Talk:Cell (journal)

Recent revert (March 19, 2011)

To the anonymous IP who send me an email (a rather bigoted one, I have to say: "You need to stop imposing your own French viewpoints on the facts"). Your edits were reversed for the following reasons. 1/ It used more (and less clear) verbiage to say the same thing: that Cell is the third ranked journal after Nature and Science. 2/ The remark about Cell unlike Science or Nature not publishing short papers or letters is only comprehensible for someone familiar with bibliometrics and, apart from that, is unsourced WP:OR. 3/ Part of the edits was factually incorrect: the 2010 impact factors are not yet released (IFs are released in the summer of the next year, so the 2010 IFs will become available this summer). In addition, Nobel Prizes are not given for single papers. As you said in your email, they are given for discoveries, but those are often based on more than one paper. I hope this explains the reversion. As for the rest of your message: I agree that this article needs work and can be improved, I only reverted your edits because they were not improvements, as explained above. I also reverted this edit of yours at impact factor. It was internally inconsistent (it's a bit odd to say that the three most prestigious journals are Nature, Science, and Cell, when that is followed by a table in which the latter is ranked fifth) and also factually incorrect: Cell may well be one of the three most prestigious journals among scientists working in the fields that it covers. However, academics working in physics, astronomy, sociology, ecology, etc, will all agree about Science and Nature (which cover all these fields), but certainly not about Cell.

I have chosen to respond here, to keep things in the open. Before you respond or send me another email message, please read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cell (journal). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120128213257/http://www.paperpub.com.cn/admin/upload/file/2009109142854546.pdf to http://www.paperpub.com.cn/admin/upload/file/2009109142854546.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208234806/http://www.elsevier.com:80/wps/find/newsroom.newsroom/bio_emiliemarcus to http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/newsroom.newsroom/bio_emiliemarcus

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)