Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/List of missing journals

Main article, List of missing journals, by sub-page: header, A-C, D-I, J-M, N-Z.
All sub-page talk pages redirect to Wikipedia Talk:List of missing journals (See as well the subpage: wikipedia:List of missing journals/Queue and Wikipedia talk:List of missing journals/Queue)

Naming convention

First off, is there a naming convention on "Journal of XXX" vs. "XXX (Journal)", secondly, what is the notability criteria on these things? Also, the journal infobox should probably go on all articles before pruning, right? . Thank you!--Rayc 14:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work so far on getting some of these filled. I would agree the infobox should go on all articles. As to the naming conventions the standard rule seem to be that we should have "Journal of" at the start of the title only when that is part of its official name. In cases where a disambig is necessary we should add (journal). Thus our article is at Nature (journal), not "Journal of Nature." As to notability, this is a grey area. Even many of the highest profile journals often have a circulation of only a few thousand. Popular recognition or Google hits gives little help, as the majority of journals are very important to a small group of people, but little known outside them. I would be pretty liberal about creating these. As long as a journal comes from a legitimate academic publisher, an article on it should be easily verifiable. - SimonP 02:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey of journal use in Wikipedia

It would be useful, though I don't have the knowledge to do this, to survey Wikipedia for journals referred to in Template:Cite_journal instances as a potential prioritization guide for article creation. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Chemical Society and Royal Institute of Chemistry journals

I have removed many old journals from these now defunct societies. Both had an unfortunate tendency to rename their journals frequently. Both societies finally formed the Royal Society of Chemistry. The journals I removed are covered in the articles, Proceedings of the Chemical Society, Journal of the Royal Institute of Chemistry and Chemical Society Reviews as they were predecessor journals to these. --Bduke 03:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Brian, based on what you have said, the articles that you have unlisted need to be created as redirects to the most appropriate of those existing articles as the old names of journal float around for a _very_ long time.

Also, I've restored a few entries that I believe were unintentionally removed amongst these: [1]:

John Vandenberg 04:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

On the second point, it was indeed unintentional. A stuff-up. Thanks for reverting. On the first point, I'll have a go but they are pretty obscure. I might not get it done today, as we have an election on and I'm due back on the booth soon. This list is very long and thus very difficult to edit. Could it be split? --Bduke 04:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly; I,m about to head down the the booths myself to vote. I'll tackle the Proceeding...'s as I have already done a little research on those this morning, and you can tackle the Journal ...'s and Quarterly...'s. John Vandenberg 04:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just done the redirects to Proceedings of the Chemical Society and some of the Quarterly Reviews to the Chemical Society Reviews. I'll do the rest later. --Bduke 04:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

All redirects done. As well as the 3 journals indicated above, 2 redirects had to go to Journal of the Chemical Society. Chem Soc, RSC, RIC journal names have always been a mess. --Bduke 06:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you meant that you wanted to split the workload :-) Back to your question about splitting this page: I agree it's difficult to edit this page, however I think it's best to have it all on one page so it is easy to find entries using partial matches. I used it a lot to try to figure out which journal is referred to in abbreviated citations. e.g. "C. R. Acad. Bulg. Sci." John Vandenberg 08:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather than splitting the page, perhaps we can use a staging area to avoid editing the main list so often. I have thrown together a "workbench" that we can use to record progress. I created my first template (Template:Missing article)in the process in order to make it easier, and I am keen to create additional templates to assist searching inexact citations. John Vandenberg 12:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I had not come across that Project before. What a lot of usefull work. So if I need to delete a journal from the list, I just add it to the workbench? --Bduke 21:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC]

You removed the articles for the old journal titles? Why on earth did you do that? Now they will need to be created again, eventually. Normally, for most journals with a title change redirects are enough if the article contains the old title. But for the radical changes in JCS it is not possible to do this in a coherent way, as you recognize :) I guess we can figure out a temporary way, using sections on the page, since WP now does do section Redirects properly. DGG 21:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

After John's comments, I created a whole lot of redirects to cover all the old titles. Take a look at the three journal articles in the first para of this section and click on "What links here?" to see the redirects. I think redirects are sufficient. If anybody searches for the old title they will finish up at a place that mentions it. To have lots of different titles would be a mess. I'm pretty sure I have covered all the titles the Chem Soc used. --Bduke 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

centralize

We need to centralize this discussion. There seems to be a basic difference in the way you've been approaching it, and what I would suggest, and we will etiher have to decide, or work from both ends. see [[Usertalk:DGG|my user talk for a continuation, at least now. DGGDGG 21:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

bit of confusion

This page should have a link back to WP:LOMJ/Queue, shouldn't it? Especially since the latter says to not list here ...

It is safe to remove the blue links, right?

It is a bit unclear to me what the purpose of this page is. Is it essentially a focused list of articles to create, all within the realm of journal articles? Keesiewonder ^talk 20:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This effort has been rather adhoc. As a result, I have proposed a new project over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Journals; the temporary project page is User:Jayvdb/Journals. Feel free to add or modify it in order to make it more suitable. John Vandenberg 10:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

splitting up the list

A few people have suggested splitting up the list. I personally prefer to have them all on one page, however due to transclusion, we can have both. There are a few ways we can split the list:

• alphabetically
• by language
• by country of origin
• broad fields
• or if we want to be anal about it, by a real classification scheme such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics Socio-Economic Objectives and/or Research Field, Course and Discipline.

There is definitely merit in cutting the pie by language, as it allows people to work on journals in the language they are familiar with. The talk pages for each can be littered with gobbledygook without annoying others who don't speak the language. German and French would be the most obvious ones to separate.

Separating them by broad fields is already happening with the lists of scientific and academic journals and all of the sublists found under Category:Journals, so I dont think this list should move in that direction. I do think that we need a List of periodical lists that lists all of the lists, so we dont need to hunt around the category system to find the right list.

Alphabetical is an easy option if no better option is available. John Vandenberg 11:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Law Practice Today, a journal or supplement to a journal

An article on a journal or supplement to a journal, Law Practice Today, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law Practice Today. Thank you. --Edcolins 18:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

By my standards this is a professional magazine, and unless someone can show its significance, I do not think it all that important.DGG 07:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

List maintenance

Completed tasks:

• Remove completed items.
• Add (journal) to disambiguate blue-links that link to something else, so they turn red.
• Make comments on entries as needed
• Add sections to the top part of the article, make section 0 editable on its own
• Add 4 large sections to facilitate mass changes. The software is unstable if you try to edit the entire article at once.

Rather than make articles, how about a list?

"Lists of..." aren't typically Wiki, but they aren't unheard of. Turning this into "List of specialized academic journals" with a notation that this list is for journals that are not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia entry is doable and desirable. If you add the items needed for the {{Infobox Journal}}, plus a field for notes and comments, then presented it as a table it would add value while not cluttering up the main article space.

I think a lot of the journals on this list can have their own article. At times I come back to adding new articles on chemistry journals. When it gets rather smaller we could perhaps start adding a bit of information on each one. From my experience with the chemistry ones, a lot of these titles will be for journals that have been renamed and someone who knows this can redirect them to the article on the journal under its new name. Note that we already have several lists of journals. There is List of scientific journals, with, supposedly, a list of the most important 10 in each discipline. There are then fully inclusive lists "List of scientific journals in X" linked from that article. There is also List of academic journals. --Bduke 22:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles in Annual Reviews

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics makes a good template for the remaining articles in that are part of the Annual Reviews series. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I have noticed that many of IOP Publishing's journals appear on this page. As an employee of IOP Publishing would I be able to create articles for these journals or would that be a conflict of interest? I know IOP Publishing has accidentally gone against Wikipedia rules before and I do not want to do anything against Wikipedia. Would it be possible to create neutral articles discussing the content and history of the IOP Publishing journals? Journals88 14:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly difficult, and is frowned on, but it is not against the policy provided you are open about the COI and make absolutely sure that you write from a NPOV and reference everything. If anything you write is removed, you should not revert the change but discuss the issue on the talk page. Look at some existing journal articles, particularly if there are any published by IOP and follow what they do in broad terms. Expect that some people will disagree with me. If they do in a specific case, just stop editing and add your ideas to the talk page and hope someone else will add them. If you want to be particularly careful, just write a stub and add any other content to the talk page. A one sentence plus the infobox and an indication why the journal is notable would do as a stub. --Bduke 22:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding notability, it's my understanding that if a peer-reviewed journal is real and not some group of crackpots that just peer-review each other's work and call it a journal, it belongs in Wikipedia at least as a stub. This is particularly true if it's subscribed to by at least a couple of major research-university libraries that are independent of the publisher and of each other, listed in Google Scholar, or used as a reference for another Wikipedia article. I'm sure there are thousands of obscure journals that meet at least one of these criteria. With apologies to Jimbo and Wikipedia admins everywhere, The Journal of Wiki Wisdom published by Jimbo Wales, peer-reviewed by Wikipedia admins, and subscribed to by Jimbo's alma mater would not qualify. :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

the standard is a little higher than this. There is probably good reason to say that a regularly produced journal, published by a reputable publisher or university, listed in the standard directories such as Ulrich's, indexed by standard indexing services, or more than trivial circulation, and generally held by research libraries specializing in the field, is notable. This is not quite the same. Articles should be prepared to demonstrate these factors. DGG (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tidied list and removed journals that have articles

Removed the following from the list (the other blue links were redirects, so articles still needed for those):

• Wilson Library Bulletin
• Southern Literary Journal
• Sociological Forum
• Phoenix (journal)
• Pacific Historical Review
• Midwest Studies in Philosophy
• Journal of Social History
• Journal of Paleontology
• Journal of Mammalogy
• International Journal of Astrobiology
• Intercultural Pragmatics
• IEEE Wireless Communications
• IEEE Communications Letters
• IEEE Communications Magazine
• Hebraica (journal)
• European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
• European Journal of Inorganic Chemistry
• Children & Society
• The Bryologist
• Astrobiology (journal)
• Annals of Botany
• American Ethnologist

That's a total of 22 new articles. Carcharoth 11:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Split into sections

Several web browsers choke on reading the article, so I split it into sub-pages: Wikipedia:List of missing journals/A-C, Wikipedia:List of missing journals/D-I, Wikipedia:List of missing journals/J-M, and Wikipedia:List of missing journals/N-Z.

Wikipedia:List of missing journals redirects to Wikipedia:List of missing journals/A-C.

All the talk pages redirect to Wikipedia talk:List of missing journals.

All sections transclude Wikipedia:List of missing journals/header. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability vs. Utility

I see that part of the reason for this part of the project was to have more information on the various sources used to compile articles. A goal I applaud. I would like to be able to go to a source with an independent evaluation of a journal using a link. (The Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎ is not useful because it is not indexed.) However, I recently came across a proposed deletion of the (new) International Journal of Applied Mechanics because it was not notable. I have to agree that under the current Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) guidelines many of the journals on this list are not notable. But the utility in having them properly sourced remains. Has this conflict been discussed? Did notability win? Is that why the last entry here is 29 months old? --Bejnar (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikidata

Wikidata is now creating database entries for academic journals; see Wikidata:Help:Sources#Scientific, newspaper or magazine article. As a result, they have a list of journals. These database entries could be used to auto-generate articles from this list, in the style of Wikispecies (although it's been mostly vice-versa so far, with articles used to make entries). The entries also really need proofreading. HLHJ (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)