Talk:Johnson Matthey Technology Review

Platinum Metals Review has been re-launched as Johnson Matthey Technology Review.

Hi, The peer-reviewed journal formerly known as Platinum Metals Review was relaunched on the 16th July 2014 with a new name and URL as Johnson Matthey Technology Review

Johnson Matthey Technology Review is a peer-reviewed scientific journal which will publish reviews and short reports focusing on science and technology in a range of areas relevant to the industrial interests of Johnson Matthey Plc. These include: Advanced Functional Materials; Analytical Technologies; Biocatalysis; Electronics; Emissions Control; Energy Conversion & Storage; Industrial Processes; Metallurgy; Modelling; Nanotechnology; Pharmaceuticals and Fine Chemicals; Purification; and Sustainability. For more information, please read our Editorial Policy.

The new journal is available online at and continues to build on the company’s 58 years supporting the publication of scientific research.

The journal welcomes submissions from all researchers in academia or industry who are working in the above areas of interest. Other subjects may be considered at the Editors’ discretion. For more advice please contact the editorial team.

The UK ISSN centre has also issued the journal with a new number to reflect this name change: Johnson Matthey technology review, ISSN 2056-5135.

Please feel to verify these links and we would be grateful if the page could be updated to reflect this change. Thanks, Dan Carter.

References

193.113.135.111 (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

What sources where these meant to be?

Hey, just removed these two from the History section... What where they meant to represent? Why were they there? Just leaving this here as a backup as humans are fallible and I am human.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by OnlyAQuestionOfTime (talk • contribs)

They establish the dates and the publisher, and give context. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for catching the "United States Geological Survey" source, it does indeed establish a date as a secondary source, I have now edited and moved it accordingly. The other one however does not seem to corroborate the sentence, apart from showing that johnson matthey is indeed a publisher.

But, to be certain: we are equally fallible here; after you redid my edits you erroneously reverted [[1]], you removed one/two to my "www."s so source 9 now states: "Platinum Metals Review (2011). https://technology.matthey.com/info-for-librarians "Information for Librarians" (Abstracting and indexing). Johnson Matthey PLC. Retrieved 2011-11-05."; which can not be true, as at that time it would have been the www. which is of course now broken, yet would not have been at the time. If you edit a source, visit it please, and if you edit it, best practice is to rewrite the source, from scratch, not just tinker a little. So, you did not access "https://technology.matthey.com/info-for-librarians" in 2011 is my point.

I rectified the situation, no worries.

So "if you clean up links you have to be careful" seems to be the essence of our interaction, which is nice. I guess you have shown me that, and I hope to have shown it to you in kind. OnlyAQuestionOfTime (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The other source also explicitely corroborates the establishement of PMR in 1957 by Johnson Matthey.

The www. being there or not is a technical issue, it does not change the webpage but rather how the server deliver that webpage. That I didn't access the webpage in 2011 is irrelevant, someone else did. If you want to know what the webpage looked like in 2011, use WebArchive or similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the other source does also corroborate the 1957 date, thank you! I am really learning to look at the details here and be more cautious. I guess finding the randomly placed "Platinum Investing News" link really bugged me deeply and led me to be incautious going forward, especially with the grave formatting errors in the other sources giving a "written by a bot vibe", seeing mistakes where I should have seen answers. I will curtail my eagerness going forward.

However, I can not understand how it should not matter that you didn't access the page. You did not "fix" the link, as the link used to work a decade ago, and this "someone else" who did access it, accessed THAT page. Content of sites changes, and https://technology.matthey.com/for-authors and https://www.technology.matthey.com/for-authors are two DIFFERENT websites, which may contain different content at different times. That is the whole reason why, when sourcing with websites, you write "Retrieved XX-YY-ZZZZ", right?

Just "fixing the link" does not cut it here, as you're now linking to a different web presence. The simple way to figure out whether its the same site is: "if you have to change the link, its a different site. Otherwise you would not have to change it." Thats exactly why I only changed what I did in the original changes I made, taking care not to change the DATED links in the sources as they are relevant for the dates given, before you over zealously reinstated my changes seeing that they were, in fact, correct, without looking at the finer details.

If you change a link that is dated, you have to see whether the new site contains what it has to contain to be a viable source, and then also change the retrieval date, or else do not touch it, anything lesser makes no sense.

The source is supposed to corroborate "From the July 2004 issue onward in electronic format only.", yet https://technology.matthey.com/for-authors does not contain "2004" even once. Even more, the source is NAMED Platinum Metals Review (2013), as in 2013, when the source was written, THERE WAS NO JOHNSON MATTHEY TECHNOLOGY REVIEW. Therefore, you BROKE the link by removing the "www.", you did not fix it. I think it fair to presume if adding "www" gives us a "response 404 (backend NotFound), service rules for the path non-existent" error, removing "www" ten years ago would do the same. It even seems that the source previously corroborated more, namely "From April 1998, it was published as open access and from the July 2004 issue in electronic format only", which you, by merely saying "89 date does not check out nor makes sense", deleted. However, a 2000 issue of the journal IS published under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, so there must be something wrong with your deletion? (https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/matthey/pmr/2000/00000044/00000003/art00001/image/pmr0044-0094-f1.gif.html#)

I know I am a mere beginner, and I am bound to make mistakes, as I have, but this does not look like one, right P.I. Ellsworth ? (Please excuse my pulling you into the fray, I just dont quite know what to make of this situation and wish for a neutral third party to set thing right.) OnlyAQuestionOfTime (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Re:THERE WAS NO JOHNSON MATTHEY TECHNOLOGY REVIEW It does not matter that there was no JMR then. That was the page that was accessed. It was accessed on 2013-02-13. If you want to know what page that was, go to WebArchive or some other web archive service and look for that URL from a date around Mid Febuary 2013.

You can search for https://technology.matthey.com/info-for-authors or https://www.technology.matthey.com/info-for-authors and you will see it's the same page. Missing a www. does not change the page, it's some internal server bullshit that they've bungled up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

As for "From April 1998, it was published as open access and from the July 2004 issue in electronic format only", there is no source to support the '98 date anywhere. That an issue in 2000 was published open access online does not mean '98 was the year it started as open access. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I know. The current source you keep breaking does not corroborate the 2004 date neither. Thats why I have asked you to leave the link as is, since the link WITH the "www" probably used to corroborate both back in 2013. I will get back to you and this after work.

My statement was only meant to corroborate the fact that PMR was open access pre 2004 aswell, therefore your willy-nilly deletions are on parr with mine, only that you pride yourself as a seasoned editor while I do not. Please, stand by, we will get this sorted.

Since the page doesn't see much traffic I will not revert your edit and leave the erroneous deletion of "www" in the page, as I would (obviously) loose the resultant edit war, worst case via account termination, as you have clout and I do not.

But. Retrieved IS RETRIEVED. And NOONE went to https://technology.matthey.com/info-for-authors in 2013. Something you still did not adress with a single word. So no. "That was the page that was accessed. It was accessed on 2013-02-13." No. No it was not. And its not just a "technical issue".

All the best, OnlyAQuestionOfTime (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, that is absolutely irrelevant. https://technology.matthey.com/info-for-authors and https://www.technology.matthey.com/info-for-authors were exactly the same page in 2013. That the www. version is currently broken is due to internal server nonsense over at Johnson Matthey. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, editor OnlyAQuestionOfTime. I think it's good that you are not only trying to improve the encyclopedia, you are also conversing and learning from an editor whom you refer to as "a seasoned editor". It seems the technical issue with the JMTR is that someone forgot to include the "www" version in with the "https" secure website. This happened a lot back when websites converted from "http" to "https" secure versions. I've come across this a lot on and off WP. It is always good to update an external link to a working version when it is found to be broken. Always question – a question before it's answered is a bullet racing to a target. The correct answer is a bullseye. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)