Jump to content

Talk:Journal ranking

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Copied from the Library article talk page:

eigenfactor

[edit]

eigenfator.org (EF) [1] [2] [3], similar to the h-index, and a free alternative to the impact factor of the Journal Citation Reports, hasn't been scientifically evaluated yet, has it? -- Cherubino 17:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is work by Carl Bergstrom, a well-known academic. the website mentioned includes some citations to the literature. Most of the academic discussion at this point is on the SIGMETRICS listserv, and links to additional references as they are published will be found there. Someone should write the article--I will if nobody else does. Basically, eigenfactor modifies impact factor by first taking account of the importance of the journals being cited from in the manner of Google PageRank (this gives what Bergstrom calls "article influence" ), and then normalizing across disciplines to reflect the relative density of citations. (As I hope everyone using them realizes, impact factor comparisons are valid only within individual specific scientific fields.)
H index is actually something rather different in principle--it's a ranking by number of articles containing a particular number of citations, (h=20 means someone has published 20 articles each having 20 or more citations to it) and can be use for individual authors. Impact factors and eigenfactors apply only to collections of articles such as journals--h-factor for comparing journals is altogether controversial. It certainly is a very convenient single number for rating scientists, but it applies only within a particular very specific field. The actual validity for anything remains quite disputed. (I have somewhat of a bias, though--I think it measures productivity more than creativity). I've used it as a rough-and-ready argument at AfD, but I would not cite it in an article. (note that h indexes based on Google Scholar are really unreliable, having all the problematic factors of Google Scholar, such as the unknown criteria for inclusion and the erratic coverage)
The real question is probably whether eigenfactor is sufficiently accepted to be cited here. I think this should be done very gingerly at present, and certainly only in argument, not articles. For one thing, it will be necessary to explain them every time they are used.
anyone wanting impact factor comparisons in a particular field, just ask me by email. DGG (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI

[edit]

This article was entirely written by the developer of the site journalranking.com., much discussed in this article. although it could reasonably be speedy deleted as advertisement, I think it would be more useful to convert it into a more general article. I welcome attempts at this, or I'll give it a try. DGG (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 2 - 3 years later and it still sounds like an ad. I think it still could be argued for a speedy delete on those grounds but I agree with the above, that it is also a legitimate topic for an article. But it needs to be started nearly from scratch as the current headings are not very good - "avail"? - and the content still blatantly advertises the journal ranking site mentioned and discussing how its techniques are novel and existing journal ranks - which aren't even mentioned or described - are inferior. While that site may bear mention in this article, for the moment I think it is best to remove all references to it and only restore them if and when an argument is made that they're notable. Not because I am asserting the site is non-notable but simply because I think it needs to be judged on its own merits and not kept simply because it was here in the first place. For now I'm going to reduce it more or less to a stub. I'm more than willing to hear alternate points of view if I'm treading on toes. 203.217.150.69 (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, looking at the edit history as a rough metric of the importance of the article, and the near-orphan status of the page, I'm not entirely convinced the page is worthwhile. Maybe it could be merged with other articles about journals / academia (maybe they already cover this subject. I'll do some reading around.) 203.217.150.69 (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather idiotic

[edit]

Can you find me one source, ONE source, that says journal ranking is due to how well a journal exemplifies Popperian dictums? Just one? It's total nonsense. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have said a journal rank was dependent on the quality of articles, the importance of articles to the core of the topic, and the prestige / difficulty associated with publishing in that journal. 203.217.150.69 (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00568746/fr/
    Triggered by \bhalshs\.archives-ouvertes\.fr on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 07:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Journal ranking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Journal ranking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Journal_ranking&oldid=1258048077"