Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#Proposal for notability guideline for newspapers

This AfD suffers from a lack of quorum and could use the input of knowledgeable editors. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

According to [https://bambots.brucemyers.com/TemplateParam.php?action=missing&wiki=enwiki&template=Infobox+journal¶m=website this list] there are currently around 700 articles that use {{tl|Infobox journal}} without the |website parameter. This is either because there is none, there was one that isn't available anymore or because it hasn't been added yet. I wonder if we could use the Wikidata value in cases like this. The expected behaviour would be: If the journal doesn't have a website, it should also have nothing to add from Wikidata; if the website is dead it should be deprecated on Wikidata and therefore also not show here; if theres a normal or preferred value on Wikidata it will show that one on here. Thoughts on this? Nobody (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:As a backup, sure. But Wikidata data is evil, and shouldn't be relied upon. Wikidata can sync from Wikipedia if they want, but the reverse shouldn't be true. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:*I agree completely with {{u|Headbomb}} that Wikidata is unreliable. Whatever the people over there do is their business and they can import from WP all they like, but WD should not be used as a source for anything here. --Randykitty (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with others that just displaying the Wikidata website value (if there is one) might have too many false positives. What would be nice is a WP:SHORTDESCHELPER-type tool for editors that shows them a website and other metadata available in Wikidata and enables one-click import if it's appropriate info to include. I wonder if someone has worked on a tool like that for various infoboxes? Suriname0 (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::What you want does not exist, but Wikimedia Deustchland is developing it at :meta:Wikidata Bridge. I think it is in demo at Catalan language Wikipedia. That project has been ongoing for years, and has new resources for further development in 2025.

::About the idea of journal development on Wikidata generally, while I do not object to anyone halting interactions between Wikipedia and Wikidata, of all the projects on Wikidata, managing journal data is the flagship project with the most contributors and investment. In August 2025 there will be another :meta:WikiCite conference online/in-person (Switzerland this time) where the focus is developing scholarly citation data in Wikidata. I develop Scholia, which is like Google Scholar but in the wiki platform and using this data. We have a hackathon this month mostly asynchronously online as documented at Wikidata:Scholia/Events/Hackathon_April_2025.

::Be wary of Wikidata, but also, scholarly content on Wikidata is Wikidata's hottest data, and if anything is reliable things like a journal's website are likely to be the most stable the platform will offer. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the info about Wikidata Bridge! It makes sense to trial it on language wikis that actually do import Wikidata into infoboxes, but I wonder if the wider availability of such an editing tool would make enwiki editors less hostile to displaying some Wikidata. Suriname0 (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|things like a journal's website are likely to be the most stable}} unless you have something like IssnBot which sometimes adds multiple wrong official website claims. Nobody (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a proposal to reorganize Template:Infobox academic. Please feel free to participate in the discussion here. Thanks! — hike395 (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Some of you, especially the Americans, are aware of these new orders. [https://insidemedicine.substack.com/p/breaking-news-cdc-orders-mass-retraction], [https://www.alternet.org/purge-cdc-terms/], [https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/01/31/cdc-website-gender-lgbtq-data/], etc.

"The CDC has instructed its scientists to retract or pause the publication of any research manuscript being considered by any medical or scientific journal, not merely its own internal periodicals, Inside Medicine has learned. The move aims to ensure that no “forbidden terms” appear in the work. The policy includes manuscripts that are in the revision stages at journal (but not officially accepted) and those already accepted for publication but not yet live."

I'm wondering if any of you will be able to report what is actually happening to both journals and the academics involved. This is pretty scary. I'm also wondering about any possible impact on non-US journals.

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:Non-US journals should be fine. Or rather submissions from non US academics in general.

:The next four years will not be pleasant, in general. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::*O M G With some delay, Nineteen Eighty-Four finally is here. May you live in interesting times... --Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::*:Pretty sure I've seen how that turns out. Time to start to plot. Nobody (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

See[https://open.substack.com/pub/insidemedicine/p/some-scientific-and-medical-journal?r=9ponh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false] Doug Weller talk 15:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Ah, I started 2025 United States government online resource removals. Other people have developed into the best survey of changes that is currently available. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

An anonymous IP just posted some links to [https://predatoryjournals.org/home this website] that lists predatory journals and publishers. It looks rather professional, but the people behind it remain anonymous (so as not to get sued by the more aggressive predators). Does anybody have more info about this site? Is it reliable (in the sense of WP:RS)? --Randykitty (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:That's pretty much a copy-paste of Beall's original list, split in incovenient parts, and little more. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

::They're also the people that hijacked Cabell's Predatory Report branding. It made news a while back... I'll dig a bit more. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::See Talk:MDPI#Inclusion of 2024 employee death and [https://blog.cabells.com/2024/01/16/unmasking-a-predator-predatoryreports-org/amp/] in particular. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::*Thanks, that's quite clearly not an RS! --Randykitty (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Journal seems to have disappeared without leaving much of a trace (see also talk page of that article). Anybody more successful in finding a homepage or any other functional link? --Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:Probably a case where they forgot to renew the domain and someone else hijacked it. This is a Ukrainian journal, so... the war in Ukraine likely has disrupted normal operations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:*Our article mentions an Italian publisher, though. --Randykitty (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:*:That's for the print edition. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine has been working on getting at least one citation into every article. We have only 36 uncited articles left. Five of these are journal articles:

A lot of editors struggle to locate sources about journals. Can you help us out? Can you put the first source in each of these five articles and remove the {{tl|unref}} tag? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{Ping|WhatamIdoing}}, you can use {{tl|cite MIAR}} to source indexing rather easily. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks! You've prod'd the first one, and I've added MIAR to the other four. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to clarify some key points regarding Veterinary World and its indexing:

• Veterinary World is indexed in ESCI (Emerging Sources Citation Index) under Web of Science. While SCIE journals may or may not have an impact factor, ESCI journals can receive one if they meet Clarivate’s criteria.
• The journal has an impact factor of 1.7, as assigned by Web of Science, despite being in ESCI.
• It is also indexed in Scopus, PubMed Central, and EMBASE, with a CiteScore of 3.6, further supporting its academic credibility.
• A bibliometric analysis (2008–2017) found significant multi-author contributions, primarily from Indian institutions, and a total of 1,954 articles published during that period.
• The journal is available in around 1,100 university libraries worldwide, as cataloged in WorldCat.
• It has published highly cited articles, particularly on antimicrobial resistance, adding to its notability.
• Inconsistency in Deletion Standards: Many stub journal articles remain on Wikipedia despite lacking independent sources and being included solely based on primary sources and indexing in databases. Given that Veterinary World has both independent sources and database recognition, flagging it for no sufficient coverage raises concerns about inconsistent application of inclusion criteria.

I hope this helps clarify the journal’s status and notability according to WP:NJOURNAL.

Thanks! Riyazsher (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:Journals should meet the GNG with multiple independent secondary RS containing SIGCOV. NJOURNALS is not an actual guideline, so if you want to avoid tags you need to find independent prose sources that discuss it in depth. JoelleJay (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• {{u|Riyazsher}}, indexing in ESCI, PubMed Central, or EMBASE is not enough for NJournals. Neither is any of the other feats that you list enough. However, Scopus indexing does meet NJournals. Having an impact factor does not mean much anymore as Clarivate since last year gives IFs to all indexed journals (i.e., also ESCI-listed journals). Joelle is correct that NJournals is not a guideline, but as an essay it clarifies why some of us (but clearly not Joelle) regard indexing in a selective database as meeting GNG. In praxis, journals meeting NJournals usually are kept (sometimes as "no consensus") at deletion discussions. However, the current draft is not yet an acceptable journal articles. See our writing guide for tips on how to make this into an acceptable and encyclopedic article. Pre-formatted references can be found on my user page. --Randykitty (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• :{{xt|Pre-formatted references can be found on my user page}} or at WP:JRES. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::@Headbomb and other editors,
• ::I understand the concerns raised, but the responses so far keep diverting from the main issue: Wikipedia is not applying its rules consistently when it comes to journal articles.
• ::Veterinary World Meets the Same Standards as Many Existing Journal Pages
• ::* Indexed in major databases: Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed Central, WorldCat (available in 1100+ universities)
• ::* Cited in 16 Wikipedia articles
• ::* Has an independent bibliometric analysis from a university
• ::Despite this, some editors are nitpicking it, while other journal pages—which lack independent secondary sources—are still live without question.
• ::The Key Issue: Why the Double Standard?
• ::❓ If Veterinary World is being questioned, then why are other journals with only primary sources and index listings still allowed?
• ::❓ If WP:NJOURNALS is not a guideline, then what specific Wikipedia policy justifies deleting Veterinary World but keeping those other journals?
• ::❓ If WP:GNG is the requirement, then why isn’t it enforced equally for all journal pages?
• ::The scale of the issue is too large to be dismissed as "we are working on it." If the rules were fairly enforced, we wouldn’t see so many journal articles that lack independent sources still standing.
• ::This Feels Like Selective Enforcement Due to Conflict of Interest (COI) Bias
• ::I understand that COI concerns are valid, but that shouldn’t change how Wikipedia applies its own notability standards. The contributions of Veterinary World to academic publishing remain unchanged, regardless of COI.
• ::Unless Wikipedia enforces equal standards across all journal pages, this is biased enforcement, whether intentional or not.
• ::What Needs to Happen
• ::Either delete all journal pages that don’t meet WP:GNG
• ::Or apply the same leniency to Veterinary World that has been applied to similar journals
• ::I request a policy-based explanation for why this inconsistency exists. If no reasonable justification is provided, then fairness demands that other similar journal pages also be deleted—or that Veterinary World remains.
• ::This is not about just getting Veterinary World on Wikipedia. This is about ensuring Wikipedia applies its standards fairly and consistently. Riyazsher (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::"I request a policy-based explanation for why this inconsistency exists"
• :::See human nature. Once you solve the problem of different people having different opinions in different situations, come back to us. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::That’s not a valid policy-based response. This is frustrating, how bias leads to some, not all, journal pages staying on Wikipedia while Veterinary World is questioned, despite having the same or even more qualifications.
• ::::If indexing, citations, and bibliometric studies are enough for those journals to remain, why is a different standard being applied here?
• ::::I’m not here to argue endlessly. I expected a fair, policy-based explanation, not shifting goalposts. If this is the way Wikipedia enforces its standards, I see no point in contributing further. Riyazsher (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::"If indexing, citations, and bibliometric studies are enough for those journals to remain, why is a different standard being applied here?"
• :::::See again, human nature. When you find a way to make everyone agree on everything, you will have your consistancy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::@Headbomb: Why is this 'human nature' allowing so many (a lot of) journal pages on Wikipedia to stay up without independent sources—without even being flagged—while Veterinary World is singled out? I’ve even seen discussions on this talk page about adding references to similar journal pages instead of questioning their notability. So what exactly is going on here? Riyazsher (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• Read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. There's only so much that an editor can do: I have about 4000 pages on my watchlist, most of them journal articles. I also patrol new articles (that's how I got to VW). But we have well over 10,000 journal articles, so there's a bunch that need checking. Until that happens, badly sourced stubs may be around. Note that not having sources in a stub is not a reason to delete it, as sources may exist. Meanwhile, the fact that badly-sourced journal articles exist is not a reason to create more badly sourced articles... --Randykitty (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• :That and external links are also often present, which goes towards WP:V. So while many articles may not have tags, they have implicit references. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I started an RfC on a newspaper notability guideline. This WikiProject has found a lot of success by working with a comparable and better developed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), so I wanted to ask for comments, advice, and criticism about newspapers trying to develop its own guideline. Please consider commenting. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Please participate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I've been trying to let editors know which WP:PAYWALLED journals are available to them via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library by adding this banner to the top of notable journals' talk pages:

{{Wikipedia Library}}

Please consider adding {{tl|Wikipedia Library}} whenever you can. Here's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Behavioural_Brain_Research&diff=prev&oldid=1285510579 an example diff] of my preferred method, but just the plain template without the details will be helpful to a lot of editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm pretty sure that quite a few in :Category:Elsevier academic journals can be found in the library. Nobody (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

{{columns-list|colwidth=30em|

1. Islamic Studies (journal) (325 in 281)
2. Environmental Conservation (journal) (170 in 155)
3. Women's Studies (journal) (160 in 139)
4. Waste Management (journal) (153 in 116)
5. Food Microbiology (journal) (89 in 73)
6. Biophysical Chemistry (journal) (76 in 61)
7. PaleoAnthropology (journal) (76 in 47)
8. Environmental Geology (journal) (73 in 70)
9. Marine Engineering (journal) (47 in 39)
10. Video Games (journal) (46 in 44)
11. Religious Education (journal) (35 in 32)
12. BioResources (journal) (34 in 32)
13. Printed Matter (journal) (31 in 6)
14. THE Journal (journal) (29 in 21)
15. Continuing Medical Education (journal) (25 in 25)
16. Radiation Oncology (journal) (25 in 21)
17. Climate Change (journal) (24 in 21)
18. Chemical Engineering (journal) (24 in 20)
19. Mental Retardation (journal) (22 in 20)
20. Systems Engineering (journal) (18 in 12)

}}

The above journals differ from regular articles only by capitalization, e.g. Islamic Studies redirects to Islamic studies, making it look like we have a journal called Islamic Studies in WP:JCW, when in reality we don't. I just created the Women's Studies article, but it would be nice to have help for the others. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Looking at a few articles that link to Islamic Studies, they seem to be speaking of the major/academic department. Presumably there's a MOS page somewhere that explains whether people get a PhD in "Islamic studies" vs "Islamic Studies". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::It's a common noun, so it's Islamic studies. But departments likes to use title cases for themselves, so you have the "Department of Astronomy" on the door, but in Wikipedia we'd write 'department of astronomy'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)