Citizendium Forums
November 24, 2009, 08:30:42 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: POSTING RULES FOR MAIN CZ BOARDS: (1) The CZ Forums are Citizens-only (a "Citizen" is a Citizendium member). Non-Citizens may use only the "Non-member discussion" and "General help" boards, but still must register before posting (it's easy!). Non-Citizen posts elsewhere will be summarily deleted. (2) All must now use their own real names. To edit your displayed name, click on Profile > Account Related Settings. (3) Citizens must now link to their CZ user pages. To edit your signature, click on Profile > Forum Profile Information.
Click here to return to the wiki
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Articles about individual journals.  (Read 22122 times)
David Goodman
Moderator
Forum Communicator
*****
Posts: 247


« on: December 10, 2006, 04:20:49 PM »

 In different scientific  fields  there are  journals with  articles  in WP, most of them stubs
(andmany only as "redlinks"--journals without articles.

General thoughts for articles about journals:
(we have only   2 in CZ Live so far)
I don't think we'd want to get  more elaborate  than we could sustain, because there are about 9,000  journals to go, assuming we use a criterion of being in Web of Science (The Science Citation Index part has 6400) . We could of course use a narrower distinction, such as being used in a reference in CZ, or narrower yet.

I would also support not including any except the top one or two in the field of each CZ article--it would save quite a lot of work!

Some fields have all of them added as stubs in WP, some don't.  At first, I was surprised to see them in WP, because in general how much could be added to what is on the publisher's site, and they are all very easy to find with a web browser

possible suggested details (it would obviously help to have them reasonably uniform)
The practice in WP is that thumbnails of the cover are fair use, & I think the same would apply here.
we can  add their status re Open access, but we would have to check every 6 months.
I'd suggest eliminating the "indexed in:" from all of them--concentration on that seems a little old-fashioned. Obviously all biomed journals are in PubMed, & chem in CAS, etc.
I'd suggest eliminating an historical list of all the editors,except the first and any famous ones thereafter.
I'd similarly suggest not including all the current editorial board.
**WP doesn't do this but we can  find the most cited articles with WebofScience, which won't be available to all our readers.
***Everything we do here in sciences is likely to be a precedent. There's only 1 editor in the Media group so far, and only 3 in library science, so I am not sure how much help we'll get. I'm going to cc. this part to the science groups, and see what they want to do.  (I've put off the social science & humanities for a while--I am not quite up to thinking about them yet. )
Logged

Zachary Pruckowski
Technical Liasion/Executive Committee
Administrator
Forum Regular
****
Posts: 933


« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2006, 04:42:19 PM »

The issue with having a subjective standard (top 1-2 journals in a field) versus an objective standard (in Web of Science, or SCI or circulation > x*) is that it leaves us with the burden and responsibility of saying "this journal isn't important".  If we're moving to be a more "responsible" information source, making that kind of judgement could get us sued or discredited.  Additionally, all we need to make a red-link is the expectation that we could reasonably eventually have an article on the topic.  If it takes us 2 years to get to it, then oh well.


* = that's probably a dumb measure of journals aimed only at experts.
Logged

Peter Blake
Forum Participant
**
Posts: 47


Librarian and Amateur Game Designer


« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2006, 05:48:06 PM »

we can  add their status re Open access, but we would have to check every 6 months.

Rather than doing this, I'd suggest we link to http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php which is the best resource I know for determining open-access policies and is kept pretty much up-to-date.
Logged
David Goodman
Moderator
Forum Communicator
*****
Posts: 247


« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2006, 04:14:07 PM »

As for checking open access:

Romeo lists the self-archiving policy of publishers, whether they permit eprints and under what conditions. This is useful information, especially to authors, but does not necessarily mean there is even one such article--and the journal and article title pages never tell; of the indexes, only PubMed indicates this.The  optimal routine for determining this for a specific article changes from time to time, but usually starts with a search on Google Scholar, followed up if necessary by its transfer into a  Google search; there are alternatives, such as starting with OAIster <http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/>, or Scirus <http://www.scirus.com> . How well Windows Live Search Academic <http://academic.live.com/>  will work is not yet clear [at the moment, it isn't working at all).   

The reliable place to find true open access journals, where all the articles are open access, is DOAJ <http://www.doaj.org/>. but this  does not include journals that offer delayed Open access after an embargo (very common in biomedicine, and HighWire <http://highwire.stanford.edu/> is a good place to find many of them), or hybrid OA, access to only articles paid for by their authors, which is getting to be significant and now for example, includes one-fourth of the articles in PNAS.  I do not know of a complete listing.
I do however follow this very closely, for it is my specialty in the Real World.  In WP, I try to keep a copy of my current best advice on the Google Scholar page, but this sort of instruction doesn't really fit into WP, but we should be able to find a place for it here. 

Keeping up with individual changes is not easy, and the  people who keep track best are interlibrary loan specialists at major libraries, and they do it mentally.
I can certainly maintain a checklist on which ones should be checked where(we can do lists of these once we decide how to do such lists), and I see most of the online lists and commercial newsletters that announce major changes, at least in the science.
 
What I plan to start with is the existing pages, but then we can see.  Some of this is field dependent--all actually existent journals of high energy physics are pretty good, but for cell biology that would be laughable.   Circulation is a rather good measure, for 99% of them are only purchased by libraries; low circulation means that only a few top-ranking libraries have them. The only problem with circulation is that academic publishers mostly keep this a secret, because the numbers tend to be in the low hundreds, even for good journals. There are ways of getting at this indirectly, but not as a practical matter.   Downloads is another good measure, and that is really a secret.

As for actually working on  them, I will go by publisher, because that's the easiest way. 
I'm thinking of using an infobox, but if the box had much content, there wouldn't be anything else on the page.

Previous titles is another matter. There is one  commercial database  (Ulrich's) which includes this, with fair accuracy, but there are some library catalogs that can be trusted, though they go one change at a time. This is something to be added gradually, the really big ones first. If we end up with a good record of these, we will be better than any non-commercial source.
For that matter, for the open access information we'd be better than any source at all.
Logged

Peter Blake
Forum Participant
**
Posts: 47


Librarian and Amateur Game Designer


« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2006, 07:00:52 PM »

As for checking open access:

[snip]

Previous titles is another matter. There is one  commercial database  (Ulrich's) which includes this, with fair accuracy, but there are some library catalogs that can be trusted, though they go one change at a time. This is something to be added gradually, the really big ones first. If we end up with a good record of these, we will be better than any non-commercial source.
For that matter, for the open access information we'd be better than any source at all.

David, everything you say is very sensible. Open access is only a small part of my job, so I try to keep up with the broad strokes.

I do have access to Ulrich's at work, so please let me know if I can be of assistance with some of the fact-finding and editing - this does sound more like an author job than an editor one.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.7 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!