Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1/Archive 1

Archive 1

Development

The concept is currently being worked out at User talk:JL-Bot/Archive 4#Tweak to JL-Bot?. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Gah4

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable6. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that there should be something to talk about! Gah4 (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Progress as of 31 January 2019

Currently three things are missing for the list to be ready to be considered ready and complete.

A) Duplicate handling  Fixed

Sometimes a journal is listed (and counted) twice per group. Once as a standalone entry, once as sub-item of an entry, e.g.

• Brain Sciences (6 in 6)
• List of MDPI academic journals
  • Aerospace (7 in 7)
  • Brain Sciences (6 in 6)

for a citation count of '6 + 7 + 6 = 19' instead of

• List of MDPI academic journals
  • Aerospace (7 in 7)
  • Brain Sciences (6 in 6)

for a citation count of '7 + 6 = 13'.

B) Typo detection  Fixed

Currently, unredirected typos and variants of an entry are only reported if the entry is itself found, instead of always being reported. For instance, if you have US Open Adv. Mech Eng. J. (missing dot after 'Mech'), it will only be reported if US Open Adv. Mech. Eng. J. has been cited. Likewise Journal of Foobar and Crap, a variant of Journal of Foobar & Crap, will only be reported if Journal of Foobar & Crap has been cited.

C) Reporting of |source= and |note=  Fixed

This is essential to explain why something is on the Crapwatch. WP:CRAPWATCH/SETUP shows this information source and notes, but WP:CRAPWATCH doesn't yet.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

All fixed now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

RfD: WP:CRAPWATCH, WP:JCW/CRAP and others

There is a discussion concerning whether or not WP:CRAPWATCH and WP:JCW/CRAP should be allowed to be shortcuts to the our crapwatch list to detect predatory journals and other crap citations. Please participate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

CRAPWATCH expansion

There is a discussion about the expansion of the Crapwatch at WT:MED using Quackwatch's list. Please comments. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I've also greatly expanded the sources from which the crapwatch is based on. I suspect the next update will be very chaotic, so be patient while the kinks are being worked on. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The only major thing missing from that I can think of is Cabell's blacklist, if someone has access to that, that would be great. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Vertical alignment

Having the table cells vertically centered really hurts readability. Could we get User:JLaTondre's bot to write style="vertical-align: top;" into the table rows, per Help:Table#Vertical alignment in cells? -- Netoholic @ 08:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

We could, although vertically aligned cells kinda look bad once the cells go back down to a reasonable size. I agree there's a readability issue though. The next step will likely be to templatify the table similar to what we do with WP:JCW/POP and then we can experiment with format without the bot being involved. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic: I've got some mockups in User:Headbomb/sandbox3. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

2 different concepts

"flat out predatory" and " promote pseudo/junk science or quackery" are two unrelated dimensions. Most predatory journals are targeting at orthodox but uninteresting science, hooping ofr articles by unsophisticated researchers who do not know better than to publish them. They may because of their nonexistent peer review publish pseudoscience, but that's not their primary intention nor does it describe most of their material. , but that is not their primary intention. They are predatory with respect to those who publish in them, not their audience. DGG ( talk ) 10:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@DGG: Sure... but the warning says "flat out predatory or promote pseudo/junk science or quackery". So I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at here. Are you saying people will be confused into thinking predatory = promote pseudoscience? The first item is mean to convey 'publications which are pure unambiguous garbage which shouldn't be cited', followed by 'publications which may have some cornercase value', and lastly by 'publications that aren't actually junk, but can look like junk to a bot'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying exactly that, people will be confused. That something is published in a typical low quality predatory journal is an alert that it may not have been adequately reviewed and may therefore not be depended on--that if it is used to show notability , it must be checked that it has actually been widely cited; that if it has been used to prove a point, it may require additional sourcing. Whereas is something has been published in a journal that frequently or exclusively publishes pseudoscience, it might well show notability as a pseudoscientist, but can certainly nort be depended on for a NPOV approach to the subject. These are two different problems.

I'm additionally not happy with the blanket classification of some publishers as predatory. Hindawi, for example, seems to have intended to develop into a reputable publisher--and some few of its journals have in fact become fairly respectable . This is in contrast to some of the other journal publishers here, which have no realistic expectations of ever being acceptable, and probably never really intended to be . (this was one of the problems with Beall's list, that it too did not make the distinction--but let there be no mistake, I consider Beale a pioneer worthy of the highest respect for his work in getting academic to recognize the problem.,and I think had he not been stopped by the actions of some publishers who were upset by his listing, he would have realized the difference hisellf in his work. DGG ( talk ) 10:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, well for Hindawi (and others), the 'finalized' list (see Bug C in the 31 January section above) would have a note included, which would in this case read "[Originally listed on Beall's list, but later removed as a 'borderline case']". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It could also just be that Hindawi shouldn't be on the final list at all. Beall removed a few others (e.g. MDPI, Medknow), but those are much more problematic than Hindawi. However, as many note (e.g. [1], [2]), Hindawi was problematic in the past, but improved themselves (point #4 in the disclaimer). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Added Zero Hedge to WP:RSP

I've added Zero Hedge to WP:RSP. X1\ (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@X1\: thanks for the notice. I added it to the Crapwatch. Should be picked up on the next run, if there's anything to be picked up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: does my addition to the wp:RSP list look okay (it is my first time)? X1\ (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If you mean [3], it needed some minor tweaks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Collapsible columns?

Is it possible to make the Entries column collapsible? At present, it is extremely difficult to scroll through the list, particularly on a mobile device. RolandR (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Not straightforwardly. I'll look into what's possible though. This is really only an issue for the first page, although it's arguably the most important one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@RolandR: check it now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's a lot more manageable. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@RolandR: it's been further tweaked to give a count when collapsed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

31 March 2019 – Official 'Launch' of The SourceWatch

If you're here following the Signpost piece, welcome to The SourceWatch! Many people worked hard to make something good, and while it's probably not perfect, please assume good faith if you spot issues or have suggestions. Please read the FAQ above for answers to common questions, but feel free to ask for help if something is unclear. Happy editing! – Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• This page is primarily designed for use as a worklist, yes? For editors to adopt a queue and work through each mention of a specific source to see whether it's appropriate? Has there been discussion about tagging sources within articles even when they're used appropriately? E.g., when a citation is being used as a primary source, explaining that it's only useful, e.g., for opinion and not statements of fact? czar 16:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Right now it's just a list. You can use it to eliminate the worst stuff (usually the page 6/5/4/3... stuff) relatively straightforwardly, but there's no way (at least yet) to track sources that are questionable, but cited appropriately. That would probably require an additional parameter in citations, if this is something desired, but there might be alternatives too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Czar: added an item to the FAQ, since this is a question that will often come up, I'm sure. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

RFC: SourceWatch is a name that is already taken. What should the new name be?

The consensus is to use The Wikipedia CiteWatch instead of The Wikipedia SourceWatch.

Cunard (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It turns out that SourceWatch (published by the Center for Media and Democracy, formerly Disinfopedia) is already a thing. Since confusing names are bad (and there's a potential trademark issue here), what should we call this project instead of The Wikipedia SourceWatch? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm thinking maybe The Wikipedia CiteWatch instead of The Wikipedia SourceWatch? How does that sound? Are there better alternatives out there? Are those hits on Google of concern? Thanks to Pythoncoder for pointing the issue! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• CiteWatch is catchy and to the point. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• CiteWatch sounds good. Be sure to redirect "SiteWatch" as a homophone. — Newslinger talk 02:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Results of trademark search:
    • Y United States: The United States Patent and Trademark Office returns no live trademarks for "CiteWatch" and 3 live trademarks ([4] [5] [6]) in unrelated classes of goods/services.
    • Y United Kingdom: The Intellectual Property Office returns no live trademarks for "CiteWatch" and 3 registered trademarks ([7] [8] [9]) for "SiteWatch" in unrelated classes of goods.
    • Y Canada: The Canadian Intellectual Property Office returns no live trademarks for "CiteWatch" and 2 registered trademarks ([10] [11]) for "SiteWatch" in unrelated classes of goods.
    • Y Australia: IP Australia returns no live trademarks for "CiteWatch" or "SiteWatch".
    • Y International: The World Intellectual Property Organization returns no live trademarks for "CiteWatch" or "SiteWatch".

  The search also included the terms "Cite Watch" and "Site Watch". If anyone finds a live trademark for CiteWatch/SiteWatch in a related class of goods in another country, please share it. Until then, it looks all clear. ​— Newslinger talk 04:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Newslinger: what about http://citewatch.com/ ? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  Until there is a live trademark, I wouldn't be concerned about that website since there's basically nothing there, not even a company name. The owner is most likely just parking the domain. ​— Newslinger talk 05:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• "CiteWatch" should be fine, then.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• I'm partial to Crapwatch; is this not the original name by consensus? ;) This project's function is to "list potentially cargo cult, conspiracist, denialist, fake, junk, not even wrong, obsolete, predatory, pseudoscientific, quack, or otherwise unreliable publications", so it's less about watching citations/sources in general and more about the removal of the most egregious, slippery, insidious sources that attempt to pass as legitimate. I recommend having the name reflect this narrower purpose, less the name mislead. czar 13:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Indifferent to final choice I will leave the decision to others but I will share my wishes for what the name should communicate. This system is bigger than Wikipedia and bigger than citations. I expect that in the future this program will be part of meta:WikiCite, which itself is in the process of transitioning to profiling organizations, authors, topics, and other umbrella concepts over individual sources. We are doing more than "watching" - we are also collecting and summarizing critiques and making recommendations. When we say "sources", nowadays people only think of what is referenced by the "cite", but soon it is going to be much easier to evaluate sources based on the author's entire social network. The best name would be flexible in communicating that the Wikimedia platform checks all the data to which it has access, and "source" or "cite" might not convey that. "Crapwatch" is not everything either because of the negative connotation. Right now we have tools to identify absolute bunkum, but it is getting a easier to separate low-quality but respectable content from high quality content, and this project might soon have more nuanced ratings than just crap/not crap. Citations are migrating across languages in Wikipedia so the name of this project should be something that can translate. Alternatives to the word "source" could be "cite", "claim", "fact", or "media". Alternatives to the word "watch" could be "rank", "check", "track", "profile", "map", or "network". I think Sourcewatch is a fine name. That organization is not the first to coin this term. For Wikipedia's purpose perhaps two words, "source watch" would be better for the sake of translation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

"I expect that in the future this program will be part of meta:WikiCite". That's very unlikely. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• CiteWatch. As I mentioned in a separate discussion recently, I was disappointed to see @Zefr: use WP:CRAPWATCH to point here. In my mind we should remove that redirect from displaying on the page while keeping it around for backwards compatibility. It reinforces the juvenile, angry "I like to call people fucking idiots all the time" stereotype of Wikipedia editors. The journals represented here have published works by many, many academics, which is not to say that we should cite them, but we could at least try to have a modicum of professionalism when we discuss their work. II | (t - c) 18:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Removed the shortcut in the box. Leftover from development. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• CiteTrust the problem I see is that we miss a way of describing the quality of sources. One of the best sources for biographies in Sweden is d:Property_talk:P3217. We have now added this in Sweden well known source to Wikidata and then the challenge is when we add it to Wikidata we get Wikipedia articles in +200 languages see T222142. We need to find a way to describe the quality of sources (if possible in a machine readable way) --> help us understand what source is better or less good or the weakness. This is complex and one source could be good for a specific area/time period but I guess everything is better than guessing - Salgo60 (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

That's beyond the scope of this project. This is a list of potentially crappy citations. Including known reliable citations would defeat the point of the list in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Salgo60, have you taken a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (WP:RSP)? I intend to convert the data from that list into a machine-readable format for use in user scripts and other tools. Please let me know on WT:RSP or my talk page if you're interested in this project. — Newslinger talk 19:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Guidance on searching for articles using the sources

Using the Advanced Search, search in page text, "exactly this text" will effectively focus results on the source name.

I'm thinking that in the listing of sources, one might also include common or formal abbreviations for the sources. This won't be useful in many cases ... for instance, the common abbreviation for Amphibian & Reptile Conservation is ARC as indicated on the journal's website - no help there - but the NLM Catalog indicates a couple of alternatives, namely Amphibian and Reptile Conservation and Amphib Reptile Conserv. Searching for the formal title → 26 results (the bot turned back 13); the ISO abbreviation turned up 0 hits. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ceyockey: there are a few ways to handle this. The simplest would be to create an article on the journal, e.g. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (journal) (since Amphibian and Reptile Conservation also refers to a conversation trust, apparently). Then the following could be created

• Amphibian & Reptile Conservation (journal)
• Amphib. Reptile Conserv.
• Amphib Reptile Conserv

ARC, is trickier, since many journals can be abbreviated as ARC. This could always be manually added as a match, with a note that it could refer to other journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Help talk:Citation Style 1#Support citewatch=... or something like it

A proposal to have a parameter to mark questionable sources that are appropriately cited has been made. Please comment. @Czar: in particular, since this was your suggestion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Link to archived proposal: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 57#Support citewatch=... or something like it czar 20:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

De-archived. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

SPS

This may be of interest [12].Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Predatory cleanup, help needed!

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Help cleaning up 'remainder' of predatory journals cited on Wikipedia and help cleanup citations to predatory sources on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

And now Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Help cleaning up 'remainder' of predatory journals cited on Wikipedia, part 2. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Add Cureus in the citewatch sources

Basically because of this: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Fake_case_Report and not indexed in MEDLINEWalidou47 (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Walidou47: If you mean doi:10.7759/cureus.4671, the article was retracted. Is there an indication that there's a wider issue? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems that Cureus conducts "post-publication peer review", so clearly there's a reliability issue with that one. Added. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks you can also check their two days peer review process: https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-journal/cureus/Walidou47 (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Can you please show me how to add the journal using the bot ? (I think it is still pending right ?) Walidou47 (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Walidou47:, what do you mean "adding the journal using the bot"? If you mean adding it to the CiteWatch, that's already done. See WP:CITEWATCH#Cureus. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: thanks, well I was just searching at how the bot actually add stuff, I could not find how.Walidou47 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It's based at WP:CITEWATCH/SETUP, there's some documentation at {{JCW-selected}} Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is new, and I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: - First of all I love your new tool - it is exceptionally helpful. :0) ¶ I think I discovered an anomaly: One of the references (currently #32) in Beall's List, an archived article by Beall that was on his (now defunct) Scholarly Open Access site, shows up as a "generally unreliable source". Maybe because it's now on archive.org? I really have no idea, but I know you're continuously improving the script so just wanted to let you know. All the best   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Markworthen: scholarlyoa was hijacked, so you want to double check that you are citing Beall's version, and not the highjacked version. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: It wasn't a cite I added, but I fixed it (diff).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Updates needed for Q8 - A8 Bad signs

• "Being included in blacklists like Beall's list ..." - The historical list developed by Beall, which I certainly respect, is being added to by an anonymous person, but the original list is not being edited - notes are added, but there is no indication that links will be removed. Therefore it is possible that a few journals on Beall's list have improved or changed ownership, etc., i.e., they should no longer be blacklisted. I question if we should recommend a list that will gradually become less valid over time.

• "Being included in blacklists like ... Cabell's blacklist" - Since access to this reputable list requires a paid subscription, it makes it hard for the average editor to consult Cabell's. I will post a request to the Wikipedia Library to see if they can contact Cabell's about limited free-access subscriptions for Wikipedians who apply (per the standard Wikipedia Library procedures). ¶ I updated the Cabell's article a bit (diff).

• "Being included included in junk databases like Index Copernicus ..." - Although this Polish website has a translate-to-English function, it is not very good, i.e., much of the content is still in Polish. I could not find a list of journals in the Index or a way to search. I suggest we remove this recommendation.

• "Being included included in junk databases like ... Open Academic Journals Index" - When I clicked the link to oaji.net I received this warning from Malwarebytes: "Website blocked due to a Trojan. Your Malwarebytes Premium blocked this website because it may contain a Trojan. We strongly recommend you do not continue." I will remove the link and recommendation from Q8/A8 because not everyone has Malwarebytes or similar software installed on their device.

  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

None of those things should be removed from Q8. Beall (and the updated lists) are still valid (with the caveats), same for Cabell even if it's paywalled, and both IC and OAJI are garbage indices that should be warned against. We don't link to them, nor the malware site. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I should have made it clear that I do not advocate removing reference to Cabell's. I added this to The Wikipedia Library Card Platform: Suggest partners: "Cabell Publishing Company, which also goes by the unofficial name "Cabell's International", publishes proprietary lists of both "predatory" and reputable academic journals, which would be exceptionally helpful to editors when trying to decide if a reference meets Wikipedia's reliable sources criteria." ¶ I apologize for implying that we link directly to oaji.net. When I saw we do not have an article about the database, I searched for "Open Academic Journals Index" - it was the link on the Google search results page that I clicked. That said, my process of seeking more information about Open Academic Journals Index is exactly my concern. In answer to the question, "How do I find out if a 'borderline' source, or a source not listed here, is good or not?", we advise that "being included in junk databases (like Index Copernicus or Open Academic Journals Index)" is a "bad sign", which implies that one should check those two databases to see if either contains the journal of interest. Conscientious editors will do what I did: Search for the Open Academic Journals Index to see if a journal is listed therein. When they click on the link (on the Google SERP) they could end up with a trojan on their device. ¶ With regard to Index Copernicus, do you know the URL for the search page on the site? Or a page that lists journals indexed by the site? We should link directly to that page so editors can determine if the journal in question is listed by Index Copernicus. If editors cannot check these indexes, why recommend them as "bad sign" indicators? ¶ Note that I deleted "or [[Open Academic Journals Index]]" from A8. If you believe we should still include it despite my concerns, I defer to you to add it back.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not against warning against browsing malware-containing sites, but journals which advertise being indexed in Index Copernicus and OAJI are definitely raising red flags, and that should not be removed from Q8. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I understand your concern better now. What do you think about editing that one sentence in A8 to something like this: "A journal states it is indexed by junk databases, such as Index Copernicus or Open Academic Journals Index. (Note: You do not need to search those junk databases, particularly OAJI since their website might try to download a trojan to your computer or phone.)"   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not against that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of columns CSS

There is some HTML on User:JL-Bot/Maintenance.cfg, User:JL-Bot/Citations.cfg, and User:JL-Bot/Publishers.cfg that looks kind of like <div class="div-col columns column-width" style="column-width: Xem">....

I'll soonly be removing the CSS associated with columns from MediaWiki:Common.css. You may wish to change these to {{div col}}.

--Izno (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

And some others in this search. --Izno (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Izno: the whole point of using the CSS is that the template-based version ran into expansion limit issues, e.g. [13]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Headbomb: That is because you used {{columns-list}} which wraps the content in question in the template. {{div col}} is the "start-end" pattern version of columns-list and should accordingly have no issue (div col also supports the wrapper pattern but I rarely see people use that except by the pass through columns-list). --Izno (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@JLaTondre: Can you update your bot to use {{div col}}/{{div col end}} as start/end column markers? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Too weak defamatory claims used agains specific journals?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As there is a attack by XOR'aster on physics essays also other places on wikipedia, where he uses this page as evidence for his claim it is a "garbage journal" I was looking up the claims on this page and wonder how much backing is really behind it, I could not find much:

Physics essays according to this page "Publishes quantum woo and relativity denial nonsense that could not possibly have passed meaningful peer-review."

What is specifically meant with relativity denial nonsense? Many non well studied in physics may be think the special relativity theory is considered among all a complete theory. This is not the case. A series of journals published papers on the possible incompleteness in special relativity theory, even a well established theory should off course be questioned, and the ones question it should be questioned. What should not happen is try sensor scientific discussions. Just as an example relativity of simultaneity is considered to be a corner stone in special relativity theory. Still it is quite often discussed and even criticized in very well established journals like the American Journal of Physics, not only in the past but also in recently published papers :"This alternative synchrony renders simultaneity not relative but absolute " https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/10.0000002

so what is so very different when researchers like Professor Gift publishes papers on similar topics in Physics Essays. I mention Professor Gift since XOR'aster in the same claims have attacked his paper specifically and claimed Physics essay is garbage. InvestigateThis (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)InvestigateThis (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

" that could not possibly have passed meaningful peer-review." has wiki editors that wrote this actually checked the peer review process at Physics Essays. For me it seems this journal have been put on the list as some editors in wikipedia is after deleting references to some they for some reason have a personal issue with, I could be wrong. But where is the proofs behind the claims such as "" that could not possibly have passed meaningful peer-review." . The journal specifically mention how they do peer review, perhaps they are more open minded than some other journals, so more variety. Is the "evidence" used that this journal have more papers than other more known journals questioning the completeness of special relativity theory ?InvestigateThis (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• See User talk:Headbomb/unreliable#Physics Essays at WT:UPSD. The papers mentioned there are without any shred of doubt utter nonsense (e.g. [14] [15]) that could not have passed any meaningful peer review. If you want to appeal that, you can start a discussion at WT:PHYS or WP:RSN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Here it is claimed "The papers mentioned there are without any shred of doubt utter nonsense" why is it obvious nonsense, because it comes with hypoteis question special relativity theory? I likely disagree on the hypotesis suggested by that paper, but such hypotesis are very often presented in much higher ranked journals than this for example "Analyses of scissors cutting paper at superluminal speeds" https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6552/ab77c4 This paper goes against special relativity theory, I think the hypothesis they have presented is not correct, but then I have to prove so, and preferably in a peer reviewed paper, or find peer revied papers doing so. Science do not move forward by prejudice, but by arguments and counter arguments and ongoing discussions. Here we see wikipedia editors, that have perhaps some basic university studies in physics coming with prejudice and defamatory claims against researchers, papers, journals. I encourage some editors in wikipedia to understand this is not giving wikipedia very high status among many researchers. InvestigateThis (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

No, that paper does not go "against special relativity theory"; as the abstract clearly states, it bases its conclusion on the relativity of simultaneity. Moreover, the item you point to is a brief comment on an earlier paper [16] whose abstract states that what happens in their thought-experiments happens without violating special relativity. XOR'easter (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

So perhaps not a good example, there are many alternative relativity theories discussed in the literature, for example going against relativity of simultaneity corner stone in special relativity theory

"and so distant clocks cannot be consistently synchronized following the standard procedure proposed by Einstein except for those under some privileged motion." https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/10.0000002

I can list loads of papers if wanted, I will perhaps in a write up where I will show how editors of wikipedia try to deplatform and ridicule researchers questioning consensus. It is not that they necessarily are right, very often they are wrong. Attacks on peer reviewed papers should be taken seriously when in peer reviewed journals. My point it is not up for wikipedia editors to decide what is good or bad papers. Journals with low rank has on average lower quality of papers, journals with higher rank have on average papers with higher standard. Still there are plenty of evidence of totally garbage papers in low ranked as well as high ranked journals. Individual papers can not be judged based on an average. Perhaps go and study some statistics?InvestigateThis (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

"I encourage some editors in wikipedia to understand this is not giving wikipedia very high status among many researchers." Good. It shouldn't have a high status amongst researchers, because Wikipedia is not the place to conduct research. Publish your theory in a reliable journal, then we'll cover it. Until then, we're not interested. Now, unless you're interested in opening a discussion at WT:PHYS or WP:RSN, there's nothing else to say here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How can you use WP:CITEWATCH to see which articles are citing questionable journals?

On Page 6 I saw The Onion was used as source somewhere, and I'm curious. - Scarpy (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Follow the link? It's on Sniglet, cited appropriately, although questions of WP:DUE should be taken on that article's page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Headbomb Not sure how I could be missing it. Where's the link? - Scarpy (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wait, I found it. Related, though... Looking at Page 2 I see there's several in multiple articles but they're not linked the same way. Does it stop linking after a certain number of apperances? - Scarpy (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it links to individual articles when there's 5 or fewer articles citing the source. Above 5 articles, you can just search for "The Onion" or "insource:/journal *= *The Onion/" or similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Yeah that insource operator is pretty cool. I didn't know you could do that. Scarpy (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Scarpy: the general structure is insource:/regex here/, and is case sensitive. There's more details at Help:Searching#insource: Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The Federalist

The Federalist should be added as a questionable source per the recent RFC closure here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Discussion_(The_Federalist). I'd do it myself, but wikitext isn't my thing. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 20:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Small milestone...

We've cleared enough that we're now at 498 entries, needing only 5 pages instead of 6 for the WP:CITEWATCH! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Beall's list page moved

Hello everyone, noob here.

I see a lot of references on this page to Beall's list, may I first say how happy I am to see that list is still maintained. But, I believe that page has been moved. The link I am seeing is https://beallslist.weebly.com/ but clicking there says the page has been moved to: https://beallslist.net/ .

I would be happy to fix this if it's helpful. Would I just run a search and replace or is there a better option?

Edinburghpotsdam (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Edinburghpotsdam: Should be fixed now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Can false positives be removed?

So I was scanning through this, and noticed that the Robert M. Rennick Manuscript Collection is listed under the "conspiracy theories" tab, likely because one of the other entries involves the name Robert M. The Robert M. Rennick Manuscript Collection is a collection of place names in Kentucky I've used a source before (mainly to determine the nature of the place). It is most certainly not a conspiracy theory. Hog Farm _Talk 04:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, quite easily. see #Q4 in the FAQ above. It's listed because Robert M. Rennick Manuscript Collection is close enough to "Robert M.", which redirects to Amsterdam sex crimes case. I've bypassed it here, so it should get removed in the next run. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

North American Journal of Psychology

I believe that the North American Journal of Psychology (NAJP) is probably questionable, but I'm hardly an expert so I thought I should check. I've made a list of potential red flags:

• Editorial policy makes it pretty clear that they'll accept papers that many reliable journals wouldn't This is up to and including them saying that they are seeking papers on "Topics that are 'unpopular' in other journals".
• They publish papers that have very major methodological and theoretical flaws. For example - an article where part of the justification is The Secret, and the study picks out and compared 2 individual questions from a questionnaire (NOT how a questionnaire should be analysed), with no justification as to why they picked those specific questions.
• They advise people to add other authors onto their paper in order to reduce cost of application. It seems really weird to me to advise that authors give credit to people who weren't involved for the sake of authors saving money.
• The publisher of the NAJP is NAJP.
• Bad impact factor and SCImago ranking, with no improvement over time.
• As far as I've seen, the articles don't have DOIs. Potentially relatedly, they encourage authors to upload their articles to ResearchGate, etc, with an implication that getting the research accessible to people is the responsibility of the author.
• I checked the issues they've released over 2021 and 2020, and the journal's editor, McCutcheon, has published at least one article in every issue. And they're not even editorials, they're research articles. In every issue at least one other member of their advisory/consulting editors has also published a research article.
  • I'd normally assume it's fine, but because (as far as I can tell) there's a habit of publishing their "inner circle's" papers, it seems worth mentioning that there are a handful of other perennial authors, e.g. Clark and Ready.

I don't know heaps about what's normal practice in journals, so feel free to tell me if any of these aren't actually a problem. Please ping me if you respond. Cheers! --Xurizuri (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

References

It does seem borderline, but it's also indexed in Scopus as a middle-of-the-pack journal. I'd suggest getting consensus at WP:RSN and asking for WP:PSY people to opine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very helpful! I'll do that.

Also, apparently it's middle of the pack for specifically sociology and political science, which is unexpected, but here we are. (39th percentile for sociology and pol sci, 29th for education, 18th for developmental/education psych, 17th for general psych - strange stuff). --Xurizuri (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

International Journal of Information Research and Review

I've stumbled across this article published in what is claimed to be a fully peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

The article reads, however, like a bad translation from Google Translate, and apparently some of it is maybe from Azeri: For example, mol! to be a report of the American historian. R. Hovhannisyan on "the Crisis in the Caucasus", which was read at the conference organized" Corporation "Rand". On 28-29 August 1993, in Co - livornica Year, or Russian: Armenians deystvitelno have taught us the horrors of modern war, (действительно = really), These were monstrous zverst [wtf?] Armenian murderers to the beginning of Sumgayit events. and We believe it is necessary to note that the Sumgait event is wholly the handiwork of the Armenian ekstremistov. Provakatsii prepared long before February 1988 on the territory of Armenia. Not to mention that it lays the blame for the Sumgait pogrom on Armenians.

This can't possibly be a good journal if the "peer reviewers" can't notice that submissions are written using copy-paste from Google Translate. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It should already be picked up by the Citewatch. It's just not been cited on Wikipedia as of the last dump (1 February, see #Q9 above). I'll add it to WP:UPSD however (which I recommend using if you don't already use it). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

International Journal of Coronaviruses

So I've come across this and don't know what to make of it. It's not listed on Scopus or on Beall's list, or anywhere else at all from what I could find. One of its papers is presently being used to claim that there was insignificant undercounting or data manipulation on Covid-19 cases in India and China using Benford's Law which looks dodgy as it contradicts most other sources. Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here, I don't deal with predatory journals often. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: Open Access Publications is definitely listed on Beall's list. Search for openaccesspub.org in the publishers section of https://beallslist.net/. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

[Unreliable fields] bad link

I don't know how to fix this myself since it appears to be bot-generated, but there are several links to "[Unreliable fields]" which are linked to:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JL-Bot/Questionable.cfg#Unreliable_fields

But that seems to be a broken reference. I think they may need to be updated to refer to:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JL-Bot/Questionable.cfg/General#Unreliable_fields

DKEdwards (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@DKEdwards: I'm afraid you'll have to be clearer here. Do you have an example of such a link? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Found it. Should be fixed now. Thanks for reporting. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

EurAsian Times

EurAsian Times is an extremely questionable source that seems to lift news or work from other sources without any attempt to vet them. In particular, the articles relating to the Russia-Ukraine War are full of tabloid-like headlines and sometimes outright regurgitation of Russian propaganda without any attempt at verification. The site is supposedly an Indian-Canadian venture, and I'm not sure if their questionable reporting quality is the result of an agenda or laziness, but some articles are making extraordinary claims when citing EurAsian Times. Steve7c8 (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Steve7c8: was this discussed at WP:RSN? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven’t. Is that the first step in request a review of a source? I’m not familiar with this process. Steve7c8 (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Steve7c8 Listing at WP:RSN provides a central archive of discussions for the reliability of sources regardless of their type. I use the archive on a regular basis to see if a source I'm suspicious of has been discussed before. So, good idea to discuss there rather than here ... but perfectly OK to put a link here to the discussion there, so that people working in this WikiProject are aware. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Deprecated source removal from article

In A Brief History of Crime, I removed a deprecated source, The Mail On Sunday (I think). If any action needs to be taken on my behalf, please notify me. Thank you! The Troutinator (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@The Troutinator It looks like @Headbomb reverted your edit, citing acceptability via WP:ABOUTSELF. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 13#Humanities and Social Sciences

This discussion will affect a class of redirects on which WP:CITEWATCH relies to function, and would affect how we can detect predatory journals on a go-forward basis. Please chip in. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion was moved to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 24#Humanities and Social Sciences and subsequently closed as "keep 2, no consensus on 2". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Medline journals should be removed from the list ?

From the Medline article :"New journals are not included automatically or immediately. Several criteria for selection are applied. Selection is based on the recommendations of a panel, the Literature Selection Technical Review Committee, based on the scientific scope and quality of a journal. The Journals Database (one of the Entrez databases) contains information, such as its name abbreviation and publisher, about all journals included in Entrez, including PubMed. Journals that no longer meet the criteria are removed. Being indexed in MEDLINE gives a non-predatory identity to a journal." Atchoum (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Medline is not perfect, and does include predatory journals. It can also include various oddball journals for many reasons. If a specific journal should be removed, you can make a case for it at WP:RSN, but in bulk whitelisting won't happen. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi.

Nothing is perfect ! Is there somewhere a list of predatory journal included in Medline according to 'wikipedia' ? Oddball or not is not the question. For example, there is no case against Oncotarget at WP:RSN but he is in the list; moreover he was reintegrated in 2022 in medline. Some journals on the list have never been deleted by medline. I understood that these journals could have been on a temporary list after the release of Bell 's list, but after so many years without proof of predations, why it make sense ?

The disclaimer sates that : "This list is a starting point to detect unreliable sources which are cited by Wikipedia, but it does not answer whether it is appropriate to cite them." ; but in reality people delete references without justification.

Medline is so rigorous that it should be withelist, and every exception should be debated at WP:RSN. Atchoum (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSN is that way. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no WP:RSN for Oncotarget but he is on the list. You seem to care so much ! Atchoum (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

See Q5 in the FAQ above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Utility of this page?

I'm curious about whether the regular referral of people to WP:RSN is an indicator that this is not a good page to keep, that it is distracting people from the central discussion resource? A pointer to the archive here could be made at RSN so people could access this alt archive, but maybe the page itself should redirect to RSN? Thoughts or am I just barking mad (not mutually exclusive)? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Not really barking mad, but this page is basically for the routine maintenance of the list. E.g. if there's something at RSN I missed, you can point it out here. Or if there's some false positives that are egregious (note that the compilation just updated, so it'll take me 1-2 days to go through the existing obvious stuff). Or point out some obvious duh cases that don't need to be discussed at RSN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

https://americanmilitarynews.com can this source be cited and added to the list or no?

hi all, was wondering if the above is a good source or not NotQualified (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The only place this source is used is in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiGFlug Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)