Talk:Structural Equation Modeling (journal)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... ... this is a peer-reviewed journal with very good standing. An impact factor of 3.153 is pretty damn good for statistics journals (see Comparison of statistics journals)--Stas K (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This WP article is just a publishers' blurb. It should be deleted and re-added when it meets WP policies.

It's not clear that this should be a statistics journal. The SEM community is populated mainly by people at "quantitative methods" departments at Educational Schools, and their psychology departments, and by sociologists. (OSU and Riverside are exceptions, with good statisticians in statistics departments, but they usually publish in better journals.) The Impact Factor is due mainly to self-citation. This journal has little impact on good statistics journals.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Just checked in the JCR: the self-citation rate of this journal is 13%, which is absolutely within the normal range. It is indeed mostly cited by psychology journals, not by other statistics journals. --Crusio (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've also tagged this under G12 as a copyvio of http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10705511.asp. Acather96 (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've actually decided to produce this entry when I saw this journal listed in Comparison of statistics journals, so blame whoever put it there! It is listed as a statistics journal in Excellence in Research for Australia rankings, for the lack of a more appropriate "quantitative methodology" rubric. I agree that the area of structural equation modeling is very remotely related to the mainstream statistics and this journal won't likely cite JASA (just as JASA won't cite this journal), although I believe that the fault is on the both sides equally: statisticians did not care about new developments in applications of multivariate statistics in psychology/sociology/education (as they still don't care about asymptotic theory developments in econometrics), and those "quant methods" folks did not bother involving statisticians to make this field adequately rigorous. Stas K (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've declined the speedy; there's enough of a claim to notability, and the copyright violation can simply be blanked. Stas K: don't copy anything from anywhere. Others: Feel free to go to AfD. Melchoir (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

My bad. I will edit the entry somewhat to make more informative. There are links to the online version of the journal in the infobox for the journal. Would that satisfy the criteria for verifiability? Stas K (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Verifiability applies to all material within an article. A link to the online version of the journal verifies that the journal exists, and it also verifies that the journal's stated goals align with what's written here. But the more in-depth information one wants to add, the more third-party sources are necessary to ensure that Wikipedia's coverage is more than a press release. Melchoir (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)