|
Academic Journals Project‑class | |||||||
|
I suggest we include the following, which is current advice to contributors who have problems:
An article about a journal should if possible contain
It should not contain
Seems like relevant information to me (see example in Synthetic Metals). Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Italics and formatting doesn't say to not italicize titles, it simply describes the current practice. It could probably be updated to reflect the practice of italicizing the title of periodicals, (and possibly also music albums, since I see them italicized from time to time). Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Three article about academic journals to which I added the "{{italictitle}}" template to the top, did not alter the display of the title. The articles are:
Did I not do something right? Justin W Smith talk/ stalk 00:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Impact factor is usually listed in the infobox only once (for the lacking of space). Is there any reason why there have to be the impact factor for the only one year mentioned in the article? Impact factor of every certain journal is changing (decreasing or increasing) during the history. Are there any (negative or positive) examples when there are more than one impact factors mentioned in one article? Is there more reliable source indicating prestige of the journal? I think, that historical values are also important. When impact factor of the most recent year has the criteria for Notability then certainly impact factor of every year gains criteria for notability and can be included in the article. For example impact factor can be known (or easily detectable) for last two years for some journals, then both of them can be included in the article in one sentence to provide information for readers from more than one limited perspective. -- Snek01 ( talk) 10:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted, that number of those articles above had also previous IF included and they were updated to the last one only. Some of them had information for 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 continuously included and subsequently deleted (in a good faith). I am sure that information value has decreased this way. -- Snek01 ( talk) 12:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Imagine the situation when the IF is dropping down (or growing up) for few years, every year -0.5. Why we should remove these trends from wikipedia, especially when we can have this this information included already. There is not possible systematically ignore informations that are older than 365 days. -- Snek01 ( talk) 15:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I will accept (for this discussion) your theory that including four numbers into text is against WP:NOTADIRECTORY. What number will you choose then? Unfortunately there is no evidence that more recent data are better that older ones. Preferring any data against other ones is against WP:NPOV. I hope that you will not find a referenced sentence that some number of certain impact factor is more important than other one and that you will not lead this discussion ad absurdum. - Every policy is always contradicting some other one to keep the final results in balance ( WP:OR × Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable; WP:NOTADIRECTORY × writing every table; and so on). Is there possible any balance between forcing a reader to get the only one impact factor number, avoiding a large amount of numbers and avoiding speculations? I hope so. -- Snek01 ( talk) 22:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm thinking seriously about creating List of primatological journals, allowing readers to sort the journals alphabetically, by impact factor, and possibly other fields. I'm looking for suggestions on what to include in the lead (including sources for references) as well as all the fields for the table. Any thoughts. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Instead of
I often write
because of the flow (and it is shorter). In addition, I do not include the abbreviation here, as it is in the infobox (unless there is a common non-ISO abbreviation - such as Bluebook abbreviations for law reviews). If others agree, this can perhaps be integrated in the guide . (Detail: I don't think there should be a comma after "John Doe"). -- Crusio ( talk) 09:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Should we make it explicit that social media for the journal should *not* be included (e.g. LinkedIn Groups, Twitter accounts, and the like)? Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 12:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted this revert. I don't agree one bit with the logic that just because DGG said something, we must follow it. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Does the copyright violation is applicaple when I use the cover pic, which is available in official site of journal? Sulthan ( talk) 07:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The current guidelines read
I wrote that with journals of the same field in mind, given that's usually where the conflicts arise [e.g Open Medicine (De Gruyter Open journal) vs Open Medicine (John Willinsky journal)]. However, in the case of journals of different fields, it can lead to some absurdities, like Historia (Franz Steiner Verlag journal) vs Historia (Pontifical Catholic University of Chile journal). I think we might be better off specifying the field rather than the publisher. We'd end up with something like Historia (Greco-Roman history journal) and Historia (Chilean history journal). I've proposed and update below, which everyone is free to tweak and edit. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
START PROPOSED UPDATE
END PROPOSED UPDATE
Going to ping @ DGG, Randykitty, and Everymorning: to get more feedback on this just in case we overlooked something. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the guideline is OK, using subject where possible, except I would abbreviate publishers names when it's clear, eg. I'd say Franz Steiner not Franz Steiner Verlag (Verlag is equivalent of using Inc. in a title name, and we avoid that). And I'd use De Gruyter, not De Gruyter Open--there is no need to specify a particular imprint of a publisher. Brevity is important.
The library practice is consistently to add the dates of publication as the distinguishing elements, and to use others only if necessary. (An older library practice is to add place of publication) I don't think that's appropriate in most situations for anyone else, except when its basically the same journal being revived, or the like. And newspapers very obviously should go by place. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Another interesting pair triplet:
Animal Science Journal and
Animal Science (journal) and
Journal of Animal Science.
fgnievinski (
talk) 00:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Maybe in this case nothing needs to be done as the titles are not exactly the same. fgnievinski ( talk) 00:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I have been editing the page Acta Crystallographica as these are important journals in the area of science I am active in and it would be useful to others if there were some information about them on Wikipedia (previously there were only title headings with no content on the page). I am aiming to eventually bring the page to a similar level of detail as that for journals such as Zeitschrift für Kristallographie that cover similar areas. My question is: would these six journals be better served by individual pages for each journal linked to from the Acta Crystallographica page, where the historical and general information would remain? Should one page contain information on more than one journal? The journals are very much independent entities; they share related names for historical reasons. The six infoboxes on the present page make it look rather a mess as they make the page so deep, especially at present when the page contains so little text. Please let me know your thoughts on this. I intend to do some more work on this shortly (once I have resolved some rather trying issues re: copyrighted material). TheBigPikachu ( talk) 18:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment. This will possibly affect our writing guide. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 04:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I've added Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide#Landmark papers. Feel free to refine the language. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
While journal articles conventionally contain conflict-of-interest statements for authors, journals themselves rarely state their COIs. Some journals have pretty substantial COIs, like being funded by an industry and publishing articles evaluating the same industry's health effects.
For example, the Journal of Nutrition is run by the American Society for Nutrition. Their website lists a some familiar large companies in the food industry, which list I have wikified at Talk:American Society for Nutrition#Funding. An editorial board that consists mostly of industry employees would be a similar conflict of interest for a journal.
Supplements to a journal can have even more substantial COIs. I made a list of the non-paywalled COIs of supplements to the European Journal of Nutrition. For DGG's comments on this, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Sponsored supplement?.
Could we add a section to this guideline on what funding and COI information ought to be included in a journal article, and how? HLHJ ( talk) 16:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Concerning the ethics guidelines and funding, without 3rd party sources, I'm not really sure that's relevant. Sure, that matters in the case of Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine, because that's a sham journal. But in the case of say Journal of Fluid Mechanics, I really don't know who would care about whether it's funded by subscriptions, by membership via a society, by sponsors, via ads, or whatever.
However, I agree that sponsored supplements/symposia are topical ( but that's already in the guide). Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Should you start the prose of the article with the full name of the journal? E.g. I'm currently editing Structural Equation Modeling (journal) and I was planning on making the prose below the infobox start w/the journal's (bold and italicized of course) full title, which is Structural Equation Modeling: An International Journal. But that sounds kinda weird, so is there a better way to work in the full name of a journal (incl. subtitles like this) or should it be omitted from the article entirely? I ask because this page doesn't seem to have a clear answer to this question. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 18:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Apologies if this has already been discussed elsewhere, but the guide lists categories for what license(s) a journal publishes under (CC-BY, CC-BY-NC-SA, copyright the publisher, etc.). WikiCite has included much of this information on WikiData, and it could probably be transcluded automatically, if it is felt to be desirable. Some journals also have more complex licensing, having changed license(s) in a certain year. HLHJ ( talk) 22:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
{{wdib |P275 |ps=1 |linked=n |prefix="[""[:Category:" |postfix="]""]" |sep=" " |qid=Q1686921}}
→
Category:Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Category:Creative Commons Attribution{{ns0 |{{wdib |P275 |ps=1 |linked=n |prefix="[""[Category:" |postfix="]""]" |sep=" "}} }}
I overhauled the guide with a better general structure and clearer guidance on redirects and finishing touches. Old version for comparison. Comments welcomed. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Randykitty, DGG, IntoThinAir, Fgnievinski, and Steve Quinn: You might find the new WP:JWG/COI, WP:JWG/YES, WP:JWG/NO shortcuts to be useful. WP:JWG#COI, WP:JWG#YES, WP:JWG#NO will also work. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Undoubtedly Impact Factor is the best known journal ranking score, but it is nowadays far from the only one. For instance Scopus publishes annually CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, and SNIP. See our journal ranking article for other metrics. These metrics have usually been designed to be superior to Impact Factor in some way (otherwise no one would bother with them), they have the advantage that their values are not usually hidden behind a paywall (e.g. the above ones are available at https://www.scopus.com/sources), and at least some are well enough established that national bodies use them in research assessment. I am also a little disconcerted that Wikipedia is currently supporting one commercial product (Impact Factor) at the expense of rival products. Should we mention the possibility of adding these alternative scores to our articles? What about modifying the infobox template to allow the inclusion of some of them there? Of course each metric requires effort to update each year, but so does the impact factor, and even a somewhat out-of-date figure is of some value. Jmchutchinson ( talk) 14:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
There's a debate on whether or not to include sections that go against the advice of WP:JWG. Please opine. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Does anyone know if there is a guideline or consensus on whitespace for alignment in infoboxes? (I.e. the whitespace before the equal sign is varied so all equal signs align.) The excellent script infoboxJournal.js (by @ Tokenzero) does it, and it is used by some experienced editors (ping @ Headbomb) so I assumed it was standard. However, lately I have seen several edits (by less experienced editors) removing the white space so it would be nice to know if there is a policy or not. Cheers! SakurabaJun ( talk) 01:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
|
Academic Journals Project‑class | |||||||
|
I suggest we include the following, which is current advice to contributors who have problems:
An article about a journal should if possible contain
It should not contain
Seems like relevant information to me (see example in Synthetic Metals). Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Italics and formatting doesn't say to not italicize titles, it simply describes the current practice. It could probably be updated to reflect the practice of italicizing the title of periodicals, (and possibly also music albums, since I see them italicized from time to time). Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Three article about academic journals to which I added the "{{italictitle}}" template to the top, did not alter the display of the title. The articles are:
Did I not do something right? Justin W Smith talk/ stalk 00:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Impact factor is usually listed in the infobox only once (for the lacking of space). Is there any reason why there have to be the impact factor for the only one year mentioned in the article? Impact factor of every certain journal is changing (decreasing or increasing) during the history. Are there any (negative or positive) examples when there are more than one impact factors mentioned in one article? Is there more reliable source indicating prestige of the journal? I think, that historical values are also important. When impact factor of the most recent year has the criteria for Notability then certainly impact factor of every year gains criteria for notability and can be included in the article. For example impact factor can be known (or easily detectable) for last two years for some journals, then both of them can be included in the article in one sentence to provide information for readers from more than one limited perspective. -- Snek01 ( talk) 10:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted, that number of those articles above had also previous IF included and they were updated to the last one only. Some of them had information for 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 continuously included and subsequently deleted (in a good faith). I am sure that information value has decreased this way. -- Snek01 ( talk) 12:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Imagine the situation when the IF is dropping down (or growing up) for few years, every year -0.5. Why we should remove these trends from wikipedia, especially when we can have this this information included already. There is not possible systematically ignore informations that are older than 365 days. -- Snek01 ( talk) 15:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I will accept (for this discussion) your theory that including four numbers into text is against WP:NOTADIRECTORY. What number will you choose then? Unfortunately there is no evidence that more recent data are better that older ones. Preferring any data against other ones is against WP:NPOV. I hope that you will not find a referenced sentence that some number of certain impact factor is more important than other one and that you will not lead this discussion ad absurdum. - Every policy is always contradicting some other one to keep the final results in balance ( WP:OR × Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable; WP:NOTADIRECTORY × writing every table; and so on). Is there possible any balance between forcing a reader to get the only one impact factor number, avoiding a large amount of numbers and avoiding speculations? I hope so. -- Snek01 ( talk) 22:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm thinking seriously about creating List of primatological journals, allowing readers to sort the journals alphabetically, by impact factor, and possibly other fields. I'm looking for suggestions on what to include in the lead (including sources for references) as well as all the fields for the table. Any thoughts. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Instead of
I often write
because of the flow (and it is shorter). In addition, I do not include the abbreviation here, as it is in the infobox (unless there is a common non-ISO abbreviation - such as Bluebook abbreviations for law reviews). If others agree, this can perhaps be integrated in the guide . (Detail: I don't think there should be a comma after "John Doe"). -- Crusio ( talk) 09:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Should we make it explicit that social media for the journal should *not* be included (e.g. LinkedIn Groups, Twitter accounts, and the like)? Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 12:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted this revert. I don't agree one bit with the logic that just because DGG said something, we must follow it. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Does the copyright violation is applicaple when I use the cover pic, which is available in official site of journal? Sulthan ( talk) 07:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The current guidelines read
I wrote that with journals of the same field in mind, given that's usually where the conflicts arise [e.g Open Medicine (De Gruyter Open journal) vs Open Medicine (John Willinsky journal)]. However, in the case of journals of different fields, it can lead to some absurdities, like Historia (Franz Steiner Verlag journal) vs Historia (Pontifical Catholic University of Chile journal). I think we might be better off specifying the field rather than the publisher. We'd end up with something like Historia (Greco-Roman history journal) and Historia (Chilean history journal). I've proposed and update below, which everyone is free to tweak and edit. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
START PROPOSED UPDATE
END PROPOSED UPDATE
Going to ping @ DGG, Randykitty, and Everymorning: to get more feedback on this just in case we overlooked something. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the guideline is OK, using subject where possible, except I would abbreviate publishers names when it's clear, eg. I'd say Franz Steiner not Franz Steiner Verlag (Verlag is equivalent of using Inc. in a title name, and we avoid that). And I'd use De Gruyter, not De Gruyter Open--there is no need to specify a particular imprint of a publisher. Brevity is important.
The library practice is consistently to add the dates of publication as the distinguishing elements, and to use others only if necessary. (An older library practice is to add place of publication) I don't think that's appropriate in most situations for anyone else, except when its basically the same journal being revived, or the like. And newspapers very obviously should go by place. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Another interesting pair triplet:
Animal Science Journal and
Animal Science (journal) and
Journal of Animal Science.
fgnievinski (
talk) 00:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Maybe in this case nothing needs to be done as the titles are not exactly the same. fgnievinski ( talk) 00:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I have been editing the page Acta Crystallographica as these are important journals in the area of science I am active in and it would be useful to others if there were some information about them on Wikipedia (previously there were only title headings with no content on the page). I am aiming to eventually bring the page to a similar level of detail as that for journals such as Zeitschrift für Kristallographie that cover similar areas. My question is: would these six journals be better served by individual pages for each journal linked to from the Acta Crystallographica page, where the historical and general information would remain? Should one page contain information on more than one journal? The journals are very much independent entities; they share related names for historical reasons. The six infoboxes on the present page make it look rather a mess as they make the page so deep, especially at present when the page contains so little text. Please let me know your thoughts on this. I intend to do some more work on this shortly (once I have resolved some rather trying issues re: copyrighted material). TheBigPikachu ( talk) 18:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment. This will possibly affect our writing guide. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 04:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I've added Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide#Landmark papers. Feel free to refine the language. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
While journal articles conventionally contain conflict-of-interest statements for authors, journals themselves rarely state their COIs. Some journals have pretty substantial COIs, like being funded by an industry and publishing articles evaluating the same industry's health effects.
For example, the Journal of Nutrition is run by the American Society for Nutrition. Their website lists a some familiar large companies in the food industry, which list I have wikified at Talk:American Society for Nutrition#Funding. An editorial board that consists mostly of industry employees would be a similar conflict of interest for a journal.
Supplements to a journal can have even more substantial COIs. I made a list of the non-paywalled COIs of supplements to the European Journal of Nutrition. For DGG's comments on this, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Sponsored supplement?.
Could we add a section to this guideline on what funding and COI information ought to be included in a journal article, and how? HLHJ ( talk) 16:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Concerning the ethics guidelines and funding, without 3rd party sources, I'm not really sure that's relevant. Sure, that matters in the case of Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine, because that's a sham journal. But in the case of say Journal of Fluid Mechanics, I really don't know who would care about whether it's funded by subscriptions, by membership via a society, by sponsors, via ads, or whatever.
However, I agree that sponsored supplements/symposia are topical ( but that's already in the guide). Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Should you start the prose of the article with the full name of the journal? E.g. I'm currently editing Structural Equation Modeling (journal) and I was planning on making the prose below the infobox start w/the journal's (bold and italicized of course) full title, which is Structural Equation Modeling: An International Journal. But that sounds kinda weird, so is there a better way to work in the full name of a journal (incl. subtitles like this) or should it be omitted from the article entirely? I ask because this page doesn't seem to have a clear answer to this question. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 18:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Apologies if this has already been discussed elsewhere, but the guide lists categories for what license(s) a journal publishes under (CC-BY, CC-BY-NC-SA, copyright the publisher, etc.). WikiCite has included much of this information on WikiData, and it could probably be transcluded automatically, if it is felt to be desirable. Some journals also have more complex licensing, having changed license(s) in a certain year. HLHJ ( talk) 22:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
{{wdib |P275 |ps=1 |linked=n |prefix="[""[:Category:" |postfix="]""]" |sep=" " |qid=Q1686921}}
→
Category:Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Category:Creative Commons Attribution{{ns0 |{{wdib |P275 |ps=1 |linked=n |prefix="[""[Category:" |postfix="]""]" |sep=" "}} }}
I overhauled the guide with a better general structure and clearer guidance on redirects and finishing touches. Old version for comparison. Comments welcomed. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Randykitty, DGG, IntoThinAir, Fgnievinski, and Steve Quinn: You might find the new WP:JWG/COI, WP:JWG/YES, WP:JWG/NO shortcuts to be useful. WP:JWG#COI, WP:JWG#YES, WP:JWG#NO will also work. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Undoubtedly Impact Factor is the best known journal ranking score, but it is nowadays far from the only one. For instance Scopus publishes annually CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, and SNIP. See our journal ranking article for other metrics. These metrics have usually been designed to be superior to Impact Factor in some way (otherwise no one would bother with them), they have the advantage that their values are not usually hidden behind a paywall (e.g. the above ones are available at https://www.scopus.com/sources), and at least some are well enough established that national bodies use them in research assessment. I am also a little disconcerted that Wikipedia is currently supporting one commercial product (Impact Factor) at the expense of rival products. Should we mention the possibility of adding these alternative scores to our articles? What about modifying the infobox template to allow the inclusion of some of them there? Of course each metric requires effort to update each year, but so does the impact factor, and even a somewhat out-of-date figure is of some value. Jmchutchinson ( talk) 14:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
There's a debate on whether or not to include sections that go against the advice of WP:JWG. Please opine. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Does anyone know if there is a guideline or consensus on whitespace for alignment in infoboxes? (I.e. the whitespace before the equal sign is varied so all equal signs align.) The excellent script infoboxJournal.js (by @ Tokenzero) does it, and it is used by some experienced editors (ping @ Headbomb) so I assumed it was standard. However, lately I have seen several edits (by less experienced editors) removing the white space so it would be nice to know if there is a policy or not. Cheers! SakurabaJun ( talk) 01:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)