User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2020/July

Copyvio-blanked pages

Hi, Headbomb! Please don't edit through the {{copyviocore}} template, even if your edits are not to the affected text; if a page is blanked, please just leave it alone until it's been sorted out in one way or another – that just makes everyone's job easier. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable sources script

Hi! I want to say that I'm enjoying using the Unreliable sources script. I think however, that the script is marking a source incorrectly. The script lists ERIC as a predatory journal or publisher. I've always found ERIC to be a reliable source and wonder why it's tripping the code to mark it that way. I found it marking an ERIC record on this page (Disability in Saudi Arabia) towards the bottom. What do you think? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The DOI 10.5539 is the Canadian Center of Science and Education, which is listed as predatory. --Izno (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl, these lists are highly unreliable, so if you have specific knowledge about a source you can safely ignore them. Nemo 19:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Izno and Nemo bis: I imagine that the Canadian Center DOI must have tripped the script. I got the paper from ERIC since it's indexed in EBSCOhost. Thanks for the replies. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: That's definitely a predatory source. The CCSE is fake institution run from a mall which share an address with other predatory publishers SciEdu Press and ScholarTown. See [1] [2] [3] [4] for more in-depth coverage of CCSE and its journals. It's nothing more than a vanity press/scam, even if some legit research gets published they (because of the successful scamming). And if that's the case, WP:VANPRED#Use in the real world vs use on Wikipedia applies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Thanks for the info! I'm glad to learn more about this. But ERIC isn't a predatory source. That's where I found the source originally. If ERIC also indexes the article, [5] wouldn't it be considered valid? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

ERIC isn't predatory no, but many citation indices (including ERIC apparently) will index crap journals/predatory journals. Often because they aim to be inclusive rather than selective (such as ERIC), sometimes because humans make mistakes (or oversights). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

ERIC is a fine repository/aggregator, but as with everything you need to know their selection methods. If the only thing you know about the source you used is that it came from ERIC, that's not much. For such a definite statement you'd need a rather strong source. You can check the contents and authors to see whether they appear reliable (depending on the methods, a survey with less than 300 participants is probably a weak source wherever it's published, I'd say), or you can adjust the claim so that it's proportional to the reliability, or you can look for another source. Looking at the name of the publisher is rarely helpful. Nemo 21:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

CCSE journals are utter garbage. Period. Wikipedia should not be in the business of citing broken clock papers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The clock is the author, not the journal. The journal is only a container. Nemo 07:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope, authors don't get a free pass when then bypass the peer-review process. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Crap journals count lower than cite web or arxiv to me, since those are at least honest and are straight up not peer reviewed. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

But it could be argued that sites like arxiv have only gained legitimacy through the reputation of the content they have provided (e.g. the use of Grigori Perelman). It is difficult to argue that the systems they have in place are superior to PubMed Central or PubMed (see above thread). See also ArXiv#Controversy. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Question on unreliable script

Hi, I'm enjoying your unreliable script, just have a quick question: when I need to mention unreliable domains in a discussion, is there a way that I can format the mentions so they don't trigger the script? (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubblegum dance with your script running.) Would <nowki>'ing them "hide" them from the script, so any other editors using the script won't see my comment there all red and squigglied? Schazjmd (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

For that one, you could write LastFM instead of Last.fm. Or indent with : instead of indenting with *. Or you could write [https://www.last.fm/ last.fm] and it would only highlight the last.fm url. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Great tips, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Coding

Hello, I would like to respectfully invite you to help me look into the issue I raised at the Reference Desk as I know you're good at coding. Thank you very much! --Deep humility (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Can't help you there. WP:VPT is a better venue probably. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me WP:VPT! --Deep humility (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Widepedia page of Dr.Sivanandi Rajadurai's Publications

Respected Sir, This was a kind request regarding the edit you have made in "sivanandi Rajadurai" page. Earlier last month I have updated the some publications of Dr.Sivanandi Rajadurai on his Wikipedia page, this publications will help the Researchers & Graduates to have a literature study on fields related to Emission control, CO2 reduction, Exhaust System Development. Most of the publications and references I have updated was from Non-predatory sources, most of the references was from International Journals. Kindly guide me to update the Non-predatory research publications on the Wikipedia page.

Thanks & Regards
Arun Kumar Manoharan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunkumar.NVH (talk • contribs) 17:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

There's two things. The first is that Wikipedia is not a repository of papers publishers by people per WP:INDISCRIMINATE AND WP:NOTCV. If you have an external link to a list of their publications, you can add that, and that that will be more than sufficient for a biography like that (not to mention more up to date). The second is that the vast majority (see the red ones in [6]) of those publications were to predatory journals (e.g. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology; International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering Research; International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, etc...). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Precious

precision to sources in physics

Thank you for quality articles such as Isaac Newton in popular culture (2009), List of baryons, Quark and Bouncing ball, based on scientific background, for gnomish help to precision in citations, for a fair share in overall contribs and "I'm still just some guy!" - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2415 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Review and suggestion request

Hi, Headbomb being a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals, I would like you to invite to review ICT Express. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 19:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. See also WP:JWG if you haven't already. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, Thank you for the help. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb Is this (https://www.resurchify.com/all_ranking_details_2.php?id=11991) a reliable source? I am unsure. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable for what? For impact factors? Nope. They're making up their own metrics, and misreporting the CiteScore as a the Impact Factor, and list the wrong CiteScore anyway. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, Yeah, thanks for the clarifications. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Cited journal removed from Arnab Goswami (Comment)

Diff. Just wanted to know why this journal is predatory (International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology). I probably may have come across this journal cited on wiki articles earlier. Can't recall the name of the articles. It prima facie seems okay to me and listed on ISSN portal. Apologies, if I am missing something obvious. - hako9 (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a well known predatory journal. Check on Beall's list, Cabell's list, etc... Having an ISSN means nothing here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to keep bothering you but I need to ask just one more question. How can a lay person who doesn't have access to the list know a predatory source from a one that's not. (Just ignore this if I am being too pesky) - hako9 (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Beall's list is freely available here. You can also check WP:CITEWATCH and WP:UPSD for more tools. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)