User:Shibbolethink/Identifying Reliable Virology Journals

• Generally reliable in its areas of expertise: Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team. It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements. Arguments to exclude such a source entirely must be strong and convincing: e.g. the material is contradicted by more authoritative sources, it is outside the source's accepted areas of expertise (a well-established news organization is normally reliable for politics but not for philosophy), a specific subcategory of the source is less reliable (such as opinion pieces in a newspaper), the source is making an exceptional claim, or a higher standard of sourcing is required (WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP) for the statement in question.
• Denotes a journal that is reliable for publishing good-quality peer-reviewed content, but non-review articles should be used with caution, as they are not, strictly speaking, suitable as MEDRS.
• No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered.
• Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable.
• Deprecated: There is community consensus from a request for comment to deprecate the source. The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, although reliable secondary sources are still preferred. An edit filter, 869 (hist · log), may be in place to warn editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. The warning message can be dismissed. Edits that trigger the filter are tagged.
• Blacklisted: Due to persistent abuse, usually in the form of external link spamming, the source is on the spam blacklist or the Wikimedia global spam blacklist. External links to this source are blocked, unless an exception is made for a specific link in the spam whitelist.
• Request for comment: The linked discussion is an uninterrupted request for comment on the reliable sources noticeboard or another centralized venue suitable for determining the source's reliability. The closing statement of any RfC that is not clearly outdated should normally be considered authoritative and can only be overturned by a newer RfC.
• Stale discussions: The source has not been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard for four calendar years, and the consensus may have changed since the most recent discussion. However, sources that are considered generally unreliable for being self-published or presenting user-generated content are excluded. A change in consensus resulting from changes in the source itself does not apply to publications of the source from before the changes in question. Additionally, while it may be prudent to review these sources before using them, editors should generally assume that the source's previous status is still in effect if there is no reason to believe that the circumstances have changed.

List of Virology Journals

Reliable Peer-reviewed Virology Journals

Source	Status	Type	Peer-reviewed?	Indexed	Summary	Uses
	Journal of Virology									blah blah blah
Viruses					blah blah blah
mBio					blah blah blah
Annual Review of Virology					blah blah blah
Cell Host and Microbe					blah blah blah
Nature Reviews Microbiology					blah blah blah
Reviews in Medical Virology				blah blah blah
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research					More aptly described as a blog than a journal. Publishes almost exclusively non-peer-reviewed (or "sham" reviewed) opinion pieces written by non-experts, spreading conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Lancet HIV					blah blah blah
Trends in Microbiology					blah blah blah
PLOS Pathogens					blah blah blah
PLOS Pathogens					blah blah blah
Current Opinion in Virology					blah blah blah
Journal of Medical Virology					blah blah blah