User talk:Deep humility: Difference between revisions
→Thymus reference: Frontiers |
re |
||
Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
#[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog?term=%22Front%20Immunol%22 The journal is Medline-indexed]. |
#[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog?term=%22Front%20Immunol%22 The journal is Medline-indexed]. |
||
Hello again. This Frontiers article would meet some resistance by medical editors because a) it is 7 years old (see [[WP:MEDDATE]]) and b) it is published in a [[Frontiers Media]] journal, a concern due to possible [[predatory publishing]] practices. The journal's editors may use unrigorous practices, and the author may have been recruited to actually pay the journal for publication - practices contrary to rigorous review. See other Frontiers Media journals at [[WP:CITEWATCH]], where the disclaimer explains the background for treating these journals as dubious sources for Wikipedia, and an editor has to judge source quality as "hit or miss". There are numerous Frontiers 'review' articles which I regard as untrustworthy, misleading, and unusable. If you have further questions, you can ask them here, as I am watching this talk page. [[User:Zefr|Zefr]] ([[User talk:Zefr|talk]]) 14:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC) |
Hello again. This Frontiers article would meet some resistance by medical editors because a) it is 7 years old (see [[WP:MEDDATE]]) and b) it is published in a [[Frontiers Media]] journal, a concern due to possible [[predatory publishing]] practices. The journal's editors may use unrigorous practices, and the author may have been recruited to actually pay the journal for publication - practices contrary to rigorous review. See other Frontiers Media journals at [[WP:CITEWATCH]], where the disclaimer explains the background for treating these journals as dubious sources for Wikipedia, and an editor has to judge source quality as "hit or miss". There are numerous Frontiers 'review' articles which I regard as untrustworthy, misleading, and unusable. If you have further questions, you can ask them here, as I am watching this talk page. [[User:Zefr|Zefr]] ([[User talk:Zefr|talk]]) 14:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
:*Sure thing! Thank you for your attention! --[[User:Deep humility|Deep humility]] ([[User talk:Deep humility#top|talk]]) 05:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:06, 25 July 2020
Welcome!
|
- Thank you for the enthusiastic welcome! --Deep humility (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Thymus reference
Hello - on my talk page, you said: How do you think about the reliability of the following source?
- Rezzani, Rita; Nardo, Lorenzo; Favero, Gaia; Peroni, Michele; Rodella, Luigi Fabrizio (2013-07-23). "Thymus and aging: morphological, radiological, and functional overview". Age (Dordrecht, Netherlands). 36 (1). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 313–351. doi:10.1007/s11357-013-9564-5. ISSN 0161-9152. PMC 3889907. PMID 23877171.
- This source is not published by the Medline-indexed journal.
- However, the journal is the Official Journal of the American Aging Association.
- The source is reviewed.
- This source appears to be the most recent update on the topic--Thymus and aging.
- This source has been widely cited.
That journal seems fine for impact factor (~ 4) and quality of sources for the topic the article addresses - changes in thymus morphology during aging. I would regard it as a suitable reference in the thymus article. Good luck! 21:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Many thanks!! Deep humility (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Palmer, Donald B. (2013-10-07). "The Effect of Age on Thymic Function". Frontiers in immunology. 4. Frontiers Media SA. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2013.00316. ISSN 1664-3224. PMC 3791471. PMID 24109481.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
- This article is published by Frontiers.
- This article has been cited more than 200 times, in part by some articles in well-known journals such as Journal of Clinical Immunology, PLoS, and PLOS Biology.
- This article is peer-reviewed.
- The journal is Medline-indexed.
Hello again. This Frontiers article would meet some resistance by medical editors because a) it is 7 years old (see WP:MEDDATE) and b) it is published in a Frontiers Media journal, a concern due to possible predatory publishing practices. The journal's editors may use unrigorous practices, and the author may have been recruited to actually pay the journal for publication - practices contrary to rigorous review. See other Frontiers Media journals at WP:CITEWATCH, where the disclaimer explains the background for treating these journals as dubious sources for Wikipedia, and an editor has to judge source quality as "hit or miss". There are numerous Frontiers 'review' articles which I regard as untrustworthy, misleading, and unusable. If you have further questions, you can ask them here, as I am watching this talk page. Zefr (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sure thing! Thank you for your attention! --Deep humility (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)