Talk:Academic journal

Refereed vs non-refereed journals

This article needs some discussion of the difference between "refereed" and "non-refereed" journals (some journals have both refereed and non-refereed articles). This makes a difference in the kind of review they receive. Non-refereed journals are reviewed by an editor or editorial board for quality, but do not go through the process of multiple, and typically blind, peer-review characteristic of a refereed journal. That also qualifies the statement made in this article that academic journals are peer-reviewed, by definition. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Any references for this (in reliable sources)? --Crusio (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact. Starting with Section 1.2 of the MLA Style Manual, which can be viewed here: [1] (use the "look inside" link). Some more books on academic publishing that explicitly discuss non-refereed journals: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I think you're defining "academic journal" quite narrowly in such a way that a priori excludes non-refereed journals from the category of "academic journal". As you can plainly see, not everybody who is writing on the topic of academic journals shares your definition. (I'll note here that nobody is saying that non-refereed journals are considered as prestigious as refereed ones, and several of the sources I've cited even warn scientific authors to avoid them.)

I will also add that you yourself are defending a definition of "academic journal" that is itself not based on any kind of citation whatsoever, and that the article in general lacks citations and has been flagged for it. Its pretty clear that how this article defines and describes academic journals is not written in stone and, in fact, could used some rewriting with reference to outside sources. Peter G Werner (talk) 08:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have asked User:DGG for his opinion (he's a retired university librarian). One thing I note about the references you give above (and the way the discussion on DGG's talk page is going) is that this seems mainly (exclusively?) to concern the humanities (and perhaps the social sciences). Nevertheless, none of these sources gives a concrete example and I don't know of any example in the sciences. As for the current article, you're absolutely correct that it is (far) less than ideal. However, I've lacked time to overhaul it and barring that, I reverted your additions as unsourced because adding more unsourced assertions is not really going to make it better... --Crusio (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Usually" peer-reviewed?

Looks like the lead should be rewritten as "An academic journal is a periodical publication, usually peer-reviewed, ...."; below are some quotations. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"Not all academic journals are refereed, that is, not all use the quality control mechanism of 'peer review'..." p.103 [8] (see also full paragraph below)

"In nonrefereed journals, the editorial decision to accept or reject is made in-houce, either by the editor or by staff at the journal. (...) Usually refereed journals are considered stronger and more prestigious than those that are not." p.285 [9]

"Refereed or peer-reviewed journals are almost invariably more prestigious that nonrefereed journals. The latter usually do not have outside or ad hoc reviewers; instad, an editor alone makes determination of the publishability of a particular article." p.41 [10]

"Non-peer reviewed academic joumals. These scholarly periodicals publish scholarly articles but are not peer reviewed. At such a journal, only the editor (or two or three staff members) reads the submissions and determines whether each should be published in the journal. There is no editorial board or review committee whose opinion the editor takes into account; no other scholars review and rate the submissions. Since a review by peers remains the sine qua non of quality in academic publishing, you should not consider such a journal. Some non-peer-reviewed academic journals have quite high reputations within a field; Harvard Business Review does not have an anonymous review process or external reviewers and has an excellent reputation. These are the exceptions that prove the rule. I do not recommend non-peer-reviewer journals for junior scholars." p.106 [11]

Fgnievinski: Valid point. Be WP:BOLD and WP:DIY. kashmiri ^TALK 19:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Gee, I'll pass; I don't want to be remembered as the guy who made peer review optional in academic journals... :o) Seriously though, if no one does it, I can do it in a couple of days. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Fgnievinski: You have sources to back your edits, so just go ahead :) We don't (usually) debate minor edits on Wikipedia. This page is monitored by quite a few folks, so in case your edit is too controversial someone will revert it, no worries :) kashmiri ^TALK 19:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is a "minor edit" and I am sure it is not going to be uncontroversial... --Randykitty (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not unless you argue that Hindawi does not publish a single academic journal. I think Fgnievinski rightly spotted the problem with definition, and took pain to back himself up with sources. Also, IMHO the attribute of being "peer-reviewed" is not essential but accidental to being an "academic journal", even when it is a relatively common "accident". kashmiri ^TALK 00:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't get that. Hindawi journals are peer-reviewed, so they are obviously academic journals. The only unusual feature is that they don't have an editor-in-chief, but that's not the issue here. --Randykitty (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that Kashmiri was alluding to the fact that Hindawi at one point had been misidentified as a predatory publisher, which has has as one of its characteristics "Accepting articles quickly with little or no peer review". Fgnievinski (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

As background, in the 19th century the journal editor usually did the reviewing on his own authority; in the early 20th, there was often an editorial board who shared the responsibility, each in their different specialty. This board could sometimes be very large--over 100 people sometimes, and the effect was essentially the same as peer-reviewing. Some journals published by societies, such as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published any paper from a member, or any paper that a member would submit and take the responsibility for--if the members were sufficient high-level, as here ,or comprised all the specialists in a very narrow subject, as sometimes happened, the quality control was also high, though there could be occasional aberrations. In the other direction, peer-review can sometimes be perfunctory, where an article will be given a cursory review and published unless ridiculous. DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess part of the issue is whether editorial review is considered a type of peer review or not. If the editors are fellow researchers in the field, then editors and authors are peers, and editorial peer review ensues. Then review journals, where articles are by invitation only, are editorially peer reviewed. It seems that peer review = external peer review + editorial peer review, and editorial review = editorial journalistic review and editorial peer review. Your thoughts? Fgnievinski (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Not all review journals are by invitation only. Even if they are, that doesn't mean they don't get sent out for review. And if it doesn't get sent out but is reviewed by peers on the editorial board, that just means that the journal recognizes regular reviewers by naming them on the editorial board. --Randykitty (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

More evidence of the current contradiction in Wikipedia: Sokal affair says that "Social Text, an academic journal ... [which] did not practice academic peer review". Fgnievinski (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• So then correct that article... --Randykitty (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, all the above discussion points to the opposite direction, i.e., it's the present article that seems to need an update. E.g., law journals, predatory journals, Social Text and other social-sciences journals are considered academic journals even though they perform no peer review. I don't want to implement the change without clear consensus. Fgnievinski (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    • If you have a look at the look at the one source in the Social Text actually refers to its "little magazine" tradition. And law journals are indeed a special case, but I don't think you could simply call them non-refereed. They usually have a huge editorial board (whatever name they may give it), which will vet articles. No respectable law journal will have submissions just checked by the EIC who then accepts or rejects. Instead, submissions are reviewed by multiple law students and probably also by some of the faculty advisers that most of those journals have. It's only the predatory journals that claim to have peer review but don't really do a serious review (if any at all). --Randykitty (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
      • First, about Social Text, the full quotation reads [12]: "[it] has always seen its lineage in the 'little magazine' tradition of the independent Left as much as in the academic domain" [emphasis added]; furthermore, it is more often referred to as a journal than a magazine: [13]. Second, about law journals, a quick search indicates that peer-review is rare: [14]; it seems that many sources similarly claiming lack of peer review could be easily found. Third, about occurrences of peer review failure, I've responded to it in Talk:Peer review. Fourth, I've started this section with quotations to several books -- they can't just be thrown out the window simply because they reject one editor's opinion. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
        • • The Sokal affair is almost 20 years ago now, Social Text has evolved since then. Your NYT reference does not say that law reviews are not reviewed, just that some people think they are badly reviewed, which is not the same thing. Similarly, the fact that peer review sometimes fails does not mean that there is no peer review. As for the books, I have a few references of my own and will dig out the books early next week (I'm away from my office right now). --Randykitty (talk) 10:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Let me know if you got any of those sources you mentioned, otherwise I'll go ahead and cite the original ones listed at the top. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'm still traveling and won't get back to my office before January 15... --Randykitty (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's some new info. I've used my library's subscription to Ulrich's Periodicals Directory. Its results are presented in tabular format, one row per journal, and there's a column titled "Referred". Then I searched for 'Serial Type:("Journal") Content Type:("Academic / Scholarly") Language of Text:("English")' and found the following non-referred academic/scholarly journals in English among the results: Art and Australia, Agricultural Science, The Australian Law Journal, Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal, etc. (just the first few, in alphabetical order). Evidence for the non-defining character of peer review in academic/scholarly journals? You and I may hate that fact, but still... Fgnievinski (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• EBSCO's definition of academic journal: "It is a broad classification that includes both 'peer-reviewed' journals as well as journals that are not 'peer-reviewed' but intended for an academic audience." [15] They also define "peer review" to include "Editorial Board Peer Review" [16]. Mounting evidence... Fgnievinski (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• The discussion about law journals is continued at Talk:Law review#Categorizing peer reviewed or not. Fgnievinski (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I was quite surprised to see the intro statement suggesting that academic journals are all peer-reviewed. I'm a little late on this discussion, but I can say in the sciences that there are definitely some well known academic journals (PNAS probably being the most well known), which are not peer reviewed. I'm going to be bold here and change that part to "usually peer-reviewed".Dig Deeper (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Electronic journal into Academic journal

outdated concept fgnievinski (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Please

Hi, reference number 2 says "Journal research papers require peer review that typically involves an editor and two reviewers", of course book reviews and the like do not require peer review. Its necessary to specify Hastengeims (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)