Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals

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

Journal drafts (2019-07-22)Edit

An easy way to get involved at AFC and review relevant drafts is to go at Template:Infobox journal, and inspect the 'what links here', filtered by namespace (select 'Draft').

This reveals the following

Help reviewing them would be great. Feel free to mark as  Y/ Y/ N/  for Accepted/Has potential/No potential/TBD. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Most of those I already had on my watch list, I've added those that weren't included, too. My own strategy is to go to Special:NewPages, limit to draft space, and search for the words "journal" and "magazine". For many of those drafts it's just waiting until they're G13 eligible, as they are far from notable. But the above list has several that are listed in Scopus or even have an IF and therefore clearly meet NJournals and were nevertheless rejected by editors who obviously had no idea about how to handle academic journal articles. Still, none of them was ready and all needed lots of work to become an acceptable article. When I've time, I'll have a closer look at those that are notable. --Randykitty (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I've marked my assessment of where things stand. Red ones are hopeless IMO. Yellow ones have at least some merit, and could probably be merged somewhere if not accepted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Journals indexed in Scopus may be more likely to be predatory (by some measure) than the average, so that's hardly a significant criterion. High impact factor also tends to correlated with low academic quality. Nemo 16:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The main difference is likely the inclusion of Hindawi, Frontiers Media and MDPI journal in Scopus. Together, those are 413 journals that would be deemed 'predatory' by thinking Beall = Predatory, rather than Beall = Questionable. This does show Scopus to be somewhat less selective than WoS, but these three borderline publishers are more questionable than predatory. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Nope. These three were not the culprits in that one study. Inclusion in Scopus or WoS just gives no information whatsoever, I advise against considering it for anything other than a sign that the publisher cares about international promotion. Nemo 17:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Out of 7,000 journals in Beall’s List

  • 248 in Scopus
  • 14 in WoS

Out of 599 journals in our sample

  • 131 in Scopus
  • 10 in WoS"

Given no information is given about which journals those are, and that these are comparable to the numbers I get from including Frontiers/Hindawi/MDPI (they had fewer journals back in 2012), I don't see how you can say those 248 journals aren't the MDPI/Hindawi/Frontiers one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not consider it the case that all journals that have appeared in that list are necessarily predatory. A good number of them are apparently journals which the publisher started on the optimistic position that if they made the title available, papers would eventually come. (A good conventional publisher makes very sure that they have a considerable number of papers available --usually from the editorial board and their students) before they publish the first issue, because they need to convince people to subscribe.) This has to be distinguished from the true parasitic publishers who start titles they know very well will never develop, (or where they are too ignorant to be able to tell such things) and don't particularly care.
Scopus does discriminate in which of these titles it includes. I tend to consider their choices rational, and I still would accept being indexed in there as a reasonable standard. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Indeed Beall isn't perfect, but the bigger mistake people make with Beall's list is to assume that the list provides a yes/no assessment of predatoriness, rather than a yes/no assessment of "reader/writer beware". Beall did not distinguish between 100% predatory and fishy/questionable/low quality. Frontiers/MDPI journals are mostly terrible, and you wouldn't catch me dead publishing in them. But at the same time, you can't dismiss a study purely because it's in Frontiers/MDPI, unlike something published in a SCIRP/OMICS journal which are universally terrible. Knowing it was in Frontiers/MDPI would have me triple check it before citing them, and only as a last resort. But I wouldn't blacklist them by any stretch. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not my experience that MDPI journals are mostly terrible, while for instance I keep finding horrifying crap published by Elsevier. Of course all publishers make mistakes, but problems with MDPI are largely a myth. We need to be evidence-based, see https://danbrockington.com/2019/12/04/an-open-letter-to-mdpi-publishing/ Nemo 13:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Clearly you have never read Entropy (journal). See also [1]. They're not universally useless, but it's a very dodgy venue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Infobox journals with missing former name redirectsEdit

We now have a category to keep track (some of) of the missing redirects for former names of journals. Those interest in helping to clear the category can check the details at Template talk:Infobox journal#Former names. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Biannual?Edit

Should we use the term "biannual" or "2/year" (and similar) in infoboxes to show the journal's frequency? Is the possibility of confusion with "biennial" so great that we do the reader a service by using "2/year"? Yes, we have established category names such as Category:Biannual journals, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should use those words in the quick-reference reader-facing infobox.

I can't find a policy or guideline instructing the use of the one or the other wording.

I suggest that we should use "2/year" and "6/year" rather than "biannual" and "bimonthly", as I think it would benefit readers. I don't feel strongly about "biennial", as it's only in use on 4 titles (one of which has led me down a rabbit-hole ... see next section), but "every 2 years" would be clearer.

Looking at Category:Semi-monthly journals I see that of the 4 under "A", 3 say "24/year" and one says "semi-monthly", so practice is not consistent.

There is some discussion at User_talk:Headbomb#Biannual?, but this wider forum seems more appropriate. PamD 08:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

And see below for an example of confusion. PamD 09:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
And the sole item in Category:Quinquennial journals is the Notre Dame Law Review, the subscription page for which states that "The Notre Dame Law Review is published five times annually". So confusion abounds: we should say "5/year". The infobox appears to have been incorrect since it was added. PamD 09:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
That's a WP:SOFIXIT situation. Which I did. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
More strangeness: the sole item in Category:34 times per year journals appears to be published 20 times in 2019. PamD 10:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
And there are 5 journals in Category:Triennial journals. Four are explicitly "3 issues per year", ([2], [3] [4] [5] and the fifth is a bit vague but appears to produce 2 issues in a year. "...ennial" appears to offer great scope for confusion. PamD 10:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have corrected the category for Femspec, both as a redirect and within Feminist science fiction (see below), but have left the other incorrect or doubtful frequencies unchanged. PamD 10:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, all WP:SOFIXIT stuff. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

ProposalEdit

I suggest that we describe frequency of journals as:

  • daily
  • weekly, or n/week
  • monthly, or n/month
  • annually, or n/year
  • every 2 years

These terms are unambiguous. Most other variations are prone to misreading, misunderstanding, or misuse. Using biennial/biannual is almost on a par with avoiding describing a date as 6/11/1952. November to me, June to many other people. Just avoid it.

Just to look at a comparable topic, I had a look at {{Infobox newspaper}}, but frequency is subsumed into "type" eg "Daily newspaper". Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Learning resources refers to the publication frequency as "Publication schedule (daily, weekly, twice weekly etc)" without suggesting "biweekly". PamD 10:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC) Struck accidental "avoiding" PamD 22:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

And neither Wikipedia:WikiProject Magazines/Writing guide nor {{Infobox magazine}} has anything to add on frequency. PamD 10:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose dumbing of an encyclopedia. Bi- = two, Semi- = half. This is not "simple english". Proposed versions are not really less confusing to the eye. This is "academic journals" after all. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • That the terms are misused doesn't mean that they are ambiguous. That's said, I'm not against having an explanatory note, e.g. Bimonthly (6/year), Triennially (every 3 year), Semimonthly (24/year), Biweekly (26/year). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support They are ambiguous according to several different dictionaries and writing style guides 4 5 6 7. I actually can't find a single dictionary that would not mention two possible meanings (even if one is preferred) and a few (off-wiki) style guides discourage using bi- variants. Also it's not dumbing down if PamD could, right of the bat, find several inconsistencies that can be attributed to this issue; these terms are ambiguous to actual wikipedians. They were ambiguous to me: it still makes no sense to me that categories use bimonthly or bi-monthly for every two months, but biannually for twice a year. Personally I prefer every two months and twice a month, but anything unambiguous would be better. An alternative solution would be to at least prefer writing something unambiguous like 'n/year' in the infobox parameter and make the template display it however you want (e.g. bimonthly or bimonthly). Tokenzero (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I checked some of the major book-form style guides and most don't mention the issue (some use bimonthly without discussing it), but let me quote one that does. Fowler's "A Dictionary of Modern English Usage" (1926): bi- prefixed to English words of time gives words that have no merits & two faults : they are unsightly hybrids, & they are ambiguous. [...] Under these desperate circumstances we can never know where we are. There is no reason why the bi- hybrids should not be allowed to perish.. ;) Tokenzero (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • And the Guardian style guide, a good guide to clear modern (British) English, says:
biannual or biennial?
As no one can agree which of these means twice a year, and which means every two years, it’s best not to use them at all; “twice a year” or “every two years” are unambiguous.
The same applies to bimonthly and biweekly: say “every fortnight”, “twice a month” or “every two months”, and so on. It’s remarkable that no one has sorted this problem out; nearly a century ago, HW Fowler was already calling it “a cause of endless confusion”

PamD 22:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. I don't have a strong opinion here, so I guess I am partially supporting and partially opposing. In relation to academic journal publishing, I have not encountered any inconsistencies in usage. That is, biweekly means once every two weeks, bimonthly means once every two months, biannually (and semi-annually) means twice a year, biennially means once every two years, triannually means three times a year and triennually means once every three years. All of these terms seem to be widely used by libraries and academic journals themselves. Newspapers, as far as I know, are never published less than once a month, so they live on a different time scale and maybe standard usage is different there. I also would like to preserve our category structure for academic journals in Category:Academic journals by publication frequency, which is internally consistent and precise (each category page, such as Category:Biannual journals, explains exactly what the category means). But, Wikipedia being a general public resource, there is also something to be said for eliminating ambiguity, as PamD's proposal tries to do. I should say, however, that I strongly dislike the "n/year" format for indicating frquency, even though I am probably guilty of having used it in the past. Using abbreviations, especially involving special keyboard symbols, is aethtetically and stylistically unappealing, IMO. I would prefer more explicit verbal descriptions such as "2 times per year", "9 times per year" or "once every 2 years" or "once every 2 weeks". I would also be happy with a combined approach that Headbomb suggests above, where we use the descriptor from our category structure followed by a verbal parenthetical disambiguation if needed. E.g. something like:
  • weekly
  • biweekly (once every 2 weeks)
  • semi-monthly
  • monthly
  • bimonthly (once every 2 months)
  • quarterly
  • triannually (3 times per year)
  • biannually (2 times per year)
  • annually
  • biennially (once every 2 years)
  • triennually (once every 3 years)
  • n times per year [for all other cases]

At least that's my current thinking. Nsk92 (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If we're to change anything, I'd rather we get consistent across all categories in Category:Periodicals by frequency and use names when possible. However, like Nsk92 above, this current usage is consistent and unambiguous in library sciences. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Of course a lot of the use of "biennial" will be in gardening literature, the plants you sow one year which bloom the next and then die (as opposed to annuals and perennials). Just to complicate that ngram. PamD 19:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • A quick recap: 1. Just a moment ago, all the entries in Category:Triennial journals and Category:Quinquennial journals were wrong (relative to the category description), 2. Just a moment ago, Category:Bimonthly newspapers had the opposite meaning (before Headbomb unilaterally changed it without any discussion). 3. DIYeditor was unfamiliar with (the intended meaning of) biannually, 4. Ceyockey was unfamilair with biennially, 5. I thought biannually vs biennally was the other way around (and I keep having to use artificial mnemonics to remember). So clearly the terms are ambiguous to editors, please stop pretending otherwise. Even if they were unambiguous in a subset of the publishing industry (which excludes dictionaries, target audiences of style guides, and newspapers?), it would qualify as jargon, which should be avoided (MOS:JARGON, WP:SLANG). Yes, bianually can and should be at least replaced with semiannually; the problem is with bimonthly, biweekly, biennially, triannually, triennially. Can someone give me a reason not to use every two years, every two months? It's really not that long and it's recommended by many (off-wiki) style guides. Tokenzero (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Let's not overstate things Re 1) "All" entries amounted to 5 articles that were mischaracterized. 2) Brought in line with the other categories in Category:Periodicals by frequency. Again, affected like 3 articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • And what the heck @Headbomb:? You can't change how words are used by people just by overwriting them unilaterally. And if you do so, please take some care to make the paragraph sensible. Currently it reads Some newspapers are published two or three times a week and are known as biweekly publications. Some publications are published, for example, fortnightly (or biweekly in American parlance). Tokenzero (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Journal infobox within articleEdit

While thinking about "biannual" etc (see above) I looked at Category:Biennial journals and found that one item of the then four is Feminist science fiction. This is an article about a topic, not about a journal. But buried within it at Feminist science fiction#Femspec there is a section about a journal, Femspec, complete with {{Infobox journal}}, and it appears that the infobox generates the category. Is there a way to suppress this? I've added the category tag (and several others) to the redirect at Femspec, which seems more useful, but the article on the genre remains in the category.

I see from its history that there was originally a standalone article on the journal, created in 2005, but in 2009 it was "boldly merged" into the article on the genre, with no further explanation and without there having been any previous discussion to suggest deletion or merger.

Perhaps the solution is to demerge the journal and hope that it can stand alone again? Or, otherwise, is there a way to suppress the infobox-generated category from this article. It's unlikely to be the only case where a journal is described within a wider article, though it presumably doesn't happen often.

And such are the time-sinks you get into when you start to discuss "biannual". Fun, isn't it! PamD 09:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

And as a beautiful illustration of my point about "biannual" etc ... when the infobox was added in 2016 to Feminist science fiction, and ever since, it has included "frequency: biennial". It is actually a "bi-annual" journal, as stated in their "about", though a subscription is for "two issues of the journal (these might not be received or published in the same calendar year)". Just illustrates the scope for confusion. PamD 09:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Bi-annual may have a recognizable meaning but the normal nomenclature would be semiannual. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
There's plenty of journals in pages of an associated association. It's often the solution when the association is notable but the journal is not, by itself. The text in the article ranges from an entry in a list of titles like here to full sections with infoboxes and stuff (dunno whether this particular case is notable enough for it's own article). I personally think it's ok to have the full article categorized as .. academic journal ..., though indeed it seems that usually only the redirect (from the journal title to the association) is. Tokenzero (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@PamD: This shouldn't happen. I thought I had bypassed these cases (e.g. anything where Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals) specifically since that category should appear on Femspec and not Feminist science fiction. I'll take a look. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
There, should be fixed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

PublisherEdit

This is not the first time I've run into this issue but I wanted some clarity on this especially unclear situation: is Developmental Neuropsychology a Routledge journal or a Taylor & Francis journal? As in, should the publisher be listed and categorized as Routledge or T&F (or maybe both)? I went with Routledge (a subsidiary of T&F) based largely on the journal's NLM Catalog listing here but I am now unsure of it because I know the NLM Catalog entries are often inaccurate and I couldn't find much else that says the journal is published by Routledge. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Routledge is an imprint of T&F. If there's a distinction between the modern day Routledge and T&F, it's a very trivial one. All Routledge journals now are hosted on the T&F platform. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I would go with the principle of least surprise here. Going to primary website, it says Taylor and Francis Online, and the "About the journal" tab doesn't mention Routledge. For a journal with an impact factor, we can probably trust the primary site to tell the truth about who publishes the journal. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Routledge is operated as a separate imprint from T&F (cf Cell Press or Academic Press and Elsevier or BMC and SpringerNature). Even though fully owned by T&F (which in turn is fully owned by Informa), it operates rather independently. If you go to the homepage of the journal and look at the cover, it prominently proclaims to be published by Routledge. For once, the NLM (which indeed is quite often wrong about things like this) is correct by putting "Routledge" as publisher here (and the Library of Congress does the same). --Randykitty (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The confusing thing is, of course, that the journal's website is part of the Taylor & Francis website, and its homepage has Taylor & Francis branding everywhere without a trace of the word Routledge (except on the image of the journal cover). So I guess I'll keep it listed as Routledge. But does that mean that Category:Routledge academic journals shouldn't be a subcat of the T&F cat, since the two are (kind of) independent? IntoThinAir (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • We keep Category:Cell Press academic journals also under "Elsevier journals", even though Cell Press is a pretty independent imprint, so I would keep "Routledge journals" as a subcat under T&F journals. That signals that it is not really the same as T&F but not fully independent either. --Randykitty (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, the subcategory approach seems a good way to go here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Automatic short descriptionEdit

Is there a way that {{Infobox journal}} could be modified to automatically generate a short description in the same way that, for example, {{Infobox album}} does? Pinging Headbomb. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@IntoThinAir: Probably. I just don't know what should go in a short description, so if you have examples, or a general structure for them, feel free to elaborate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

ISO-4 abbreviation language rulesEdit

I realized I may have been interpreting the rules wrong all along. The ISO-4 standard (pdf) for abbreviating journal titles relies on the LTWA (List of Title Word Abbreviations). The list has a column "Lang.", which contains one ore more languages, often including "mul" for "Multiple languages". I thought the intention was that rules should only be applied to titles in those languages, but that doesn't follow from the standard! I now believe all rules should always be applied, regardless of what the "Lang." column contains (it only serves as an indication of where the rule came from, i.e. what meaning was intended, or which ISSN National Centre produced it). Some arguments:

  • The ISO-4 document includes an example of an "appended article": bibliotek = bibl. and biblioteket = bibl.. The LTWA includes a rule bibliotek- bibl. lit,rus, but biblioteket is Swedish. So unless this LTWA entry changed, they intended the rule to apply to Swedish as well.
  • We have a fairly representative list of examples where the two methods differ. For _none_ of them I can think of a reason to abbreviate a word in Spanish, say, and not in English. For most of them not abbreviating according to all rules looks like nonsense. In particular I now believe words like 'atmosphere', 'documents', 'critique', 'contributions', 'biblical' should be abbreviated in English titles, despite the rules being spa only.
  • One example I know were the rules explicitly differ is real (actual) n.a. fre,eng vs real (royal) r. spa. But they have those parentheticals which suggest that they should be distinguished by meaning, not by language ("real" can mean either "real/actual" or "royal" in Spanish).

If you agree I'll fix instructions and defaults at abbrevIso and I'll update the mismatch lists so that I can start fixing all affected infoboxes (possibly around ~300 out of 8500). Sorry for not realizing that earlier. Tokenzero (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tokenzero: That's very possible we've been misinterpreting the rules indeed. I wonder if there's a way of contacting LTWA. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Tokenzero: Maybe try sending them an email / calling them? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I sent them an email and got a short reply that indeed, the language column only indicates the provenance of a word. I have a list of ~300 abbreviations to fix, I'll try to do that in a semi-automated way soon. Tokenzero (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web toolEdit

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Beall's (new) list is possibly downEdit

I added a link to Web Archive to the article for those who are looking for it. WP:CITEWATCH and WP:CITEWATCH/SETUP have been updated to point to the archived pages when available. The publisher/journal/hijacked lists were archived, but it seems the vanity press page was not. Or at least I can't find an archived version of it.

This would really suck if the updated list was permanently down, rather than a temporary hiccup. This happened in the last few hours. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

It's fine to reference archived versions from pages discussing the list itself, but for other purposes it's better to just stop using a discontinued and outdated resource. It's like checking the weather on last year's newspapers before deciding whether to go out with an umbrella. Nemo 14:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
There's no other source that remotely compares to Beall's list. As long as any statement is dated 'appeared on Beall's list before it was taken down in 2017', it's fine to use as a source for the fact that a publisher was listed on Beall's list. Also a great resource to fight predatory citations in general, both in and off Wikipedia, provided you don't leave your brain at the door and assume the list is perfect, and remember that some of those listed will merely be questionable rather than predatory. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Maybe. The DOAJ is a work in progress but it's already more comprehensive (in terms of journals and publishers examined, whether included or rejected) and way more systematic. It's also easier to check, for instance you can programmatically query the Unpaywall API to know whether a specific DOI was published in a DOAJ-listed journal or not. (At least for publishers using CrossRef.) Nemo 18:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Blacklists are better than whitelists when it comes to hunting down crap. Something absent from DOAJ could mean it's crap, but it could also mean they just never bothered to apply for inclusion in DOAJ, or that the journal is too new for it, or a million other reasons that don't imply crapness, the chief reason being simply that the journal isn't open access. Access to Cabell's list would be fantastic, but it's also prohibitively paywalled. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
We also have the Nordic lists on Wikidata, by the way. I have little hope that Cabell's list will be any better than what we had before: the first studies published about it did not find it performed spectacularly better than anything else, and being paywalled means it avoids wide scrutiny.
Yes, thousands of OA journals have not yet applied to DOAJ, and what's worse DOAJ doesn't examine closed-access journals, many of which are predatory; but then, thousands if not millions of book publishers, news publishers and websites are used in references without ever having been examined by a committee. In short, there's plenty of work to do, and it's ok to do what we can, there will always be more... Nemo 09:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Never heard of closed access journals (I assume that subscription journals are meant) being referred to as "predatory". As for the Nordic lists, Norway has a small population and while its universities are generally of a very high quality, it is important to note that, given the size of the academic communities there, these lists are compiled by very few people. --Randykitty (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
DOAJ is specifically concerned with open access journals. Predatory publishing is a feature of open access publishing because of the author pays model, which incentivizes lax reviewing standards. Closed access journals are subscription based, which incentivizes proper peer review, so predatoriness, as the term is generally understood, is not something that you have to worry about in subscription journals. Subscription journals can still have problems, but they will be of a different nature. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I've known some subscription journals with remarkably low standards of peer review. I've also known quite a few that I would class as predatory--with the victims not being the authors who thought they were paying for an article in a journal that would be rejected, but the libraries and universities that paid the subscription--and subscriptions are always paid in advance), sometimes for "volumes" that would be published as single issues, or even that would never be published at all. I should look to see what we say in the articles on some of them. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Just FYI, I have found one page (but no more) on the weebly Beall's list site that is currently still live: [6]. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
If it's really gone, that's too bad. I saved local copies of publisher/journal for my own use in case of this sort of eventuality but didn't bother with hijacked/vanity, so unfortunately I can't help in any recovery efforts. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

There's a Google cache version that lists the following as vanity presses:

XOR'easter (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

It's back up now! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

And apparently we should replace the weebly link with a link to the "more permanent" URL beallslist.net. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Journal of Asian and African Studies helpEdit

@DGG: on this one. Background

From the Sage website, it seems like Sage acquired Journal of Asian and African Studies in 2002, and continued publishing it under the same name.

From the Brill website, it seems like Brill published Journal of Asian and African Studies until 2001, then it renamed it Asian and African Studies and continued publishing it under a different name since 2002.

WTF is going on here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Sadly https://journaltransfer.issn.org/ only has data from 2013.
When journals are transferred, the original publisher often retains some rights over the archive. Maybe they have agreed to use a different name in following years to reduce "confusion"? Nemo 13:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Academic Journals".