Talk:International Journal of Transpersonal Studies

WP:RS?

This discussion on WP:RSN seems to suggest that Lulu is not a WP:RS publisher... History2007 (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Lulu.com clearly mentions in its website that they are self-publishing company, Lulu published books fall under WP:SELFPUB. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Do I then take it that the term "peer reviewed" does not apply in the body of this article? Can a peer be your cousin in LuLu terms? History2007 (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

But the International Journal of Transpersonal Studies is published online. Lulu publishes on demand prints only. The publisher of the journal is not Lulu, but International Transpersonal Association. Now whether ITA is a reliable scholarly organization is a matter of debate. But the reliability of this journal has nothing to do with Lulu. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

So how do we determine if this journal is WP:RS? History2007 (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The journal is included in many major databases that are selective in what they cover (see here). That means to me that this is an RS. That they use Lulu for people who want to have a printed copy (which they don't normally produce themselves) is therefore immaterial, I think. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It's reliability depends on what you want to do with it. If you want to make medical claims for example, then it would seem it would fail to pass WP:MEDRS. The Transpersonal Psychology article mentions that Transpersonal Studies may include a number of unscientific approaches. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Anything associated with spirituality is bound to include unscientific views. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 16:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think therefore that we can only use the journal to say the views of those who undertake Transpersonal Studies, nothing more. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Another thing to bear in mind that is if Lulu is vanity press then it puts severe doubts on the reliability of the journal. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Lulu is a print on demand publisher. When people use their services to "publish" their completely forgettable debut novel, we call this a "vanity press". But other uses, such as what this journal does, seem perfectly legitimate to me. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If it does not pass WP:MEDRS, then the types of articles it can be used in may be limited in any case. Are the "peers" generally MDs or the types who hang around Sedona and think about "Harmonic Convergence"? History2007 (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• No idea. All I'm saying is that the Lulu connection does not necessarily mean that it's not an RS... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the long and short of it seems to be that it is not WP:MEDRS and its being WP:RS is up in the air. History2007 (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, there still is the fact that it is included in reputable databases that don't usually include fringe journals. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Is database inclusion a criterion for being declared WP:RS? History2007 (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• It certainly is part of it. It may be good to ask the advice of User:DGG, who is a specialist in this kind of things. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I asked DGG for advice. History2007 (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The concept of a self-publishing publisher makes no sense. Since it is a journal with an editorial board, the reliability of an article published by the journal depends on the qualifications of the author and the diligence and standards of the editorial process. It has nothing to do with the publisher. Zero^talk 04:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That is true to some extent. But still in the academic world that type of association does not get brownie points. I did take a look at the board members of the Transpersonal society now. I did not even know what the field was about. And they are all so... let us say groovy. I wonder if the headquarters is decorated in hippie colors... or if they have out of body experiences during board meetings... But many of them have teaching posts in psychology departments, so from that angle they look respectable. So my own feeling is that it is WP:RS when applied to esoteric psychology, but not medical science, etc. as IRWolfie stated. History2007 (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have the same impression and would not personally take most of these papers seriously in my own work. However, my personal view has no value from Wikipedia's perspective. The fact that many of the editors and authors are academics at respectable universities means that the journal passes WP:RS. I wouldn't complain if all-too-cute things were attributed like "According to ...", though. Zero^talk 14:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I will stop watching this page now. History2007 (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)