Talk:Q5633421

I propose to change all "links here" to academic journal (Q737498) to be more exact. I suppose that the majority of them are peer-reviewed. Infovarius (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@User:Infovarius: I agree with this. I'd even go as far as to merge the two, if User:John Vandenberg can't solve this. The contents of each journal (whether it contains research papers, reviews, "thinking" or poetry) can be quantified by the main subject (P921) property, can't it? --BurritoBazooka (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, merging them is a bad idea because of the language issue mentioned below. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Academic journal/scientific journal

What on earth is the difference between academic journal (Q737498) and scientific journal (Q5633421)? In English "scientific journal" for scientific journal (Q5633421) seems to indicate a not-necessarily (natural) science journal, while "academic journal" for academic journal (Q737498) might incorporate Social Science, Humanities, ... or do I misunderstand the issue? In German we have "Wissenschaftliche Fachzeitschrift" and "Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift". I do not know the difference. Would "Scientific American" be regarded as a "Zeitschrift" and not a "Fachzeitschrift"? — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Only languages that have both articles are: en, es, it, ko and zh. They should answer. --Infovarius (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Scientific American is not an academic journal, it's a magazine (though in one interpretation of the word, it is also a journal -- just not an academic journal). Its target audience is the general public, not other academics. It presents en:popular science, not scientific research itself. It seems German uses "Zeitschrift" for any periodical publication? --BurritoBazooka (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Fnielsen, Infovarius, BurritoBazooka: Is every academic journal a scientific journal?

Journal Impact Factors?

There was some discussion in the past which Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs • logs) pointed me too about the deletion of the impact factor (Q5330). I understand there is some concern about database rights, and I agree copying such information in en masse is not a good idea. Yet, as others pointed out, there are many sources where the JIFs can be found and what number TR (formerly) gave to a journal is basically a fact you can verify at various places. Manually adding them, as people have been doing for a very long time in Wikipedia, sounds legally acceptable to me. Another thought is that the JIF is basically a review score (P444) of some instance, published in some year, and by some organization. I tried that with Internet Journal of Chemistry (Q27211732). Is that an acceptable way to model the JIF in Wikidata? -- Egon Willighagen (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

For clarity, that was the deletion of the impact factor property, not Q5330. I'm at a loss as to why we delete a property on the basis that " it involves subjective decisions (which papers are citable and valid citations), the creators of it do apply their own non-automated adjustments, and the official complete list is published in a non-free venue only", when we have review score (P444), for creative works, and to which the same applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)