![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The concept is currently being worked out at User talk:JL-Bot/Archive 4#Tweak to JL-Bot?. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that there should be something to talk about! Gah4 ( talk) 21:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Currently three things are missing for the list to be ready to be considered ready and complete.
Sometimes a journal is listed (and counted) twice per group. Once as a standalone entry, once as sub-item of an entry, e.g.
for a citation count of '6 + 7 + 6 = 19' instead of
for a citation count of '7 + 6 = 13'.
Currently, unredirected typos and variants of an entry are only reported if the entry is itself found, instead of always being reported. For instance, if you have US Open Adv. Mech Eng. J. (missing dot after 'Mech'), it will only be reported if US Open Adv. Mech. Eng. J. has been cited. Likewise Journal of Foobar and Crap, a variant of Journal of Foobar & Crap, will only be reported if Journal of Foobar & Crap has been cited.
|source=
and |note=
This is essential to explain why something is on the Crapwatch. WP:CRAPWATCH/SETUP shows this information source and notes, but WP:CRAPWATCH doesn't yet.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
03:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
03:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
All fixed now. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion concerning whether or not WP:CRAPWATCH and WP:JCW/CRAP should be allowed to be shortcuts to the our crapwatch list to detect predatory journals and other crap citations. Please participate. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the expansion of the Crapwatch at WT:MED using Quackwatch's list. Please comments. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 04:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Having the table cells vertically centered really hurts readability. Could we get
User:JLaTondre's bot to write style="vertical-align: top;"
into the table rows, per
Help:Table#Vertical alignment in cells? --
Netoholic
@
08:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
"flat out predatory" and " promote pseudo/junk science or quackery" are two unrelated dimensions. Most predatory journals are targeting at orthodox but uninteresting science, hooping ofr articles by unsophisticated researchers who do not know better than to publish them. They may because of their nonexistent peer review publish pseudoscience, but that's not their primary intention nor does it describe most of their material. , but that is not their primary intention. They are predatory with respect to those who publish in them, not their audience. DGG ( talk ) 10:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I've added Zero Hedge to WP:RSP. X1\ ( talk) 22:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Is it possible to make the Entries column collapsible? At present, it is extremely difficult to scroll through the list, particularly on a mobile device. RolandR ( talk) 12:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
If you're here following the Signpost piece, welcome to The SourceWatch! Many people worked hard to make something good, and while it's probably not perfect, please assume good faith if you spot issues or have suggestions. Please read the FAQ above for answers to common questions, but feel free to ask for help if something is unclear. Happy editing! – Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The consensus is to use The Wikipedia CiteWatch instead of The Wikipedia SourceWatch.
It turns out that SourceWatch (published by the Center for Media and Democracy, formerly Disinfopedia) is already a thing. Since confusing names are bad (and there's a potential trademark issue here), what should we call this project instead of The Wikipedia SourceWatch? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm thinking maybe The Wikipedia CiteWatch instead of The Wikipedia SourceWatch? How does that sound? Are there better alternatives out there? Are those hits on Google of concern? Thanks to Pythoncoder for pointing the issue! Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Using the Advanced Search, search in page text, "exactly this text" will effectively focus results on the source name.
I'm thinking that in the listing of sources, one might also include common or formal abbreviations for the sources. This won't be useful in many cases ... for instance, the common abbreviation for Amphibian & Reptile Conservation is ARC as indicated on the journal's website - no help there - but the NLM Catalog indicates a couple of alternatives, namely Amphibian and Reptile Conservation and Amphib Reptile Conserv. Searching for the formal title → 26 results (the bot turned back 13); the ISO abbreviation turned up 0 hits. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Ceyockey: there are a few ways to handle this. The simplest would be to create an article on the journal, e.g. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (journal) (since Amphibian and Reptile Conservation also refers to a conversation trust, apparently). Then the following could be created
ARC, is trickier, since many journals can be abbreviated as ARC. This could always be manually added as a match, with a note that it could refer to other journals. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
A proposal to have a parameter to mark questionable sources that are appropriately cited has been made. Please comment. @ Czar: in particular, since this was your suggestion. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 03:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
This may be of interest [12]. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Help cleaning up 'remainder' of predatory journals cited on Wikipedia and help cleanup citations to predatory sources on Wikipedia. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 07:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Basically because of this: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Fake_case_Report and not indexed in MEDLINE Walidou47 ( talk) 10:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is new, and I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
There is some HTML on
User:JL-Bot/Maintenance.cfg,
User:JL-Bot/Citations.cfg, and
User:JL-Bot/Publishers.cfg that looks kind of like <div class="div-col columns column-width" style="column-width: Xem">...
.
I'll soonly be removing the CSS associated with columns
from
MediaWiki:Common.css. You may wish to change these to {{
div col}}.
-- Izno ( talk) 08:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As there is a attack by XOR'aster on physics essays also other places on wikipedia, where he uses this page as evidence for his claim it is a "garbage journal" I was looking up the claims on this page and wonder how much backing is really behind it, I could not find much:
Physics essays according to this page "Publishes quantum woo and relativity denial nonsense that could not possibly have passed meaningful peer-review."
What is specifically meant with relativity denial nonsense? Many non well studied in physics may be think the special relativity theory is considered among all a complete theory. This is not the case. A series of journals published papers on the possible incompleteness in special relativity theory, even a well established theory should off course be questioned, and the ones question it should be questioned. What should not happen is try sensor scientific discussions. Just as an example relativity of simultaneity is considered to be a corner stone in special relativity theory. Still it is quite often discussed and even criticized in very well established journals like the American Journal of Physics, not only in the past but also in recently published papers :"This alternative synchrony renders simultaneity not relative but absolute " https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/10.0000002
so what is so very different when researchers like Professor Gift publishes papers on similar topics in Physics Essays. I mention Professor Gift since XOR'aster in the same claims have attacked his paper specifically and claimed Physics essay is garbage. InvestigateThis ( talk) 17:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC) InvestigateThis ( talk) 17:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
" that could not possibly have passed meaningful peer-review." has wiki editors that wrote this actually checked the peer review process at Physics Essays. For me it seems this journal have been put on the list as some editors in wikipedia is after deleting references to some they for some reason have a personal issue with, I could be wrong. But where is the proofs behind the claims such as "" that could not possibly have passed meaningful peer-review." . The journal specifically mention how they do peer review, perhaps they are more open minded than some other journals, so more variety. Is the "evidence" used that this journal have more papers than other more known journals questioning the completeness of special relativity theory ? InvestigateThis ( talk) 17:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Here it is claimed "The papers mentioned there are without any shred of doubt utter nonsense" why is it obvious nonsense, because it comes with hypoteis question special relativity theory? I likely disagree on the hypotesis suggested by that paper, but such hypotesis are very often presented in much higher ranked journals than this for example "Analyses of scissors cutting paper at superluminal speeds"
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6552/ab77c4 This paper goes against special relativity theory, I think the hypothesis they have presented is not correct, but then I have to prove so, and preferably in a peer reviewed paper, or find peer revied papers doing so. Science do not move forward by prejudice, but by arguments and counter arguments and ongoing discussions. Here we see wikipedia editors, that have perhaps some basic university studies in physics coming with prejudice and defamatory claims against researchers, papers, journals. I encourage some editors in wikipedia to understand this is not giving wikipedia very high status among many researchers.
InvestigateThis (
talk)
18:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
without violating special relativity. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
So perhaps not a good example, there are many alternative relativity theories discussed in the literature, for example going against relativity of simultaneity corner stone in special relativity theory
"and so distant clocks cannot be consistently synchronized following the standard procedure proposed by Einstein except for those under some privileged motion." https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/10.0000002
I can list loads of papers if wanted, I will perhaps in a write up where I will show how editors of wikipedia try to deplatform and ridicule researchers questioning consensus. It is not that they necessarily are right, very often they are wrong. Attacks on peer reviewed papers should be taken seriously when in peer reviewed journals. My point it is not up for wikipedia editors to decide what is good or bad papers. Journals with low rank has on average lower quality of papers, journals with higher rank have on average papers with higher standard. Still there are plenty of evidence of totally garbage papers in low ranked as well as high ranked journals. Individual papers can not be judged based on an average. Perhaps go and study some statistics? InvestigateThis ( talk) 19:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
On Page 6 I saw The Onion was used as source somewhere, and I'm curious. - Scarpy ( talk) 23:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
insource:/regex here/
, and is case sensitive. There's more details at
Help:Searching#insource:
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)The Federalist should be added as a questionable source per the recent RFC closure here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Discussion_(The_Federalist). I'd do it myself, but wikitext isn't my thing. ThadeusOfNazereth Talk to Me! 20:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
We've cleared enough that we're now at 498 entries, needing only 5 pages instead of 6 for the WP:CITEWATCH! Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone, noob here.
I see a lot of references on this page to Beall's list, may I first say how happy I am to see that list is still maintained. But, I believe that page has been moved. The link I am seeing is https://beallslist.weebly.com/ but clicking there says the page has been moved to: https://beallslist.net/ .
I would be happy to fix this if it's helpful. Would I just run a search and replace or is there a better option?
Edinburghpotsdam ( talk) 19:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
So I was scanning through this, and noticed that the Robert M. Rennick Manuscript Collection is listed under the "conspiracy theories" tab, likely because one of the other entries involves the name Robert M. The Robert M. Rennick Manuscript Collection is a collection of place names in Kentucky I've used a source before (mainly to determine the nature of the place). It is most certainly not a conspiracy theory. Hog Farm Talk 04:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I believe that the North American Journal of Psychology (NAJP) is probably questionable, but I'm hardly an expert so I thought I should check. I've made a list of potential red flags:
I don't know heaps about what's normal practice in journals, so feel free to tell me if any of these aren't actually a problem. Please ping me if you respond. Cheers! -- Xurizuri ( talk) 12:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
References
It does seem borderline, but it's also indexed in Scopus as a middle-of-the-pack journal. I'd suggest getting consensus at WP:RSN and asking for WP:PSY people to opine. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I've stumbled across this article published in what is claimed to be a fully peer-reviewed scholarly journal.
The article reads, however, like a bad translation from Google Translate, and apparently some of it is maybe from Azeri: For example, mol! to be a report of the American historian. R. Hovhannisyan on "the Crisis in the Caucasus", which was read at the conference organized" Corporation "Rand". On 28-29 August 1993, in Co - livornica Year
, or Russian: Armenians deystvitelno have taught us the horrors of modern war
, (действительно = really), These were monstrous zverst
[wtf?] Armenian murderers to the beginning of Sumgayit events.
and We believe it is necessary to note that the Sumgait event is wholly the handiwork of the Armenian ekstremistov. Provakatsii prepared long before February 1988 on the territory of Armenia
. Not to mention that it
lays the blame for the
Sumgait pogrom on Armenians.
This can't possibly be a good journal if the "peer reviewers" can't notice that submissions are written using copy-paste from Google Translate. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 14:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
So I've come across this and don't know what to make of it. It's not listed on Scopus or on Beall's list, or anywhere else at all from what I could find. One of its papers is presently being used to claim that there was insignificant undercounting or data manipulation on Covid-19 cases in India and China using Benford's Law which looks dodgy as it contradicts most other sources. Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here, I don't deal with predatory journals often. Tayi Arajakate Talk 16:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how to fix this myself since it appears to be bot-generated, but there are several links to "[Unreliable fields]" which are linked to:
- /info/en/?search=User:JL-Bot/Questionable.cfg#Unreliable_fields
But that seems to be a broken reference. I think they may need to be updated to refer to:
- /info/en/?search=User:JL-Bot/Questionable.cfg/General#Unreliable_fields
DKEdwards ( talk) 20:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
EurAsian Times is an extremely questionable source that seems to lift news or work from other sources without any attempt to vet them. In particular, the articles relating to the Russia-Ukraine War are full of tabloid-like headlines and sometimes outright regurgitation of Russian propaganda without any attempt at verification. The site is supposedly an Indian-Canadian venture, and I'm not sure if their questionable reporting quality is the result of an agenda or laziness, but some articles are making extraordinary claims when citing EurAsian Times. Steve7c8 ( talk) 06:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
In A Brief History of Crime, I removed a deprecated source, The Mail On Sunday (I think). If any action needs to be taken on my behalf, please notify me. Thank you! The Troutinator ( talk) 05:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
This discussion will affect a class of redirects on which WP:CITEWATCH relies to function, and would affect how we can detect predatory journals on a go-forward basis. Please chip in. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
From the Medline article :"New journals are not included automatically or immediately. Several criteria for selection are applied. Selection is based on the recommendations of a panel, the Literature Selection Technical Review Committee, based on the scientific scope and quality of a journal. The Journals Database (one of the Entrez databases) contains information, such as its name abbreviation and publisher, about all journals included in Entrez, including PubMed. Journals that no longer meet the criteria are removed. Being indexed in MEDLINE gives a non-predatory identity to a journal." Atchoum ( talk) 19:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm curious about whether the regular referral of people to WP:RSN is an indicator that this is not a good page to keep, that it is distracting people from the central discussion resource? A pointer to the archive here could be made at RSN so people could access this alt archive, but maybe the page itself should redirect to RSN? Thoughts or am I just barking mad (not mutually exclusive)? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
hi all, was wondering if the above is a good source or not NotQualified ( talk) 19:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The concept is currently being worked out at User talk:JL-Bot/Archive 4#Tweak to JL-Bot?. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that there should be something to talk about! Gah4 ( talk) 21:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Currently three things are missing for the list to be ready to be considered ready and complete.
Sometimes a journal is listed (and counted) twice per group. Once as a standalone entry, once as sub-item of an entry, e.g.
for a citation count of '6 + 7 + 6 = 19' instead of
for a citation count of '7 + 6 = 13'.
Currently, unredirected typos and variants of an entry are only reported if the entry is itself found, instead of always being reported. For instance, if you have US Open Adv. Mech Eng. J. (missing dot after 'Mech'), it will only be reported if US Open Adv. Mech. Eng. J. has been cited. Likewise Journal of Foobar and Crap, a variant of Journal of Foobar & Crap, will only be reported if Journal of Foobar & Crap has been cited.
|source=
and |note=
This is essential to explain why something is on the Crapwatch. WP:CRAPWATCH/SETUP shows this information source and notes, but WP:CRAPWATCH doesn't yet.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
03:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
03:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
All fixed now. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion concerning whether or not WP:CRAPWATCH and WP:JCW/CRAP should be allowed to be shortcuts to the our crapwatch list to detect predatory journals and other crap citations. Please participate. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the expansion of the Crapwatch at WT:MED using Quackwatch's list. Please comments. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 04:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Having the table cells vertically centered really hurts readability. Could we get
User:JLaTondre's bot to write style="vertical-align: top;"
into the table rows, per
Help:Table#Vertical alignment in cells? --
Netoholic
@
08:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
"flat out predatory" and " promote pseudo/junk science or quackery" are two unrelated dimensions. Most predatory journals are targeting at orthodox but uninteresting science, hooping ofr articles by unsophisticated researchers who do not know better than to publish them. They may because of their nonexistent peer review publish pseudoscience, but that's not their primary intention nor does it describe most of their material. , but that is not their primary intention. They are predatory with respect to those who publish in them, not their audience. DGG ( talk ) 10:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I've added Zero Hedge to WP:RSP. X1\ ( talk) 22:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Is it possible to make the Entries column collapsible? At present, it is extremely difficult to scroll through the list, particularly on a mobile device. RolandR ( talk) 12:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
If you're here following the Signpost piece, welcome to The SourceWatch! Many people worked hard to make something good, and while it's probably not perfect, please assume good faith if you spot issues or have suggestions. Please read the FAQ above for answers to common questions, but feel free to ask for help if something is unclear. Happy editing! – Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The consensus is to use The Wikipedia CiteWatch instead of The Wikipedia SourceWatch.
It turns out that SourceWatch (published by the Center for Media and Democracy, formerly Disinfopedia) is already a thing. Since confusing names are bad (and there's a potential trademark issue here), what should we call this project instead of The Wikipedia SourceWatch? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm thinking maybe The Wikipedia CiteWatch instead of The Wikipedia SourceWatch? How does that sound? Are there better alternatives out there? Are those hits on Google of concern? Thanks to Pythoncoder for pointing the issue! Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Using the Advanced Search, search in page text, "exactly this text" will effectively focus results on the source name.
I'm thinking that in the listing of sources, one might also include common or formal abbreviations for the sources. This won't be useful in many cases ... for instance, the common abbreviation for Amphibian & Reptile Conservation is ARC as indicated on the journal's website - no help there - but the NLM Catalog indicates a couple of alternatives, namely Amphibian and Reptile Conservation and Amphib Reptile Conserv. Searching for the formal title → 26 results (the bot turned back 13); the ISO abbreviation turned up 0 hits. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Ceyockey: there are a few ways to handle this. The simplest would be to create an article on the journal, e.g. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (journal) (since Amphibian and Reptile Conservation also refers to a conversation trust, apparently). Then the following could be created
ARC, is trickier, since many journals can be abbreviated as ARC. This could always be manually added as a match, with a note that it could refer to other journals. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
A proposal to have a parameter to mark questionable sources that are appropriately cited has been made. Please comment. @ Czar: in particular, since this was your suggestion. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 03:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
This may be of interest [12]. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Help cleaning up 'remainder' of predatory journals cited on Wikipedia and help cleanup citations to predatory sources on Wikipedia. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 07:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Basically because of this: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Fake_case_Report and not indexed in MEDLINE Walidou47 ( talk) 10:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is new, and I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
There is some HTML on
User:JL-Bot/Maintenance.cfg,
User:JL-Bot/Citations.cfg, and
User:JL-Bot/Publishers.cfg that looks kind of like <div class="div-col columns column-width" style="column-width: Xem">...
.
I'll soonly be removing the CSS associated with columns
from
MediaWiki:Common.css. You may wish to change these to {{
div col}}.
-- Izno ( talk) 08:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As there is a attack by XOR'aster on physics essays also other places on wikipedia, where he uses this page as evidence for his claim it is a "garbage journal" I was looking up the claims on this page and wonder how much backing is really behind it, I could not find much:
Physics essays according to this page "Publishes quantum woo and relativity denial nonsense that could not possibly have passed meaningful peer-review."
What is specifically meant with relativity denial nonsense? Many non well studied in physics may be think the special relativity theory is considered among all a complete theory. This is not the case. A series of journals published papers on the possible incompleteness in special relativity theory, even a well established theory should off course be questioned, and the ones question it should be questioned. What should not happen is try sensor scientific discussions. Just as an example relativity of simultaneity is considered to be a corner stone in special relativity theory. Still it is quite often discussed and even criticized in very well established journals like the American Journal of Physics, not only in the past but also in recently published papers :"This alternative synchrony renders simultaneity not relative but absolute " https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/10.0000002
so what is so very different when researchers like Professor Gift publishes papers on similar topics in Physics Essays. I mention Professor Gift since XOR'aster in the same claims have attacked his paper specifically and claimed Physics essay is garbage. InvestigateThis ( talk) 17:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC) InvestigateThis ( talk) 17:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
" that could not possibly have passed meaningful peer-review." has wiki editors that wrote this actually checked the peer review process at Physics Essays. For me it seems this journal have been put on the list as some editors in wikipedia is after deleting references to some they for some reason have a personal issue with, I could be wrong. But where is the proofs behind the claims such as "" that could not possibly have passed meaningful peer-review." . The journal specifically mention how they do peer review, perhaps they are more open minded than some other journals, so more variety. Is the "evidence" used that this journal have more papers than other more known journals questioning the completeness of special relativity theory ? InvestigateThis ( talk) 17:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Here it is claimed "The papers mentioned there are without any shred of doubt utter nonsense" why is it obvious nonsense, because it comes with hypoteis question special relativity theory? I likely disagree on the hypotesis suggested by that paper, but such hypotesis are very often presented in much higher ranked journals than this for example "Analyses of scissors cutting paper at superluminal speeds"
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6552/ab77c4 This paper goes against special relativity theory, I think the hypothesis they have presented is not correct, but then I have to prove so, and preferably in a peer reviewed paper, or find peer revied papers doing so. Science do not move forward by prejudice, but by arguments and counter arguments and ongoing discussions. Here we see wikipedia editors, that have perhaps some basic university studies in physics coming with prejudice and defamatory claims against researchers, papers, journals. I encourage some editors in wikipedia to understand this is not giving wikipedia very high status among many researchers.
InvestigateThis (
talk)
18:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
without violating special relativity. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
So perhaps not a good example, there are many alternative relativity theories discussed in the literature, for example going against relativity of simultaneity corner stone in special relativity theory
"and so distant clocks cannot be consistently synchronized following the standard procedure proposed by Einstein except for those under some privileged motion." https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/10.0000002
I can list loads of papers if wanted, I will perhaps in a write up where I will show how editors of wikipedia try to deplatform and ridicule researchers questioning consensus. It is not that they necessarily are right, very often they are wrong. Attacks on peer reviewed papers should be taken seriously when in peer reviewed journals. My point it is not up for wikipedia editors to decide what is good or bad papers. Journals with low rank has on average lower quality of papers, journals with higher rank have on average papers with higher standard. Still there are plenty of evidence of totally garbage papers in low ranked as well as high ranked journals. Individual papers can not be judged based on an average. Perhaps go and study some statistics? InvestigateThis ( talk) 19:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
On Page 6 I saw The Onion was used as source somewhere, and I'm curious. - Scarpy ( talk) 23:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
insource:/regex here/
, and is case sensitive. There's more details at
Help:Searching#insource:
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)The Federalist should be added as a questionable source per the recent RFC closure here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Discussion_(The_Federalist). I'd do it myself, but wikitext isn't my thing. ThadeusOfNazereth Talk to Me! 20:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
We've cleared enough that we're now at 498 entries, needing only 5 pages instead of 6 for the WP:CITEWATCH! Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone, noob here.
I see a lot of references on this page to Beall's list, may I first say how happy I am to see that list is still maintained. But, I believe that page has been moved. The link I am seeing is https://beallslist.weebly.com/ but clicking there says the page has been moved to: https://beallslist.net/ .
I would be happy to fix this if it's helpful. Would I just run a search and replace or is there a better option?
Edinburghpotsdam ( talk) 19:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
So I was scanning through this, and noticed that the Robert M. Rennick Manuscript Collection is listed under the "conspiracy theories" tab, likely because one of the other entries involves the name Robert M. The Robert M. Rennick Manuscript Collection is a collection of place names in Kentucky I've used a source before (mainly to determine the nature of the place). It is most certainly not a conspiracy theory. Hog Farm Talk 04:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I believe that the North American Journal of Psychology (NAJP) is probably questionable, but I'm hardly an expert so I thought I should check. I've made a list of potential red flags:
I don't know heaps about what's normal practice in journals, so feel free to tell me if any of these aren't actually a problem. Please ping me if you respond. Cheers! -- Xurizuri ( talk) 12:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
References
It does seem borderline, but it's also indexed in Scopus as a middle-of-the-pack journal. I'd suggest getting consensus at WP:RSN and asking for WP:PSY people to opine. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I've stumbled across this article published in what is claimed to be a fully peer-reviewed scholarly journal.
The article reads, however, like a bad translation from Google Translate, and apparently some of it is maybe from Azeri: For example, mol! to be a report of the American historian. R. Hovhannisyan on "the Crisis in the Caucasus", which was read at the conference organized" Corporation "Rand". On 28-29 August 1993, in Co - livornica Year
, or Russian: Armenians deystvitelno have taught us the horrors of modern war
, (действительно = really), These were monstrous zverst
[wtf?] Armenian murderers to the beginning of Sumgayit events.
and We believe it is necessary to note that the Sumgait event is wholly the handiwork of the Armenian ekstremistov. Provakatsii prepared long before February 1988 on the territory of Armenia
. Not to mention that it
lays the blame for the
Sumgait pogrom on Armenians.
This can't possibly be a good journal if the "peer reviewers" can't notice that submissions are written using copy-paste from Google Translate. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 14:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
So I've come across this and don't know what to make of it. It's not listed on Scopus or on Beall's list, or anywhere else at all from what I could find. One of its papers is presently being used to claim that there was insignificant undercounting or data manipulation on Covid-19 cases in India and China using Benford's Law which looks dodgy as it contradicts most other sources. Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here, I don't deal with predatory journals often. Tayi Arajakate Talk 16:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how to fix this myself since it appears to be bot-generated, but there are several links to "[Unreliable fields]" which are linked to:
- /info/en/?search=User:JL-Bot/Questionable.cfg#Unreliable_fields
But that seems to be a broken reference. I think they may need to be updated to refer to:
- /info/en/?search=User:JL-Bot/Questionable.cfg/General#Unreliable_fields
DKEdwards ( talk) 20:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
EurAsian Times is an extremely questionable source that seems to lift news or work from other sources without any attempt to vet them. In particular, the articles relating to the Russia-Ukraine War are full of tabloid-like headlines and sometimes outright regurgitation of Russian propaganda without any attempt at verification. The site is supposedly an Indian-Canadian venture, and I'm not sure if their questionable reporting quality is the result of an agenda or laziness, but some articles are making extraordinary claims when citing EurAsian Times. Steve7c8 ( talk) 06:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
In A Brief History of Crime, I removed a deprecated source, The Mail On Sunday (I think). If any action needs to be taken on my behalf, please notify me. Thank you! The Troutinator ( talk) 05:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
This discussion will affect a class of redirects on which WP:CITEWATCH relies to function, and would affect how we can detect predatory journals on a go-forward basis. Please chip in. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
From the Medline article :"New journals are not included automatically or immediately. Several criteria for selection are applied. Selection is based on the recommendations of a panel, the Literature Selection Technical Review Committee, based on the scientific scope and quality of a journal. The Journals Database (one of the Entrez databases) contains information, such as its name abbreviation and publisher, about all journals included in Entrez, including PubMed. Journals that no longer meet the criteria are removed. Being indexed in MEDLINE gives a non-predatory identity to a journal." Atchoum ( talk) 19:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm curious about whether the regular referral of people to WP:RSN is an indicator that this is not a good page to keep, that it is distracting people from the central discussion resource? A pointer to the archive here could be made at RSN so people could access this alt archive, but maybe the page itself should redirect to RSN? Thoughts or am I just barking mad (not mutually exclusive)? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
hi all, was wondering if the above is a good source or not NotQualified ( talk) 19:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)