User talk:Randykitty

Hi, thanks for your edit. I intentionally made it a link because it is notable already. It is not a spin-off journal like Nature Communications, or likewise. Novit will publish the most exceptional articles, which almost by definition will make it notable from day one. Then again, if I look at the citation counts of the first articles, it will have yet to show this. Then again, one article is cited 5 times in 2026 already, so who knows. But you are absolutely the expert here on journal notability. Egon Willighagen (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• "Un-archiving", needs answer. --Randykitty (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Egon Willighagen, sorry for the slow response, I got behind with lots of stuff and only now are catching up. I agree that it looks promising that Novit will at some point become notable, but for the moment it isn't there yet. And it would not be the first promising journal that folded after a few years, at this point we just don't know. Given the close relation of Novit with Angewandte Chemie, I think that it's probably best to keep a brief mention in the main article for the moment. --Randykitty (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

You ask me to stop : I ask you the same.

I give explanations for my modifications, you do not.

You removed several times the information that Axioms is NOT referenced in Mathscinet and Zbmath ; but wikipedia keeps saying that it is referenced in scopus and "web of science", which is an information with much less value.

American Mathematical Society says that Mathscinet and ZbMATH removed predatory journals, which is not the case of scopus and "web of science", see : https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202409/noti3027/noti3027.html?adat=October%202024&trk=3027&pdfissue=202409&pdffile=rnoti-p1177.pdf&cat=none&type=.html

As a professional researcher in mathematics for more than 20 years, and member of a committees evaluating many candidates each year, I have more and more CVs of people with "papers" in predatory journals, which are indexed in web of science, scopus, and have "good impact factor". This is not a proof of quality, since this can be cheated easily.

I also receive many mails asking me to publish in some "web of science and scopus indexed journal", with 24 hour peer review !!! No question they are predatory, since being referee for an article in mathematics takes in general at leat 60 to 90 days, and normal time to wait for publication is in general more than 6 months.

Therefore, the information of not being in ZbMATH and Mathscinet is a very valuable information. However being in Web of Science, Scopus, and the other ones listed in the axioms page of wipikedia - which mathematicians never use and do not know - has absolutely no positive value ; even more this is misleading young researshers and so this has a negative value.

I really do not understand why you rush and insist to remove information that this is not indexed in the two only valuable databases in mathematics, and want to keep the information that it is listed in some non valuable databases which contain predatory journals.

One user even compared the fact that I added the information not being in mathscinet or ZbMATH to not being a banana or not being Donald Trump's father in law !!! Do you think this is respectful ? Who do you think is WP:BOLD ??

Removing the information about ZbMATH and mathscinet, and that you removed repetively, is doing harm to the reputation and credibility of wikipedia, which, I think, should be based on valuable information and not on non valuable information.

It is protecting "journals" who do harm to science and mathematics, and I do not understand why you insist to protect them. ~2026-14179-45 (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• As apparently you did not yet read WP:BOLD, this is what it says in a nutshell: you boldly added that two math databases were not including this journal. That edit was challenged. The next step under BOLD should have been to discuss this on the talk page, but instead you added this info again. as I have said before, we need a source for this statement. The link that you give above dos not even mention Axioms, so it is useless. This discussion belongs on the article talk page, not here, so please don't post here again. You might better use your time looking for an acceptable reliable source. --Randykitty (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  Talk page stalker here. I agree with the IP that if an otherwise well-established mathematics journal is not indexed by mathscinet, then this would be good information to include. But of course, this needs to be sourced. For the bare fact that it is not indexed as of a given date, I guess we can refer to MathSciNet/zbMath directly. This leaves the question of whether it is WP:DUE to include, which could get complicated in situations like applied mathematics or mathematical physics journals. Igor Pak discusses the case of Mathematics in his blog , which might be sufficient for an attributed statement (as a subject matter expert, per WP:RS/SPS). For Axioms, I see that MDPI announced its inclusion , which probably means that it is due to say that it was indexed in the past, but is no longer there. I'm trying to explain what kind of sourcing we need here, although I am not as much of an expert on coverage of journals and publishing as Randykitty is. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty. Thank you for your work on Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please add secondary sources and establish notability as per WP:NORG. Thanks and have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mariamnei: You're looking for User:Andreas Wolf 01, not RK. If you're going to template someone, at least template the correct person. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Mariamnei Please take the trouble to check for the real creator of the page you are posting about. By contacting the wrong person, as you also did at User talk: Boleyn, you waste the time of other editors and fail to contact the person who cares about the article. Just look at the page history to see who created the article, as opposed to the redirect. Thanks. PamD 10:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• As Headbomb and Pam (thanks you both) noted above, I am not really the creator of this article. I had a look anyway and restored the redirect, given that no sources are independent and notability is doubtful. I don't intend to do anything else, I'll leave it for others to handle if the article is reverted again. (Which it shouldn't, per WP:BOLD this should go to talk first). --Randykitty (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@PamD, @Randykitty and @Headbomb - I will try to be more careful. But the curation tools automatically post it and it is not so easy to simply "move" the notification. Mariamnei (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)