Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals

According to the Internet Archive, the last good record of the MIAR database was December 20, 2025. Currently all pages with the miar.ub.edu subdomain are now a 404 error. Thankfully this was an extensively crawled database but it's unfortunate now that all that data is up in the air. Anyone who knows Catalan who would be able to inquire to the university - it would be helpful to find out what happened. I am not seeing any news about it. -- Reconrabbit 14:48, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

• They are back!!!! --Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  Looks like it's down again. Making it tough to fill out Mammalian Species with indexing. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Some input from other editors would be welcome, I don't currently have the time to continue this discussion. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

Hi all, I'd appreciate input from editors familiar with academic journal notability on Draft:Advances.in/psychology. The draft has been declined twice at AfC on general notability grounds, but the declines didn't address WP:NJOURNALS, and I'd like a sense of whether the sourcing is sufficient before resubmitting.

Indexing: Scopus (CiteScore 3.1) Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals JUFO Publication Forum

Independent secondary coverage: Goodman, S. (2022). "Is It Time to Pay Peer Reviewers?" The Chronicle of Higher Education "Can journals that pay peer reviewers succeed?" (2026). Times Higher Education Hogan, S. (2026). "Paying reviewers can fix system's 'structural problem', editor argues." Research Professional News

The journal is relatively young (founded 2022) and has an unusual publishing model (paid peer reviewers and editors), which is what the trade-press coverage focuses on.

My specific questions: Does Scopus indexing alone satisfy NJournals Criterion 1 here, or is the CiteScore too low / the journal too new for that to carry weight?

Do the Chronicle and THE pieces count as substantive independent coverage, given that both quote the founder?

Are there sourcing gaps I should try to fill before resubmitting?

I have no connection to the journal — I came across it in an open science course and thought it warranted an article. Thanks for any input. Safa33331 (talk) 08:47, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Safa33331: According to WP:NJOURNALS criterion 1, Scopus satisfies this criterion. Criterion 1.b states, "The most typical way of satisfying C1 is to show that the journal is included in selective citation indices, indexing services, and bibliographic databases. Examples of such services are Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus. Being included in comprehensive (i.e. non-selective) indices and services like Google Scholar and the Directory of Open Access Journals is not sufficient to establish notability." Regarding Chronicle and THE, it depends on whether they were interviewed or not. Interviews are not independent, so if that is the case, then they are not independent coverage. Conversely, if they were not interviews, then they qualify as independent coverage. Perhaps you can try to find stronger sources for the draft and revise the prose. Other than the general notability issues that the draft was rejected for, you will need to rewrite the article so it does not look like a large language model wrote it. I hope these help. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Z. Patterson: Thank you for the helpful response and for clarifying how the criteria work. I just rechecked the media mentions, and since they prominently feature statements by the editor, it is definitely best to treat them as interviews. However, given that the journal meets the first criterion of WP:NJOURNALS through its Scopus indexing, we likely do not need to rely on those media pieces to establish notability anyway? I think they still work well as references for the factual details regarding the publishing model.

Regarding the prose, I completely rewrote the entire text a while ago to address the concern about it reading as AI-generated. The draft is now much more neutral and straightforward. I actually already resubmitted the page some time ago, and it is currently under evaluation. Still, I really appreciate you taking the time to reply and validate the indexing criteria while it waits in the queue. Thanks again! Safa33331 (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gynecologic Oncology (journal)#Requested move 19 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:13, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The 2025 impact factors are online. When updating articles, please don't update only the infobox, but also any mention in the body of text. Happy editing, --Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Find sources § Consensus as to whether to add Internet Archive Scholar to Find sources template. Z. Patterson (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2026 (UTC)