Jump to content

Talk:Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability[edit]

This journal is notable because 46 libraries carry it in their holdings. These libraries are mostly Australian university libraries, and there aren't many universities in Australia, which means a large number of higher education institutions in that country subscribe to this journal.

The notability requirements for journals are slanted in favor of the hard sciences and point to Impact Factors, citations in Web of Science, and other science-focused research apparatuses that neglect the humanities, social sciences, and professional applied sciences (such as public relations). The journal notability guidelines mention for "humanities" journals that showing a journal listed in many libraries justifies its notability. That's what I've done here. Please explain why this journal is not "notable" by Wikipedia standards. Dbrabham (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your argument would carry some weight if this was a subscription-based journal. Many libraries will simply list any OA journal (after all, that doesn't cost them anything). You'll have to come with better arguments to show this is notable. At this point, I'm halfway decided to nominate this for deletion. --Crusio (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it if you want. You've made my experience on Wikipedia quite a bad one. It's a shame that the topical areas I'm qualified to contribute to are so heavily guarded by people outside of the topical domain. Here my attempt to build a usable resource for my students and colleagues to find PR journals has been repeatedly set back by one user, and my hand has been slapped along the way with various warnings. There aren't many tools available to the humanists, professionals, and non-scientists to prove that their domain of work is notable or matters here on Wikipedia, especially with scientists scrutinizing every edit. And it is ironic that I must prove that something is notable using Impact Factors and other tools that are themselves quite faulty, especially for non-hard science disciplines. Incidentally, I've tried to contribute to the Crowdsourcing wikipedia page over the years (I was the first to publish scholarly research on the topic and continue to be a major researcher on the topic), but I keep getting so-called marketing gurus who seem to know better and cite popular press articles while deleting my edits and my inclusion of peer-reviewed references. Wikipedia is a hostile place, and Wikipedians are the reason. Dbrabham (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry you feel this way and apologize if I didn't explain things enough. But when you jump into an environment where you don't know and start telling people there how they should do things, that really doesn't make things easier. I can assure you that it is worth the effort to start understanding things here and that it will certainly improve your experience here. I don't think I was "biting a newbie". For one, you've been around for years. And I did not immediately nominate the articles you created for deletion (except one which I PRODded just a few minutes ago). All I did was putting a template on those articles tagging them for possibly missing notability. Such tags are often a sign for other editors to come by and try to improve an article. There are many ways for journals to become notable and the dreaded impact factor is certainly not the only one. There are selective databases in all fields, including the humanities and social sciences that will confer notability if a journal is included in them. --Crusio (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asia_Pacific_Public_Relations_Journal&oldid=1199082436"