Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Assessment

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

WikiProject Academic Journals (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

good articlesEdit

In order to start assessing articles about journals, we need to find articles that are already good or work collaboratively on a few that can be good. There are currently less than 700 uses of the Infobox Journal template.

DGG posted a decent list of what we would want on a journal article; see User talk:DGG#what journal articles should have as content for the discussion so far. John Vandenberg 02:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a good summary. So good in fact that we should have a separate page for it here so we can discuss it on its own talk page. What would be a suitable name for that subpage? Carcharoth 16:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree it should be a subpage of the project. I suggest it should be be called "Project editing conventions". In another project I got involved in a discussion about deleting pages of this kind because they were called things like "guidelines" and "manual of style". The compromise was that title and it has subpages itself. --Bduke 22:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Most projects have "assessment criteria"; DGG's list a reasonable start at that. I have drafted a "talk page banner" (based on {{WPBooks}}) which accepts a "class=" param:
WikiProject Academic Journals (Rated Project-class)
 This page is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Feel free to alter it wildly or nominate it for deletion. John Vandenberg 08:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, except for the link to the literature portal. I've been looking for a more appropriate portal, but no luck so far. If people here want to set up a portal, we could cover far more than just journals. I think the phrase "academic publishing" or "academic literature" best covers the topic areas here. Ranging from the starting point (for most of us) of academic journals, but also encompassing publishers of academic literature (including academic societies), and other academic literature such as monographs, and extending as far as academic conferences (Category:Academic conferences is interesting, and many of the articles in Category:Conferences could be diffused down here). I'm wondering if Portal:Academia might work? Compare with Portal:Education and Portal:University. On the other hand, a more focused portal such as Portal:Academic journals might work better, and would be a natural subset of Portal:Literature, which is currently very heavily biased towards fiction, with the only non-fiction sub-portal of any quality being Portal:Library and information science. Carcharoth 00:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've pulled the literature portal out of the template; creating an Academia portal sounds like a good idea, but I've never been near a portal so I'll leave that to someone else. The template has been added to about ~760 article talk pages that can be found at Category:Unassessed Academic Journal articles. I think we can get an existing bot to auto-assess them, but we will need to manually find the Good, A, and possibly B class articles. John Vandenberg 20:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Great stuff -- the templates might get us a few more members. I've done a little Portal work, and it's fairly easy to make a basic static one once there's a set of tagged and assessed articles. The only obvious problem would be finding enough (any) free-use images. What criteria were you thinking of using for the auto-assess bot? Espresso Addict 20:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Images should be easy for articles that are now PD; see Curtis's Botanical Magazine, commons:Curtis's Botanical Magazine.
The length of the article can be used to differentiate between stub and start, and B class could be a combination of the article length and also having an infobox with a core set of fields filled in. We can always reassess them later when we have better criteria. John Vandenberg 21:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Not sure image copyright is ever easy -- for example, as far as I understand it, photographs of 2D images are only PD in certain countries, so strictly speaking you would have to prove either that the image had been scanned or that the photograph had been taken in eg the USA. Espresso Addict 21:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I did some work a couple of months ago getting Nature (journal) up to Good Article status. I think we should try to get Nature (journal), Science (journal) and PNAS up to FA status as I'd say those are your flagship scientific journals. We should then try to improve the most respected journals in each field. My academic background is economics, where the journals we'd want in top shape are Econometrica and the American Economic Review and the Journal of Economic Theory. --JayHenry 16:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree 100% on Nature and Science; PNAS perhaps has a lesser reputation in the UK and it has a much lower impact factor. Considering my own speciality of medical journals, I compiled a list of the top few a while back; NEJM, Lancet and JAMA are the obvious clinical triad, together with Nature Medicine for pre-clinical medicine, which has an astonishingly high impact factor for such a recently founded journal. All four are at best Start class at the moment. I'd also put in a vote for Cell amongst the biological journals; it's a very short stub for a very high impact journal. Espresso Addict 17:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd add to DGG's criteria (which are excellent as far as coverage of the present goes) a bit more focus on a journal's history, where at all notable. Sort of, "if this journal went out of business today, and in 50 years I was writing a retrospective on its history, what would be worth mentioning?". Many journals have been shaped by important personalities, been involved in important controversies in a field, been founded in interesting circumstances, etc. And of course for defunct journals the historical coverage is really the only coverage the article can have. --Delirium 17:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

High-priority articlesEdit

Some thoughts on really important articles that we should work on.

taggingEdit

I see tagging the journals has begun. DGG (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been through Category:Royal Society of Chemistry and tagged all journals there that had not previously been tagged. --Bduke 01:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I've tagged everything under {{sci-journal-stub}} as class=stub, so they appear in Category:Stub-Class Academic Journal articles (around 400). John Vandenberg 10:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Taking a quick sample, I think some of these will need reassessing after we've developed class definitions. Espresso Addict 16:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
To kick off the discussion, how about:
  • Stub: No infobox and only a few sentences or lacks key information
  • Start: Infobox at least partially filled in; at a minimum has subject (unless obvious from title), ISSN, publisher, frequency and availability online open access/delayed open access versus subscription-only online access/no online access.
  • B-class: Infobox fully filled in; the bulk of material in DGG's list included

Espresso Addict 16:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

seems Ok. The main gap will be the lack of info about online availability--I am not sure how much it matters though, because by now almost everything will have at least recent volumes available through the journal home page at least by subscription access. Ten years ago it would have been different. DGG (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who now works from home, the difference between a free access journal and a pay-per-view journal is absolute! I think a lot of readers will be interested in how they can access papers for free. The method of paid access is less important, as those who have such subscriptions will already know how to find out which publications are included.
I don't mind striking that, though, if you think it will result in near 100% stubs. What we could really do with is differentiation and identification of those existing articles that desperately need some TLC. Espresso Addict 04:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's another matter--you're talking about availability as an open access journal or a delayed open access journal. That's very important, when it applies, and should always be said. And they should be listed in the categories, Category:Open access journals for the true ones, and Category:Delayed open access journals for the ones where they publishers are still too timid to do things right. (yes, I have a decided opinion about what counts as "right" in this matter, & if you want to see my arguments, ask by email, and I'll send you the link to where they can be found) There is also List of journals available free online--a page that needs some drastic spam removal--it's meant to be for a few sample highlights, but maybe it's better deleted.DGG (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's really (delayed) open access that I was meaning; I've edited my criteria above to reflect this. I'm torn on open access, but that's not germane here -- a discussion for e-mail. I agree List of journals available free online might be better deleted, as it's now more common than not. Espresso Addict 04:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged the remaining journals at Category:Medical journals. Espresso Addict 01:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

QueryEdit

Are we including academic publishers that are not learned societies? eg Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) Press? These are often to be found in the journal categories, and sometimes are the only article representing the journals that they publish. Espresso Addict 22:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should include them. I think a new cat Category:Academia publishers would be a good idea, with Category:University book publishers as a subcat. John Vandenberg 00:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with the existing Category:Academic publishing? Carcharoth 09:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit broad. It would be nice to distinguish publishers from general concepts. Espresso Addict 09:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Category:Publishers of academic literature then? Carcharoth 11:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
What about just Category:Academic publishers? Espresso Addict 11:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but when a category sounds like it might refer to people, the word "academic" feels slightly wrong. "Academic journals" is OK, because we know the journals can be academic, but people can be academic, while not publishing academic material. Carcharoth 11:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Not sure I follow, having worked for several companies and institutions I'd call academic publishers, but how about Category:Academic publishing companies? Espresso Addict 12:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't mind either. Have a look at other category names, and then pick one. Unless anyone else objects, or favours one of the options. Carcharoth 12:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Category:Publishers of academic literature works for me. John Vandenberg 12:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (just noticed recent additions) Category:Academic publishers was what I was originally going to suggest, but as it sounds a little ambiguous ( as Carcharoth has also mentioned) I went for "Academia". Special:Prefixindex/Category:Academia indicates that that prefix isnt common; Special:Prefixindex/Category:Publishers suggests that publishers of types of material would go under Category:Publishers of X, and Special:Prefixindex/Category:Academic is very common so Category:Academic publishing companies also works for me :-) John Vandenberg 12:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment criteriaEdit

Can we use the examples of the collaboration articles to discuss assessment criteria? The first one, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, is still Start-class - probably mainly because of the stubby sections that haven't been expanded. I've just assessed the second one, International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, as B-class. I can't assess Astronomische Nachrichten as I've done a lot of the editing there, but I think is has improved beyond start class. Of course, more important than just assessing and walking away is leaving behind a list of missing things and plans for future additions to the article. ie. saying what is needed to make the article (a) comprehensive and (b) readable and conforming to the house style. Any ideas on how to approach this? Carcharoth 15:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for assessing International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, but it wasn't a collaboration -- I think I'm the only significant editor! I had a look at Astronomische Nachrichten and I think B-class is probably fair, though to my mind it concentrates too much on the history, with too little on the present-day journal.
I agree it's important to provide hints for improvement, particularly for articles which have progressed beyond a few sentences. I think the way of approaching this might be to agree some definitions of the classes with examples, per the discussions previously. That could then be linked from the project template to give a simple set of basics which the different levels require, without too much extra work. Espresso Addict 15:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good. I'm going to try and collaborate a bit more on the other journals, but my bias is towards the history side of things. Most of the current information about the journal ended up in the infobox. Also, in some cases the history is the story. If a journal was more notable in the past than it is now, then the article should, in my opinion, reflect that.
Having said that, I'm now trying to think what else could be said about the current journal? What would be nice is to find out at what point it went totally English. Looking at the old editorials, such as this one from 1996 often answers such questions. But too much of that kind of thing verges on original research. Maybe the current layout should be described as well? It currently seems to be laid out in sections called "Original Papers" and "Editor's Choice". Part of the problem is that there often isn't much to say about journal's right now. It needs a few years to pass before anything sensible can be said that won't be out of date next year. Carcharoth 16:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow! I am just really stunned by Astronomische Nachtrichten. Not only have you collected the "vital statistics" but there's a story! This is documenting human knowledge, humanly. It is an exceedingly high standard for the awsome number of journals that exist, though AN obviously has considerably more history than the vast majority. Congratulations. Alastair Haines 16:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OJSEdit

Can we go ahead and rate OJS as "Start-Class"? There should be no doubt about it. The reason I want it to be rated now is so that people will know that it needs improvement. --MahaPanta (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I see it has been rated as a start class, which looks appropriate. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Journal of Photochemistry et al.Edit

Concerning the requested assessment for these journals, I don't think that the available material currently justifies the existence of four separate articles. See Headbomb's remarks on this in the journal writing manual. --Crusio (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a link to that guidance. I did seriously consider lumping them together in one article but decided against it on the grounds that, had they forked into more uniquely-named journals, the question probably wouldn't arise. Putting the four together would mean either having four identical infoboxes, one combined infobox (which would be confusing), or no infobox at all, which inhibits automated parsing and contradicts the project's guidance for writing new articles. I've seen articles with multiple infoboxes but using different templates. WP:LAYOUT says infoboxes go at the top of the article, so four would be a layout nightmare. Multiple identical infoboxes would risk automated parsers ignoring all but the first one. Similarly, categorisation would become ambiguous in a single article. Journal of Photochemistry is defunct, whilst the others are active. JPPB is more Category:Biology Journals than Category:Chemistry Journals and vice-versa for the other three. So, on balance, I split them. Having said that, if there's consensus that a single article is better, I'll merge them. In the meantime, I'll try to add a bit more content but I'll hold off setting up more redirects for now. Thanks. KenBailey (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • A link to the guide is in the project banner at the top of this page :-) It contains links to examples that use multiple infoboxes. Merging them would make for one substantial article instead of four stublike ones. The categopries "biology journals" and "chemistry journals" are not very specific and perhaps you can have a look at the subcats and find a more appropriate home (biochemistry journals?) for these journals. Also, if appropriate, there is no problem with putting an article in more than one cat. --Crusio (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again for your feedback. I had read the writing guide and the other guidance as well but could not see any steer on the issue of one article per journal vs single articles for a collection of related journals. Forgive me if I've overlooked this. Can you point me to some examples of similar articles that cover multiple journals that share a pedigree I could use as a model please? I agree that the stubby content as it currently is would conflate to a single more substantive article but what should be done about the four infoboxes? There are several other stubby articles within the scientific journal category that are similarly brief, so I don't see initial brevity as justification for lumping. Good idea about the cats but I can't see any sub cats that would be more appropriate. I guess I could create "Category:annoyingly closely-related-but-separate journals" which might help :) KenBailey (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I've now read the Notablity Caveats number 3 which applies in this case. My apologies for not having read it sooner. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A/B/C is a similar case to Nuclear Physics (journal). That single 'umbrella' article is better than nothing but already the infobox there is cluttered and qualifies under WP:Disinfoboxes. Perhaps a single umbrella article, without an infobox, explaining the pedigree of the related journals linking to individual articles for each journal would be a better solution? KenBailey (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The infobox is very versatile and with some tweaking you could have just one infobox giving all info for the different sections together. A lot of info (publisher, for example) is common, after all. User:Headbomb could probably help you with that. --Crusio (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I could. If you merge the articles at Journal of Photochemistry then move it to its modern name Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology, I'll take care of the infobox and other details. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. Done. Probably needs some cleanup or even further surgery. KenBailey (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


RfC: Please see hereEdit

for input on lists of academic journals!

Thanks! Mootros (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law ReviewEdit

It appears that this legal academic journal has gone under the radar for some time. Did we lose an editor who was maintaing the legal academic journals on a daily basis? In any event, the name has changed in the past few years and thus the article likely needs an overhaul. I will try to devote time to this soon. — IvyLaw 🌿 (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Help required for the assessment of an article on a academic JournalEdit

Hello.. I have created a page on an academic journal Draft:Nature Environment and Pollution Technology. I have added the references to reputed and notable bibliographic databases where the journal is indexed. I wanted to know what other content can i add to the article so that it can be accepted. Apurva1410 (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Section updated - Current status; section added - Popular pagesEdit

Greetings - For status section I added progression, pie chart, rainbow. After Logs (at bottom) I added wikilink to monthly Popular pages. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)