Talk:International Journal of Astrobiology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Astronomy Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

How come this 7 years old journal doesn't appear in the ISI journals list? Maruvkay (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple comments. One, ISI has picked up the journal, you can see this announcement on their webpage. ISI apparently picked up IJA recently so the journal probably won't appear right away.

Second point - This following statement in the article is opinion.

... "and calls into question the legitimacy of any paper and researcher published by the journal." Particularly the second part of this statement is problematic where the legitimacy of any researcher who has published in the journal is questioned.. that seems a bit out of the researchers control. Sometimes flaky papers get through, and I do not think everyone who has ever published in said journal should have their legitimacy questioned as result!? This seems like guilt by association to me. Plenty of excellent researchers have published in this journal, at worst you could say their paper didn't get a good review (which is not to say the paper is bad, just that you don't know the paper is good). Additionally, perhaps one should judge a journal by the typical paper rather than outliers (good or bad). So I think the comments are excessive.

However, according to wiki rules, if third party references can be found, one could factually say that these opinions are being expressed rather than expressing these opinions as true. This would be NPOV (neutral point of view).

If a journals peer review process comes under question, the legitimacy of papers come under question, but not the submitting researchers, because often these submitting researchers (ultimately) do not have control of who is selected to review their papers.

I did not edit the the wiki page directly. I thought I should wait for the wiki community to consider the above thoughts to see if you agree. Does this make sense? Thank you.

Threelovemonkeys (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I just noticed there is a reference to a third party PZ Myers blog. However, it should be made more clear that the statements made are attributable to PZ Myers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Threelovemonkeys (talk • contribs) 02:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No response from anyone, so I will go ahead and fix the problem Threelovemonkeys (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable papers

While the Science manuscript may be unusually notable (for various reasons), the article cited here is not. It did not generate any particularly high interest at the time of publication, and therefore does not qualify as particularly noteworthy. Singling out this particular article as more noteworthy than other IJoA articles seems inappropriate. This may change if the Science data stands up to scrutiny, but for the moment it seems premature, and even in that case it would only be of moderate (historical) interest. The main notability of the Science manuscript at the moment is the scientific debate concerning data quality and peer review, and the interest it has received in the mainstream media. The article in the International Journal of Astrobiology is outside of this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.72.140 (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]