CZ Talk:Cold Storage/List of academic journals: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>James A. Flippin
(Agree)
imported>Larry Sanger
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<!-- COMMENTING OUT CHECKLIST
{{checklist
{{checklist
|                abc = List of academic journals
|                abc = List of academic journals
Line 10: Line 11:
|                  by = [[User:David Martin|David Martin]] 14:15, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
|                  by = [[User:David Martin|David Martin]] 14:15, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
}}
}}
-->


do not delete this list {{unsigned|DavidGoodman|00:51, 19 February 2007}}
do not delete this list {{unsigned|DavidGoodman|00:51, 19 February 2007}}
Line 22: Line 24:


:I agree. Beyond all of the reasons already stated, there's the question as to why anyone would want a list of just any academic journals, not journals on particular topics. There are already articles on specific fields' academic journals and they appear much more maintainable and they can be assigned to relevant workgroups more readily. [[User:James A. Flippin|James A. Flippin]] 11:52, 26 June 2007 (CDT)
:I agree. Beyond all of the reasons already stated, there's the question as to why anyone would want a list of just any academic journals, not journals on particular topics. There are already articles on specific fields' academic journals and they appear much more maintainable and they can be assigned to relevant workgroups more readily. [[User:James A. Flippin|James A. Flippin]] 11:52, 26 June 2007 (CDT)
::I second.  The only way I'd ever see this working is to somehow document all of the journals that we've referenced in articles we've created, and that would be either really easy (from a database standpoint) or really nightmarishly difficult(more realistic).  Axe it.--[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 11:50, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 12:10, 26 June 2007


do not delete this list ...said DavidGoodman (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2007 (Please sign your talk page posts by simply adding four tildes, ~~~~.)

It seems a fairly pointless list, to be honest; aside from the fact that it can't be complete, the choice of the "most influential" journals is likely to be subjective, and at least extremely difficult. Moreover, even if selective, the list is likely to be vast, and difficult to maintain. --Peter J. King  Talk  10:19, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
I have real problems with this list. At least in my own areas of expertise, it is dominated by American journals [including some quite mediocre ones], massively under-represents European English language journals, and completely ignores major journals in other languages. Can somebody tell me what is the point of this list? At least, it could be a definitive list of peer-reviewed journals of note published in English...but the instruction originally was that each discipline should have about 10. I see that that idea has now been completely abandoned, but the original rationale of identifying the "most influential" journals, remains? Or not? We need a real discussion on this, and in my view the abandonment of it in its current form. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 09:31, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
I see others have already made the point that this article is unnecessary, maybe counter-productive. David Hoffman 16:20, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
I have requested that the Workgroup delete this page: anyone who wishes to defend its existence should do so now, and try to structure it appropriately.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 10:00, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

I'd like to have this page as it stands deleted. It is currently of low quality. I think it would very difficult to ascertain what the "most influential" journals, making this article extremely difficult to maintain. - RaymondYee 13:08, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

I agree. Beyond all of the reasons already stated, there's the question as to why anyone would want a list of just any academic journals, not journals on particular topics. There are already articles on specific fields' academic journals and they appear much more maintainable and they can be assigned to relevant workgroups more readily. James A. Flippin 11:52, 26 June 2007 (CDT)
I second. The only way I'd ever see this working is to somehow document all of the journals that we've referenced in articles we've created, and that would be either really easy (from a database standpoint) or really nightmarishly difficult(more realistic). Axe it.--Robert W King 11:50, 26 June 2007 (CDT)