Talk:Annual Review of Financial Economics

Impact factors and editors

I will be updating the journal impact factor to show the current value, and checking the editors to see that the current editors are correctly listed. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about use of primary/secondary sources

Hi Polyamorph, thanks for reviewing this article, which I created from a redirect. I understand why you tagged it with more secondary sources needed, which would be ideal, but frankly, there aren't any. This journal meets the journal notability recommendations in WP:NJOURNAL (it has an impact factor, it is indexed in Scopus), so I think notability has been clearly established. And the WikiProject Academic Journals writing guide recommends including the publication history, current and former editors, journal scope, impact factor, etc. of academic journals. True, the impact factor could be swapped by a JCR citation, but that is paywalled, so I think the argument can be made that it's better to have the primary citation there knowing that Annual Reviews is not a predatory publisher and can be relied on to accurately post the statistics of its journals. With the lack of secondary sources out there, if I'm going to include cited information on what the journal's scope is, I have to pull that from the journal's homepage.

I think the two options here would be to strip it of a lot of the information so the primary sources tag can be removed, or acknowledge that the preference for secondary sources is context-dependent and in this circumstance, it might be allowable that a lot of the content is sourced from the Annual Reviews website. What do you think? Elysia (AR) (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

If there are no secondary sources, then it really should not have a wikipedia article. Per our policy (WP:PSTS}: Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. This is policy, as opposed to WP:NJOURNALS which is not. Please also see the sentence at the top of WP:NJOURNALS stating: If an academic journal cannot be demonstrated to be impactful via reliable sources, we should probably not have a dedicated article on it. The best course of action is probably to redirect to the Annual Reviews (publisher) until such a time that notability can be established via secondary reliable sources. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Polyamorph, right, so NJOURNALS goes on to say that "If a journal meets any of the following criteria...it qualifies for a stand-alone article" then in the list of criteria has:

• C1(b) " 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" and
• C1(c) "For the purpose of C1, having an impact factor assigned by Journal Citation Reports usually qualifies"

And both of those are clearly demonstrated here. The abstracting and indexing is supported with a MIAR citation (secondary). And like I said, the citation index could be swapped out to JCR itself, which is secondary, but that is paywalled (and funnily enough, I don't have access to JCR, so feel free to add that citation if you have access). I think I was possibly unclear in my inital post. There are, as noted, secondary sources for the above criteria. There are not secondary sources (that I'm aware of) that state the scope and the history of the journal, which are recommended for inclusion. Elysia (AR) (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I see, then I agree swapping for secondary sources for the indexing satisfies the notability argument. For the other content, primary sources may be used, although it's best practice not to over rely on them and use secondary sources instead wherever possible. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)