Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Knowledge (XXG)/Questionable1

1364: 1346: 224: 1296: 1278: 1676: 1448: 1247: 1613: 1595: 1728: 123: 1684: 228: 1552: 1560: 1132:

normally gets a major update 2–4 days after the 1st and 20th of each month. These updates will reflect new citations, updates to existing citations (e.g. typo fixes), new articles/redirects, and updates to existing articles/redirects made since the last

883:, since those website might try to infect your computer or phone with viruses. The point here is that if a journal or publisher brags about being included in one of those junk databases or brags about having a fake impact factor, it is not a good sign. 1207:

instead looks at the URLs found in live version of articles. While both are developed in parallel, they are independently maintained and operate based on different principles and not all sources picked by one will be picked by the other. In general,

933:

Publications or publishers at the top of selective rankings are probably good sources, while those at the bottom have more chance of being questionable. These rankings will rarely include flat-out predatory publishers, although it does still occur

104: 21: 937:

Many predatory publications and publishers will straight-up lie about being included in selective rankings and impact factors. Always verify claims about inclusion in a specific database/ranking through the database/ranking

100: 1556: 1086:

Many publications and publishers claim being 'under consideration' from selective databases, but unless and until they are actually included in those, this counts for nothing as this is often an attempt at appearing

677:. In the case of an illegitimate variation, like a typo or a capitalization mistake, simply fix the article. If the mistake is common or likely to occur again in the future, you can create a redirect and tag it with 1128:, which are normally generated on the 1st and 20th of each month. These database dumps take a few days to generate, take a few hours to download, and then take about a day or so to process. Which means 74: 84: 64: 1810:

that search the more reliable sources, but have not found any that take the opposite approach (which would be nice for when not enough results turn-up from these narrow search engines)

70: 1071:

Beall points out, many researchers and universities will instead judge a journal's quality by whether it is indexed in major citation databases, such as Elsevier's Scopus index...

80: 1376: 1351: 60: 1384:

and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the

1968: 1629: 1564: 94: 1312: 398:

column should have at least one link or explanatory note detailing why a source is listed. Follow these links, and you should have your explanation. Keep in mind,

51: 17: 1973: 1953: 1920: 1898: 1868: 1852: 1819: 1983: 1094:. These bibliographic services are designed to keep track of new and less-established publications, and will as such contain a mix of good and bad sources. 90: 1697: 1303: 1283: 45: 1988: 1633: 1514: 818:

If a publication is removed from a database, it usually is a sign that its quality came under question, and was no longer considered acceptable.

1993: 1978: 1886: 1882: 1807: 1155:

of articles and redirects. If no changes happened, no update will occur. Sometimes the bot logic is tweaked, which may also result in updates.

1474: 1637: 1620: 1600: 1541: 1548: 637: 1385: 691: 556:

Q6: A new problematic publisher has popped up / a current problematic publisher doesn't list some of its journals! What should I do?

1530: 1091: 1460: 1258: 1196: 1940: 1839: 1148: 828: 647: 1144: 832: 518: 165: 1713: 657: 379:

does not currently have a way of tracking which sources are appropriately cited, but this could change in the future.

1466: 798: 330:

template to request a more reliable source. If you remove the source from an article, there is no need to update

294: 262: 1804:

Has anyone created a custom search engine that filters out the domains of all the unreliable sources listed here?

576: 1693: 815:

Cessation of coverage in selective/comprehensive database for reasons other than the demise of the publication.

1470: 906: 272: 1741: 1264: 465: 457: 1859:

Would still love a broader custom search engine option if anyone has ideas on how to extract all the domains

1482: 667: 446: 428: 861:

Reputable academics have criticized the peer-reviewing process and practices of a publication or publisher.

897: 563: 324: 1228:

parameters of citation templates, but rather all URLs and all source types, regardless of template usage.

391: 309: 286: 255: 161: 1909: 1486: 1478: 1311:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

630: 613: 194: 130: 1363: 1345: 1894: 1864: 1815: 1040: 919: 681: 1494: 437: 422: 809: 1948: 1847: 1220:. Both have their uses, but the script will catch more things since it is not limited to only the 960:

more difficult, as it required much more expenses and skills than simply running a website. Still

532: 279: 1936: 1835: 1784: 1698: 1007: 298: 290: 619: 1777: 1063: 1056: 1000: 953: 946: 27: 1944: 1843: 1826: 1507: 1371:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Knowledge (XXG)/Questionable1

1203: 1182: 1167: 1125: 720: 528: 339: 1769: 1695: 1675: 1308: 1048: 992: 794: 734:

Q8: How do I find out if a 'borderline' source, or a source not listed here, is good or not?

201: 1927: 1754: 1152: 504: 317: 313: 190: 1916: 1890: 1860: 1811: 1500: 879:: You do not need to search those junk databases or fake impact factors, particularly the 698: 674: 399: 1625: 419:

Report it here! Make sure to include the rank number and the false positive. For example

1295: 1277: 1044: 1447: 1015:

Scopus is usually considered a reliable source to indicate that a journal is reputable.

980: 911: 855: 840: 779: 702: 258:. If the source is inappropriate, you have several options depending on the situation. 1962: 1932: 1831: 1787: 1010: 923: 901: 824: 805: 312:

claims. When unsure, discuss the source at the relevant article's talk page, at the

1773: 956:

in general, setting up successful pay-to-publish (or nutjob venues in general) was

836: 444: 435: 773:

Inclusion is not a guarantee of being good, but an absence is certainly a red flag

420: 373:|journal = Nonsense Journal 1825:

A search engine seems rather overkill solution for this. Check out scripts like

1628:

of Knowledge (XXG) articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the

1381: 716: 591: 542: 477: 335: 996: 1912: 1755:"Homeopathy can offer empirical insights on treatment effects in a null field" 835:, and other misleading metrics, like 'impact factors' self-calculated through 1059: 1003: 1612: 1594: 961: 1780: 1066: 1028: 1753:

Sigurdson, Matthew K.; Sainani, Kristin L.; Ioannidis, John P.A. (2023).

1380:, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to 783: 572:

A link to its list of journals (including defunct journals), if available

509:. If consensus is that the source is questionable enough to at least be 945:

The publication or publisher was established before 2000 or so, before

537:. After a source has been added or removed, there is no need to update 384:

Q3: I don't understand why a source is listed! How can I find out why?

1910:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

1889:. Flagging that list here in case it's of interest for this project. 915: 851: 767: 759: 586:

After a source has been added or removed, there is no need to update

1563:, or put the files into suitable Knowledge (XXG) articles. See also 1052: 896:

The publication or publisher is listed in reputable and selective

223: 1908:

i think this is generally unreliable source. can we add this to

847: 787: 755: 607: 367:

cited, so others do not remove it, you can put a comment in the

1722: 1699: 1669: 1240: 213: 117: 715: