Talk:International Journal of General Systems

Editorial board (reminder)

The Editor-in-Chief of the journal is George Klir. Other scientists currently or previous on the editorial board are

• Lofti Zadeh,
• Okan Ersoy,
• Mario Bunge,
• Peter Checkland,
• Mihajlo Mesarovic,
• Richard Sternberg,

Yasuhiko Takahara, Bernard P. Zeigler and, Hans J. Zimmermann.

See also : List of journals in systems science

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability

This Journal is more then notable, allready mentioned a dozend times in Wikipedia, only the references are missing. The editors and editorial board consists of the most notable scientists in the field of systems science. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTE: topics are presumed to be notable if they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". No reliable third-party references = no evidence of notability. One of your listed "most notable scientists" is a creationist crank who regularly publishes in Giuseppe Sermonti's pseudoscience rag Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as to "allready mentioned a dozend times in Wikipedia" -- yes, it is mentioned exactly 12 times -- half of these mentions were added by you however. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, again - the creationist bit is irrelevant, and I don't see how do you "prove" the notability of a journal. Can you prove to me that the IEEE Transactions on Control Systems and Technology is notable? --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

@Hrafn. Yes I made more then 10.000 edits in the field of systems science in the last year. Both arguments still count:

1. This Journal is allready mentioned a dozend times in Wikipedia.
2. The editors are among the most notable scientists in the field of systems science.

And what do you argue:

1. One of your listed "most notable scientists" is a creationist crank who regularly publishes in Giuseppe Sermonti's pseudoscience rag Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum.
2. You made half the edits.

I don't think these arguments really matter. Maybe you could explain? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Journal articles regularly get deleted as non-notable -- see Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion for examples. Journals must therefore be subject to notability requirements same as everybody else.
2. The creationist bit was a counterexample to Mdd's claim that its "editors and editorial board consists of the most notable scientists in the field of systems science". If Richard Sternberg is "among the most notable scientists in the field of systems science" it doesn't say much for the field. I'm also amused to see that Sternberg dishonestly gives his affiliation as the Smithsonian Institute. He is not, nor has he ever been, employed there. He merely has been given research access to their collection as a 'Research Collaborator'.
3. Six mentions that you didn't create yourself is hardly an excuse for creating an article -- particularly one that appears to do little more than repeat the headline blurb of the journal itself.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. My response:

1. The fact that the journal is mentioned already multiple times is a notability requirement
2. I was referring to George Klir, Peter Checkland, Mihajlo Mesarovic and Lofti Zadeh. These are highly respected scientists, and this article is bringing them together.
3. I don't need such excuses. This article is just an other corner stone of the representation of systems science in Wikipedia, which we try to improve.

Now if you have a problem with Richard Sternberg, this is not the place to discuss this. If you have a problem with Systems Science, and the work of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems, this is also not the place to discuss this.

I do agree this article is still a stub, but it is already making connections, and that is the important thing about this. There is still a lot to improve, and I hope you can respect this.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Science (journal)

I noticed the article on Science (journal) doesn't even offer two or even one independend source. It is a journal by the AAAS and almost all references came from an AAAS website. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Other scientists related to the journal

The following text have been removed from the article some time ago (15 February 2009)

Other scientists currently or previous on the editorial board are Lofti Zadeh, Okan Ersoy, Mario Bunge, Peter Checkland, Mihajlo Mesarovic, Richard Sternberg, Yasuhiko Takahara, Bernard P. Zeigler and, Hans J. Zimmermann.

By User:DGG stating: "we do not include the editorial board".

Now maybe this is true, but I like to readd the people involved with the journal. Personally I am very interested in the cooperation between scientists. I like to know which scientists are working together, or working in the exact same field. A listing like this expresses these connection, and I like to (re)add this to the article.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I have raised a similair question here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#The listing of scientists related to the journal at the WikiProject Academic Journals

I have never liked this practice, which I think is promotional--not just in journals, but with organizations too. The person who is important with respect to an academic journal is the editor in chief, or sometimes the coeditors in chief, or for very large journals the people in charge of the specific sections. . They are the ones who actually affect the reputation of a journal, by a/soliciting good papers, b/ deciding to whom to send incoming articles, and c/ making the decision about what to accept. Sometimes other people also solicit, but the e-i-c uniquely does b & c. (There are unusual journals that do this by group decision--but usually 1 or 2 people will be dominant in this also). As I have learned from publishers, the only significant thing the publisher of a journal can really do to improve the quality of a journal is select the e-i-c. The members of the editorial board have 3 roles only: a/ To lend their prestige to the title page b/to serve as a source of peer-reviewers--sometimes the only peer-reviewers, and c/to be solicited for articles. The e-i-c receives the usually very high office expenses paid, and as major item of professional power: he directly affects individual careers, and even for a major journal affect the course of the profession itself. For some major journals, where it is a full-time job while it lasts, either he gets paid part of a professorial salary, or his university gets reimbursed for the cost of his teaching which he then gets excused from. Many universities require faculty to get the provost's permission before accepting such a job & expect some arrangements to be made. As for the board, they get usually a free subscription. Sometimes there is an implicit understanding that their own papers & those of their students will get special consideration. (Sometimes it is explicit, in which case most of us would consider it an unethically operated journal). They've been known to join for that as much as for the honor.

I have never myself been e-i-c of a journal, though I known people who were. My advisor was associate e-i-c for the major journal in his field, Journal of Molecular Biology, in its first spectacular decade. The role of associate editors of the sort varies, as does their importance. In this case, he got to see early much of the work done in the extremely competitive subject, got to select many of the referees, and supervised the rewriting of many of the articles (and as a speciality, rewrote some of the ones from non-English speakers). But he never knew what would be actually published till it came out, and it was John Kendrew's journal, & the major think K. did, and made him a very central figure in the subject. He was the 1st e-i-c, and started the journal about the same time he won the Novel Prize in Chemistry. That's the general level of e-i-c s for such journals. Most of the then very few important molecular biologists in the world was members of the editorial board. I've been on the e.b. of several journals. As such, I was occasionally sent a ms to review as a referee. When the journal needed more papers, I was asked to find someone who could--with a strong hint that I should help the journal by contributing one myself. I listed the e.b. on my cv, but it didn't count for much there. There are journals where I would turn it down, but in general I (and the 100s of people of the ebs of some journals) like the free subscriptions.

I see the above request as a repeated attempt to use the names of the e.b. for publicity. That's of course what they are for partially, but not at WP. The reasons given amount to saying as much outright. We are not Linkedin. DGG (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As for Wikipedia: We certanly do not accept eb membership as a factor in notability--We do often include eb's in bios, including many of the people above. I'm not sure we should always do that. My view, normally, is that if the need it to make a substantial article, they may not be notable.

I think the main discussion of this will & should be on the more general talk page. DGG (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your last remark and I will the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals page, which is a maore appropriate place. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Article section(s) removed

Due to possible violation of copyright, see WP:Copyvio, I have removed one or more section of this article for now.

I apologize for all inconvenience I have caused here, see also here. If you would like to assist in improving this article, please let me know. I can use all the help I can get. Thank you.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)