Talk:The EMBO Journal
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Overlap with EMBO journal & reports
As a separate article entitled EMBO journal & reports exists, I'd suggest moving the material on EMBO Reports over there, and renaming EMBO journal & reports appropriately. Any objections? Espresso Addict 22:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have now split off EMBO Reports and made EMBO journal & reports a redirect to EMBO Journal. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
COI tag (September 2022)
Many edits to this article by Embocomm (talk · contribs), which is also a WP:ROLEACCOUNT. See also User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Wikipedia_entry_on_Fiona_Watt (permalink) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Third-party sources
The article contained a request for third-party sources. I added some which discussed EMBO's features, from one of the few meta-research publications available on the topic. (There's also some 1995 paper about self-citation practices but I've not reviewed it in detail.) What else can be done to address the tag? Nemo 13:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- A section "abstracting and indexing" should be added to the article, which could result in the addition of a load of independent sources. See WP:JWG and my user page (for a lot of preformatted references). --Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- These are mostly self-reported/unverifiable statistics, so they aren't really third-party sources in any meaningful sense of the word. Is there some content in the article that would require third-party sources? Nemo 14:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- How on Earth is, say, inclusion in Scopus a "self-reported/unverifiable statistic"??? Or inclusion in the Science Citation Index Expanded?? Or an impact factor as reported in the Journal Citation Reports?? All these things are the result of a careful evaluation by an independent commission. --Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Have you read the literature on the subject? We seem to be talking about different worlds. Nemo 14:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, it's in MEDLINE so at least that's something. Anything else? Nemo 14:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- How on Earth is, say, inclusion in Scopus a "self-reported/unverifiable statistic"??? Or inclusion in the Science Citation Index Expanded?? Or an impact factor as reported in the Journal Citation Reports?? All these things are the result of a careful evaluation by an independent commission. --Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- These are mostly self-reported/unverifiable statistics, so they aren't really third-party sources in any meaningful sense of the word. Is there some content in the article that would require third-party sources? Nemo 14:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- It's also in the highly selective MEDLINE subset Index Medicus. And MIAR (in itself a reliable independent secondary source) lists a slew of other databases, including some very selective ones. As for the "literature on the subject", yes, I have occasionally read here and there something about this subject (sorry for the sarcasm), but I must say that otherwise your remark is rather cryptic. --Randykitty (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)