aren't worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. The IEEE publishes gazillions of proceedings, many of which are of very low quality and of little impact or significance. Which pretty much proves that being published by the IEEE ≠ notable. I've yet to see one example of a notable journal that can't be considered notable by C1/C2/C3 and needs to have a C4 = Published by XYZ. So I'll ask, do you have a concrete example of a notable journal that would be excluded under C1/C2/C3?

Also not sure how this 'reduces the inclusivity', the three criteria are exactly the same as they were. 1: Influential in its field 2: Frequently cited by RS 3: Historically important. Do you have an example of any AFD discussion in say the past 3 years that would have had a different result under the current version? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

It does seem we are operating on different channels. No to the proposed change in a stable guideline. No to an attempt to shoehorn a perfect clear specific guideline into the form of GNG, which doesn't apply at all, and doesn't pretend it applies to all types of articles. . No to the idea that the publisher is perhaps the key predictive factor of the importance of a journal.

As for IEEE, I think I may have contributed to some confusion about titles. Of course many of the individual Proceedings of specific meetings aren't suitable, but they are not a journal in the first place. They would be judged as books, and if we did cover them, we would cover them as the conference or conference series, not the published proceedings of the conference. What is notable is every one of the IEEE Transactions, all or almost all of which are in JCR, even though we do not have article on about half of them. And there are stronger cases than IEE. Cold Spring Harbor Press for example, or the Cell Press imprint now owned by elsevier.

If no afd discussion would have had a difference result in the proposed wording . why are you bothering to change the established wording? Whether they actually would, is a factor of how the key words are interpreted. Every one of them is subject to equivocation. Admittedly, so is some of the established wording. That's why I think it folly to change established guidelines (and I think so equally whether or not the changes would be more in line with my idea of what WP should cover): there is an established pattern of interpretation based on the established guideline. (I'm saying established to avoid confusion--I mean the true current traditional established guideline, not the proposal which you are calling the current version.) The established guideline has led to very consistent results, with the regular participants who know anything about journals (and usually there are just stray participants who do not, because others don't care about this) almost always agreeing. The questions have come over borderline issues. The main disagreement between myself at Randykitty for example, is my view that a new journal from a publisher ALL of whose existing journals are notable should be considered notable at the very start. The main other question is whether predatory journals by virtue of the discussion about their predatory nature should be considered notable (I'd deal with most of these by combination articles, because of the very large number of titles involved and theat the same factors apply). So I do not think you have consensus for change. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

You're being very contradictory, and very obfuscating here DGG. "No to the idea that the publisher is perhaps the key predictive factor of the importance of a journal." We agree on that. Publishers aren't important, nor are all of the several hundred of IEEE Transactions journals notable. The majority are (since the majority have impact factors), and the rest can be decided on a per-journal basis. But then you write "a new journal from a publisher ALL of whose existing journals are notable should be considered notable at the very start" which is in direct contradiction of that you just wrote, and clearly in violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL on top of failing to meet any of WP:NJOURNALS's criteria. So again nothing changed there, and you seem to object to what we already had in the guideline. As for proceedings, and predatory journals etc., we've always covered those in the same manner we did journals: If they can be shown to be 1) impactful 2) frequently cited 3) historically important, 4) have significant coverage in RS (aka pass GNG directly) they can have an article. Otherwise merge to publisher's article / delete.

"If no afd discussion would have had a difference result in the proposed wording . why are you bothering to change the established wording?" because this should be a guideline, not an essay. As well as to avoid this sort of confusion caused by a unclear wording.

Let's wait for Randikitty's feedback, but I don't think the current impasse will be solved by anything less than a community-wide RFC. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

On indexing and reliability

Here is a diff that I think is EXTREMELY important. Indexing is evidence of reliability, but it is not absolute evidence. Having an impact factor is evidence of reliability, but it is not a universal determinant of reliability. That these points were being made in PAG space is rather shocking. It also goes against the point that Wikipedia is descriptive not proscriptive. We would not accept a journal as "reliable" on the basis of it being indexed or having an impact factor. That's ludicrous. We need to conform to how we actually use journals and evaluate them here. jps (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for this. Mind you, a large amount of chatter about an unreliable journal might still show a high impact factor, so I would see that more as an indication of notability than of reliability. I also think that the criteria used by database maintainers need to be taken into account - "we did a deal with publisher X to index all the journals they ask us to" and the like need to be ruled out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

On a closely related point, it seems to me that criterion 1.c) is in the wrong place. The impact factor is just a summary of the citations and is thus effectively establishing criterion 2. I'd suggest that 1.c be moved to 2.d. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Please in future first obtain consensus here before making fundamental changes to this essay. I oppose the changes proposed, they are not an improvement over the current text. We will go by reliable sources, not by editors' opinions. --Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • This opinion does not make sense to me. There is no reference to editor's opinions in the changes proposed. The current text is simply not how it is done in Wikipedia. We do not claim that a journal is reliable simply on the basis of its indexing and the fact that it has an impact factor. Seriously. jps (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I have to agree with both these latest posts: We do indeed have to go by RS, and the existence of indexing and/or an impact factor is patently not an RS for a significant level of citation and, hence of notability either. Sadly, the present essay has got its proverbials in a twist over this and it does need a shakeout. Oh, wait, maybe I should repeat that - this here is an essay, not even a guideline, never mind an agreed policy. Anybody who wishes to go away and forget it even exists is fully entitled to. Goodbye, >big grin<. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Re: "The current text is simply not how it is done in Wikipedia." The last 7 years disagree with you. WP:NJOURNALS has been cited in pretty much every damned deletion discussion since its inception. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if this does not change, I will start advocating for this to be marked as rejected proposal as it is that horribly misleading. jps (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)