User talk:Randykitty

Before posting here, please READ THIS FIRST

Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, please add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "+" tab, or, depending on your settings, the "new section" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise. I dislike talk-back templates and fragmented discussions. If I post on your page you may assume that I will watch it for a response. If you post here I will assume the same (and that you lost interest if you stop following the discussion).

START A NEW TALK TOPIC.

Questions about editing academic journals

Hi Randykitty, I hope you’ve sorted out the network connection issue! If not, this message can wait, it is not urgent. I just wanted to post a friendly reminder about Arkiv för zoologi and ask a few unrelated questions.

As I’m sure you’ve noted, I have started making edits here and there to scientific journals. Mostly adding/updating basic infobox stuff like CODEN, ISSN, impact factor etc. I’m trying to follow the guidlines, of couse, but if you come accross any stupid edits, please let me know. My hope was to continue working on updating journals, and it results in quite a lot of edits so I really want to keep bad edits to a minimum.

If you don’t mind, maybe I can ask some general questions about editing in the WP:AJ project? In no particular order:

1) For online journals that continuously publish articles there is the category “Continuous”, but I have seen several phrases in the infobox field: “continuous”, “continuous, upon acceptance”, “upon acceptance”, “upon publication”. Sticking to a single one seems reasonable, but I could not find a definitive answer at WP:JWG. Should they all be called “Continuous”?

2) I assume it is better to be more specific when adding a publisher, e.g., “Nature Portfolio” instead of “Springer Nature”?

3) Regarding finding appropriate selective index databases: WP:JWG suggests using MIAR. Can that be used as a source or what’s the best practice here? Should one find the journal in every indexing service and add explicit references one by one?

4) Promotional tone: A little while ago I saw that the Molecular Oncology (journal) was changed. Looking at the main text it seems a bit promotional to me. Example: “significantly advances understanding”, “Research articles, reviews and policy articles all undergo a transparent peer review process”, and “the journal's Section Editors -- active cancer researchers”. For future reference, do you agree or am I being too picky?

5) I’m working on adding journal covers, but is there something I should do (in addition to what I’m already doing) to reduce the risk of the images getting taken down due to some copy-right issue? Here is one I uploaded today File:Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics journal cover volume 100 issue 1.png, but I do it the same way for all.

Okay, that was maybe a bit much. (^_^); -- SakurabaJun (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Haven't forgotten about this, just need to find the time... --Randykitty (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Journal of Supply Chain Management

I thought it might be better to have a quick conversation here: Wikipedia reports impact factors and ABS/AJG ranks for many business journals. To be honest, I really don't get why you keep removing the ABS/AJG rank from that page. The rank is referenced and everyone who reads such journals knows that ABS/AJG is THE qualitative metric to evaluate the quality of academic business journals. I do not want to start an edit war, but, frankly, removing it from the page makes not much sense IMHO, and I am pretty sure most business academics will agree. 92.79.90.91 (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Actually, if one clicks on the link that you give as a source, you'll finid a description of ABS/AJG, but nothing about the metric nor does it mentions this journal. To claim that something is a "top" journal, you need a solid independent source. --Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

ABS defines (!) category 4 journals as "top journals". If there is any independent organization to evaluate such journals, then it is ABS. Their methodology can be found on the website. I don't know what else they should do. The list can only be downloaded after registration (similar to impact factors). If you do not want to register to verify this information, you can also check this list. The methodology is freely available under my original link. There they also define category 4 as "top journals in their field". 92.79.90.91 (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• It took me a while to find all this stuff. I must say that I'm not too impressed by these algebraic tricks. Also, this seems to be a mainly UK exercise. And perhaps you are right that this is what everybody in that field looks at, but the journal's publishers themselves don't seem to be very impressed, because they list all kinds of metrics, but not this one. In all, I don't see much reason to add this apparently rather obscure metric (note also that neither the CABS nor the AJG currently have an article here, showing that they are, in fact, notable). --Randykitty (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

EVERYBODY in the area of business/management in academia looks at ABS/AJG. Impact factors plat almost no role in that field. This is neither a obscure, nor UK-only ranking. For example, I work in Germany and my business school makes tenure/promotion decisions exclusively based on ABS/AJG. The same is true for many leading business schools across the globe. I ask you to add this information back into the article. I understand that some of the text that you removed might sound like a bit marketing text, and I am fine with its removal (although I liked it and it has been there for many years), but removing the ABS/AJG rank from a business journal's page is like removing the number of inhabitants from an article about a city. It simply is an essential information. 92.79.90.91 (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• If that is the case, then there certainly are sources that confirm this. Can you give us some? --Randykitty (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

You might want to check the multiple academic publications, which almost each highlight the importance of that ranking, which you can find here. Some relevant sources are, for example, Walker et al., Wu et al. or Krueger, to name just three more recent examples. There is certainly a paragraph about the importance of ABS/AJG in almost all academic articles that have, critically or uncritically, discussed that ranking. 92.79.90.91 (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Pinging DGG and Headbomd for their input. --Randykitty (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• That should have been Headbomb... --Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  What's the question here? ABS/AJG is... beyond obscure. I might be used in certain circles, but it's not common. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Administrator changes

AA • Gwalla • Ioeth • Laurascudder • Moriori (deceased) • Nat • Rfl

Drilnoth → AFigureOfBlue

Bureaucrat changes

Lee Vilenski

Interface administrator changes

Nihiltres

Technical news

• user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding conduct in deletion-related editing has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Eastern European Journals

Hello, I noticed your interest in academic journals, I hope you have a moment to comment on an issue; this may have been discussed already and I am not aware of the outcome. My concern is journals listed on Wikipedia published in Eastern Europe and Central Asia which previously were reliable and independent are no longer such. These editorial changes should be noted; this also impacts evaluating referencing (by date); Wikipedia may not be a RS but it is the source most use.

I'm not an expert or in a position to judge, but the issue crossed by mind; this may be a non issue.  // Timothy :: talk  01:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have examples of such journals? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

No, this might be a non-issue.  // Timothy :: talk  01:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

My wikipedia page deleting Randykitty

My wikipedia page deleting Randykitty but why any problem my page Shuvrojitghosh (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• Read the posts on your talk page, they explain this in detail. Meanwhile, please do not re-create that page again. If you keep repeating this, I'll block you from editing, because P is no for advertising your YouTube posts. --Randykitty (talk) 08:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Essential Science Indicators

Hi Randykitty. Would you say the Essential Science Indicators database is an important enough to be included in the Abstracting and indexing section of journal articles? Thank you, Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for asking. No, I don't think it is. It just means that a journal is included in one of Clarivate's citation indices. It's similar to SCImago, which includes every journal from Scopus, so we list the latter, but the former is implicit, hence rather trivial. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. Thank you for the advice and your assistance on Celebrity Studies. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Milad Nouri (computer programmer)

Hello. I'm going to rewrite this article and fix the problems that led to its removal. Please restore this article in draft space if possible. Thank You KidsOnTheMoon (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)