David Goodman
Forum Communicator
Posts: 247
|
 |
« on: December 10, 2006, 04:28:17 PM » |
|
In engineering there are only a few journals with articles in WP, most of them stubs
General thoughts for articles about journals (and similar publications):
(we only have 1 or 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
details
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 relevant groups, and see what all the sciences people want to do.
|
