Talk:Comparison of statistics journals

Criteria for inclusion

From my WP:POV journals listed in this article should meet the following criteria:

• may be published in any language,
• may be open source, or subscription based,
• should be peer reviewed (there may be important journals that are not peer reviewed, but let's keep this simple for now),
• should be currently published (there may be important journals that are defunct, but let's keep this simple for now),
• should be published by:

• either a reputable^{POV} publishing house (e.g., Wiley),
• or a major^{POV} professional organization (e.g., RSS, IISA, etc)

• should primarily^{POV} publish papers on probability, or theoretical or applied statistics (e.g., Statistics in Medicine would be included, but New England Journal of Medicine [which frequently includes interesting and innovative applied methodological papers] would not)

—G716 <^T·_C> 20:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Annals of Statistics

The journal Annals of Statistics does not appear in the list of journals with impact factors and indexing services listed. ThanksKiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I added AoS along with Statistical Science, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, and a few others. I noted that the better journals are indexed by Mathematical Reviews, in many cases. We need others to add e.g. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Sankyha, Statistical Decisions (Vienna), etc. ThanksKiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Impact factors

I'm pretty certain that this comparative listing of impact factors violates ISI's copyright. --Crusio (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

I realize that maintaining a list like this is almost impossible and a lot of work. Nevertheless, let me signal some problems:

1. Several publishers are incorrect. "Springer" may refer to two different academic publishers (see Springer). I don't know whether Springer Publishing has any statistics journals, so I guess most journals (but perhaps not all) listed here as published by "Springer" are actually published by Springer Science+Business Media. Likewise, far as I know, Blackwell Publishing does not exist any more, but was merged into Wiley-Blackwell. There may be other errors (or changes in publishers since this list was created). Somebody should check this.
2. The list contains predatory journals that are on Jeffrey Beall's list (see here). Unless such journals are so bad that they generate coverage in reliable sources, they'll remain redlinks forever. I also do not think that we should lend them an appearance of being legitimate by including them here. I have seen at least one predatory publisher (CESER Publications), but given the huge amount of redlinks, I expect there are more.
3. There are no sources. The "Notes" all link to WP articles.
4. At least some impact factors are outdated. IFs change every year. In addition, there are now outfits that provide fake IFs ("Global Impact Factor", for example) and I don't exclude that some have found there way here.
5. Some entries give no information at all and no way to identify the journal (if it actually is one), see for example "Chance".

Personally, I think that lists like this are almost invariably a bad idea. After the initial enthusiasm of the creator has abated (or, as seems to be the case here, have left years ago), they become rapidly outdated and are magnets for spam for non-notable (or even predatory) journals. I have listed some of the problems with this list above, but am not inclined to put in the many hours of work that this list needs to be cleaned up. As I am not watchlisting this, ping me if further input is needed. --Randykitty (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• • Just when you think it can't get any worse... An anonymous IP just added "2016" impact factors. The 2016 IFs will be published coming summer. Perhaps these are the 2015 IFs? --Randykitty (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I notice that IFs are given for journals where it is indicated that they are not in any citation index. Where do those IFs come from? Anybody have any idea what's so special about the 2007 IFs that they need to be listed here? Nobody cares about last year's IFs, let alone those that are almost a decade out of date... --Randykitty (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)