Knowledge (XXG)

:Scholarly journal - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

173:, may be notable if it has attracted sufficient notoriety. High quality scholarly journals are rarely controversial, and so may be boring as subjects for Knowledge (XXG) articles, yet they are important for their publication of reliable sources. Helping users locate journal metadata (information about the journal) is part of helping them to make their own assessment of the reliability of content in those journals and hence to 169:(e.g., doubled square brackets ] are put around the journal name). If the scholarly journal is widely used within Knowledge (XXG) as a source in articles, then for utilitarian reasons that should be taken into account in determining whether Knowledge (XXG) should have at least a stub article on the journal in order to provide more information to users about the cited reference. Even a low-quality publication, such as 201:
orthopedics is around 1. The average impact factor environmental studies and law is around 1.5. The average impact factor for physics, pathology, ophthalmology, and medical imaging is around 2. The average impact factor for general medicine and neuroscience is around 3. The only fields with an average impact factor above 4 are astronomy and molecular and cell biology.
35: 200:
In particular, citation patterns, and therefore impact factors, differ significantly across academic disciplines. The average impact factor for fields such as mathematics, history, and education is around 0.5. The average impact factor for information science, business, crop science, dentistry, and
262:
Remember: Even the most prestigious and highly reputable journals have published embarrassingly bad papers, and many disreputable journals have published good quality papers by reputable researchers. Finding journals with good reputations is only part of the work in deciding what sources to use
233:
Other metrics take these patterns into account, and journal rankings within a field can be particularly useful. A journal that ranks near the middle of its field (or higher) is almost always going to be an acceptable journal. Journals that rank towards the bottom of their field may have quality
204:
This doesn't mean that MCB journals are eight times better than mathematics and history journals, or that general medicine is three times better than orthopedic surgery. It only means that mathematicians and historians generally find it necessary to cite fewer journal articles in each paper than
134:
standards for such publications should be relatively inclusive, even if the journal is a new startup, and even if the organisation or company responsible for the publication are the (main) writers and editors of the article, maintaining of course the usual behavioural standards set in
218:
the journal publishes deliberately provocative papers, in the expectation that they will be cited repeatedly by authors who want to disagree or object to the paper. This causes the impact factor to rise, because all citations are treated
94:
on Knowledge (XXG), particularly for new concepts or cutting-edge research that may not yet appear in textbooks. There is serious disagreement among scholars about the validity and/or applicability of measurements such as the
258:
and searching for the journal you want to review. (For these metrics, bigger numbers are better, so a journal with a CiteScore percentile of 60% is cited more often than 60% of journals in that subject area.)
225:
authors think their articles are more likely to be accepted if they sprinkle needless citations to previous publications by possible reviewers, or to previous publications in the journal they submit the paper
212:
the journal focuses on general subjects (e.g., medicine) instead of niche specialties (e.g., orthopedics) or region-specific information (e.g., agricultural research or law in a specific country)
189:. Even the best physics journal is an unreliable source for statements about politics, and top-quality political journals are poor sources for statements about physics. 389: 165:
Knowledge (XXG) articles are largely built on inline references that cite to journals, etc. In the Knowledge (XXG) citation, the name of the journal often is
197:
An impact factor measures how many times a journal's articles are cited in other journal articles. There is no "magic" or "good" number for impact factors.
328: 229:
the journal publishes in a field that uses journal articles as their primary official communication (e.g., biology), rather than books (e.g., history).
347:
Althouse, Benjamin M.; West, Jevin D.; Bergstrom, Carl T.; Bergstrom, Theodore (2009). "Differences in impact factor across fields and over time".
222:
articles accepted by the journal tend to have more authors than average (which means more people who will cite that article in their future work)
246:
This free service allows you to put in the subject area of research (e.g., genetics) and see a list of ranked journals. You can also check the
333: 255: 54:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
55: 115:
The journal's impact factor is not a decisive factor on whether it should be the subject of a standalone article in Knowledge (XXG).
90:
Independent, peer-reviewed publications such as academic journals or specialist trade magazines are important places to find
234:
problems, or there may be factors irrelevant to quality that lower their ranking (such as not publishing in English).
185:
There are multiple metrics for evaluating whether a journal is reputable. The most important factor, as always, is
174: 47: 96: 186: 154:
the journal in other independent journals, or as citations are found by the usual searches, particularly
59: 69: 251: 170: 107:
calculated for academic journals to gauge how often a journal's articles are independently cited.
43: 356: 142:
Editors should be able to establish notability of these journals based on adequate citations in
311: 366: 302: 292: 136: 119: 118:
Sometimes an article about a scholarly journal or specialist trade magazine will appear at
143: 91: 281:"Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations" 306: 280: 166: 131: 127: 383: 104: 100: 297: 62:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. 159: 17: 254:("prestige") of any already-cited journal by switching the search to title or 247: 314: 370: 349:
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
215:
the journal publishes in a (currently) fashionable or well-funded area
361: 155: 243: 29: 334:
Knowledge (XXG):Notability (periodicals)#Academic journals
177:
statements for which our articles cite them in support.
242:
For scientific journals, you can find good journals at
77: 272: 122:. Users citing this page believe there should be a 275:(San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment) 126:such articles provided they can be established as 130:and independent. In other words, we believe the 329:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academic journals) 181:Deciding whether the journal is a good source 8: 208:In general, impact factors are higher if: 360: 305: 296: 56:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines 390:Knowledge (XXG) essays about notability 339: 187:whether the source fits the statement 7: 150:the journal as well as references 60:thoroughly vetted by the community 25: 279:McKiernan, Erin C. (2019-04-09). 111:Notability of individual journals 263:when you are building articles. 33: 27:Essay on editing Knowledge (XXG) 298:10.7287/peerj.preprints.27638v2 244:https://www.scopus.com/sources 1: 406: 238:Searching for good sources 67: 146:from articles published 97:Science Citation Index 167:internally wikilinked 120:Articles for Deletion 58:, as it has not been 252:SCImago Journal Rank 171:Homeopathy (journal) 273:https://sfdora.org/ 124:presumption to keep 18:Knowledge (XXG):SJ 371:10.1002/asi.20936 88: 87: 16:(Redirected from 397: 375: 374: 364: 344: 318: 309: 300: 250:percentiles and 144:reliable sources 92:reliable sources 80: 37: 36: 30: 21: 405: 404: 400: 399: 398: 396: 395: 394: 380: 379: 378: 346: 345: 341: 325: 278: 269: 267:Further reading 240: 195: 193:No magic number 183: 113: 84: 83: 76: 72: 64: 63: 34: 28: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 403: 401: 393: 392: 382: 381: 377: 376: 338: 337: 336: 331: 324: 321: 320: 319: 276: 268: 265: 239: 236: 231: 230: 227: 223: 220: 216: 213: 194: 191: 182: 179: 112: 109: 99:(SCIndex) and 86: 85: 82: 81: 73: 68: 65: 53: 52: 40: 38: 26: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 402: 391: 388: 387: 385: 372: 368: 363: 358: 354: 350: 343: 340: 335: 332: 330: 327: 326: 322: 316: 313: 308: 304: 299: 294: 290: 286: 282: 277: 274: 271: 270: 266: 264: 260: 257: 253: 249: 245: 237: 235: 228: 224: 221: 217: 214: 211: 210: 209: 206: 202: 198: 192: 190: 188: 180: 178: 176: 172: 168: 163: 161: 157: 153: 149: 145: 140: 138: 133: 129: 125: 121: 116: 110: 108: 106: 105:bibliometrics 102: 101:Impact Factor 98: 93: 79: 75: 74: 71: 66: 61: 57: 51: 49: 45: 39: 32: 31: 19: 355:(1): 27–34. 352: 348: 342: 288: 284: 261: 241: 232: 207: 205:biologists. 203: 199: 196: 184: 164: 162:or Scholar. 160:Google Books 151: 147: 141: 123: 117: 114: 89: 41: 42:This is an 132:notability 128:verifiable 103:which are 48:notability 362:0804.3116 248:CiteScore 384:Category 323:See also 315:31364991 219:equally. 70:Shortcut 307:6668985 175:verify 137:WP:COI 357:arXiv 285:eLife 156:JSTOR 78:WP:SJ 44:essay 312:PMID 256:ISSN 367:doi 303:PMC 293:doi 46:on 386:: 365:. 353:60 351:. 310:. 301:. 291:. 287:. 283:. 226:to 158:, 152:to 148:in 139:. 373:. 369:: 359:: 317:. 295:: 289:8 50:. 20:)

Index

Knowledge (XXG):SJ
essay
notability
Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
thoroughly vetted by the community
Shortcut
WP:SJ
reliable sources
Science Citation Index
Impact Factor
bibliometrics
Articles for Deletion
verifiable
notability
WP:COI
reliable sources
JSTOR
Google Books
internally wikilinked
Homeopathy (journal)
verify
whether the source fits the statement
https://www.scopus.com/sources
CiteScore
SCImago Journal Rank
ISSN
https://sfdora.org/
"Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations"
doi
10.7287/peerj.preprints.27638v2

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.