![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following paragraph under a discussion of review articles seems confused, is it a mix of statements regarding review articles and book reviews?
Unlike original research articles, book reviews tend to be solicited submissions, sometimes planned years in advance. Book review authors are paid a few hundred dollars for reviews, because of this, the standard definitions of open access do not require review articles to be open access, though many are so. They are typically relied upon by students beginning a study in a given field, or for current awareness of those already in the field.
-- Vlehdonv ( talk) 08:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Under "Scholarly articles", why does it say "American academia"? Why not world-wide?
This article is still not complete--links are here to several more-specific pages that have not yet been written--they will be written over the next few days. DGG 01:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you give the exact place on their website where the list is located?
DGG 18:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it ironic that this article doesn't have academic references?-- BMF81 12:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The example is probably necessary, because it is in fact not always clear that any but the major journals are important. History seems a particularly obious example to use. DGG 07:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The image Image:Journalcovers.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted for the umpteenth time an edit by an anon IP who adds a section about journal locators. It is almost totally irrelevant to this article. This editor makes troll-like edits to academic and in particular journal-related articles, either to insert this section or to aggressively challenge trivial facts, usually by adding {{fact}} tags. His dynamic IP address is 222.64.xxx.xxx, which resolves to Shanghai, China. andy ( talk) 09:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Now also operating as 124.78.xxx.xxx - still Shanghai. andy ( talk) 08:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
This article needs some discussion of the difference between "refereed" and "non-refereed" journals (some journals have both refereed and non-refereed articles). This makes a difference in the kind of review they receive. Non-refereed journals are reviewed by an editor or editorial board for quality, but do not go through the process of multiple, and typically blind, peer-review characteristic of a refereed journal. That also qualifies the statement made in this article that academic journals are peer-reviewed, by definition. Peter G Werner ( talk) 23:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the lead should be rewritten as "An academic journal is a periodical publication, usually peer-reviewed, ...."; below are some quotations. Fgnievinski ( talk) 01:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
"Not all academic journals are refereed, that is, not all use the quality control mechanism of 'peer review'..." p.103 [8] (see also full paragraph below)
"In nonrefereed journals, the editorial decision to accept or reject is made in-houce, either by the editor or by staff at the journal. (...) Usually refereed journals are considered stronger and more prestigious than those that are not." p.285 [9]
"Refereed or peer-reviewed journals are almost invariably more prestigious that nonrefereed journals. The latter usually do not have outside or ad hoc reviewers; instad, an editor alone makes determination of the publishability of a particular article." p.41 [10]
"Non-peer reviewed academic joumals. These scholarly periodicals publish scholarly articles but are not peer reviewed. At such a journal, only the editor (or two or three staff members) reads the submissions and determines whether each should be published in the journal. There is no editorial board or review committee whose opinion the editor takes into account; no other scholars review and rate the submissions. Since a review by peers remains the sine qua non of quality in academic publishing, you should not consider such a journal. Some non-peer-reviewed academic journals have quite high reputations within a field; Harvard Business Review does not have an anonymous review process or external reviewers and has an excellent reputation. These are the exceptions that prove the rule. I do not recommend non-peer-reviewer journals for junior scholars." p.106 [11]
More evidence of the current contradiction in Wikipedia: Sokal affair says that " Social Text, an academic journal ... [which] did not practice academic peer review". Fgnievinski ( talk) 19:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's some new info. I've used my library's subscription to Ulrich's Periodicals Directory. Its results are presented in tabular format, one row per journal, and there's a column titled "Referred". Then I searched for 'Serial Type:("Journal") Content Type:("Academic / Scholarly") Language of Text:("English")' and found the following non-referred academic/scholarly journals in English among the results: Art and Australia, Agricultural Science, The Australian Law Journal, Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal, etc. (just the first few, in alphabetical order). Evidence for the non-defining character of peer review in academic/scholarly journals? You and I may hate that fact, but still... Fgnievinski ( talk) 00:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I am concerned about this recent edit. One thing is that several of the sources are suspect (I have removed the most obvious non reliable sources and tagged most of the others. Another is that most of what is claimed there is wrong. Let me go through this point by point. 1/ "The typical academic journal has very low distribution and thus provides authors with very limited exposure". Seems reasonable at first sight, bt which scientist still searches for articles by looking at tables of contents? Nowadays we have databases and an article that appeared in the Nauru Journal of Obscure Data will be indexed at a minimum in Google Scholar and be easy to find. Any journal more notable, will also be listed in indexes like PubMed, Web of Science, or others. 2/ "It can take up to two years before an academic journal reviews an article for publication". This is not supported by the sources cited. At best, one of which says that it can take years to publish a scholarly article. It's a PowerPoint presentation and it is not clear whether "several years" includes, for example, the time to carry out the research being reported. In any case, in most fields, a journal that takes more than, say, six weeks to review a paper will soon find itself out of business. In the social sciences and humanities, things may sometimes go slower, but two years seems over he top. 3/ "In recent years, rather than seek publication in academic journals, many researchers have opted to publish on the Internet". One wonders how these "many researchers" deal with promotion and tenure committees... Not really sourced either.
The editor who has added these remarks is very strident about them ("well-known truth"), so before reverting this addition completely, I'd like to hear the opinion of other editors here. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
All three sentences of this most recent do not accurately reflect what the references say. And, sorry to say, but -- in fact, I don't think these sentences accurately reflect any sources that exist. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 05:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted the recent edits and restored the last stable version, per the above detailed reasoning of Steve Quinn. Please do not restore this material without first obtaining a consensus here. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
What is the diffrence between Academic journal and scientific journal ? For me no difference and why do we speak about book review in an article about academic journal ? For me the title of this article has to be changed into academic press and not academic journal. Snipre ( talk) 17:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
outdated concept fgnievinski ( talk) 01:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, reference number 2 says "Journal research papers require peer review that typically involves an editor and two reviewers", of course book reviews and the like do not require peer review. Its necessary to specify Hastengeims ( talk) 15:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following paragraph under a discussion of review articles seems confused, is it a mix of statements regarding review articles and book reviews?
Unlike original research articles, book reviews tend to be solicited submissions, sometimes planned years in advance. Book review authors are paid a few hundred dollars for reviews, because of this, the standard definitions of open access do not require review articles to be open access, though many are so. They are typically relied upon by students beginning a study in a given field, or for current awareness of those already in the field.
-- Vlehdonv ( talk) 08:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Under "Scholarly articles", why does it say "American academia"? Why not world-wide?
This article is still not complete--links are here to several more-specific pages that have not yet been written--they will be written over the next few days. DGG 01:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you give the exact place on their website where the list is located?
DGG 18:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it ironic that this article doesn't have academic references?-- BMF81 12:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The example is probably necessary, because it is in fact not always clear that any but the major journals are important. History seems a particularly obious example to use. DGG 07:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The image Image:Journalcovers.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted for the umpteenth time an edit by an anon IP who adds a section about journal locators. It is almost totally irrelevant to this article. This editor makes troll-like edits to academic and in particular journal-related articles, either to insert this section or to aggressively challenge trivial facts, usually by adding {{fact}} tags. His dynamic IP address is 222.64.xxx.xxx, which resolves to Shanghai, China. andy ( talk) 09:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Now also operating as 124.78.xxx.xxx - still Shanghai. andy ( talk) 08:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
This article needs some discussion of the difference between "refereed" and "non-refereed" journals (some journals have both refereed and non-refereed articles). This makes a difference in the kind of review they receive. Non-refereed journals are reviewed by an editor or editorial board for quality, but do not go through the process of multiple, and typically blind, peer-review characteristic of a refereed journal. That also qualifies the statement made in this article that academic journals are peer-reviewed, by definition. Peter G Werner ( talk) 23:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the lead should be rewritten as "An academic journal is a periodical publication, usually peer-reviewed, ...."; below are some quotations. Fgnievinski ( talk) 01:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
"Not all academic journals are refereed, that is, not all use the quality control mechanism of 'peer review'..." p.103 [8] (see also full paragraph below)
"In nonrefereed journals, the editorial decision to accept or reject is made in-houce, either by the editor or by staff at the journal. (...) Usually refereed journals are considered stronger and more prestigious than those that are not." p.285 [9]
"Refereed or peer-reviewed journals are almost invariably more prestigious that nonrefereed journals. The latter usually do not have outside or ad hoc reviewers; instad, an editor alone makes determination of the publishability of a particular article." p.41 [10]
"Non-peer reviewed academic joumals. These scholarly periodicals publish scholarly articles but are not peer reviewed. At such a journal, only the editor (or two or three staff members) reads the submissions and determines whether each should be published in the journal. There is no editorial board or review committee whose opinion the editor takes into account; no other scholars review and rate the submissions. Since a review by peers remains the sine qua non of quality in academic publishing, you should not consider such a journal. Some non-peer-reviewed academic journals have quite high reputations within a field; Harvard Business Review does not have an anonymous review process or external reviewers and has an excellent reputation. These are the exceptions that prove the rule. I do not recommend non-peer-reviewer journals for junior scholars." p.106 [11]
More evidence of the current contradiction in Wikipedia: Sokal affair says that " Social Text, an academic journal ... [which] did not practice academic peer review". Fgnievinski ( talk) 19:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's some new info. I've used my library's subscription to Ulrich's Periodicals Directory. Its results are presented in tabular format, one row per journal, and there's a column titled "Referred". Then I searched for 'Serial Type:("Journal") Content Type:("Academic / Scholarly") Language of Text:("English")' and found the following non-referred academic/scholarly journals in English among the results: Art and Australia, Agricultural Science, The Australian Law Journal, Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal, etc. (just the first few, in alphabetical order). Evidence for the non-defining character of peer review in academic/scholarly journals? You and I may hate that fact, but still... Fgnievinski ( talk) 00:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I am concerned about this recent edit. One thing is that several of the sources are suspect (I have removed the most obvious non reliable sources and tagged most of the others. Another is that most of what is claimed there is wrong. Let me go through this point by point. 1/ "The typical academic journal has very low distribution and thus provides authors with very limited exposure". Seems reasonable at first sight, bt which scientist still searches for articles by looking at tables of contents? Nowadays we have databases and an article that appeared in the Nauru Journal of Obscure Data will be indexed at a minimum in Google Scholar and be easy to find. Any journal more notable, will also be listed in indexes like PubMed, Web of Science, or others. 2/ "It can take up to two years before an academic journal reviews an article for publication". This is not supported by the sources cited. At best, one of which says that it can take years to publish a scholarly article. It's a PowerPoint presentation and it is not clear whether "several years" includes, for example, the time to carry out the research being reported. In any case, in most fields, a journal that takes more than, say, six weeks to review a paper will soon find itself out of business. In the social sciences and humanities, things may sometimes go slower, but two years seems over he top. 3/ "In recent years, rather than seek publication in academic journals, many researchers have opted to publish on the Internet". One wonders how these "many researchers" deal with promotion and tenure committees... Not really sourced either.
The editor who has added these remarks is very strident about them ("well-known truth"), so before reverting this addition completely, I'd like to hear the opinion of other editors here. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
All three sentences of this most recent do not accurately reflect what the references say. And, sorry to say, but -- in fact, I don't think these sentences accurately reflect any sources that exist. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 05:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted the recent edits and restored the last stable version, per the above detailed reasoning of Steve Quinn. Please do not restore this material without first obtaining a consensus here. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
What is the diffrence between Academic journal and scientific journal ? For me no difference and why do we speak about book review in an article about academic journal ? For me the title of this article has to be changed into academic press and not academic journal. Snipre ( talk) 17:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
outdated concept fgnievinski ( talk) 01:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, reference number 2 says "Journal research papers require peer review that typically involves an editor and two reviewers", of course book reviews and the like do not require peer review. Its necessary to specify Hastengeims ( talk) 15:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)