517:. The language needs adjusting: it should not be oriented towards the scientist looking for a place to publish, or the librarian looking to see what is worth buying, but the general reader here who sees a reference to an article in a journal and wants to see something about the journal, often to judge how authoritative it is. Myself, I'd include base subscription prices, but there is considerable resistance here about it, so I'd avoid giving values. A general figure showing the range can sometimes be included, especially if the price has a third party source because it was discussed by others. Most important, though this is hard to avoid in journal articles, it must contain no text from the web page description of the journal. That is a copyright violation, and needs to be rewritten. Even if you are prepared to donate copyright according to
81:
243:
official website, and a link to that is all that is really needed in a
Knowledge article. I agree with ukexpat that independent reliable sources are required to verify facts. Certainly these are required for impact factors (which I do not currently see in the article, by the way, so it would not be a replacement as you characterise it) and nobody would be willing to add them for you without sources. Currently, the article carries no valid references at all and is open to an editor nominating it for deletion.
71:
53:
484:
other societies, and one about the publication of the translated journals. The list of journals published is not advertising, but basic content, especially because not all of them have articles. Personally, I think all the journals they publish notable, and we should write articles for the others (or article sections on the society page if its for an associated society--If the society happens not to have an article, this is a good occasion to make one.) At that point, the
415:
22:
334:
cite then that would be ok as well in my book. As a general rule, if you are not sure how your edit is going to be received then you probably should not be doing it. Leave a note on the talk page instead, but be aware that for rarely visited articles like this it can take a long time for anyone to pick it up. If necessary, you can use the template
581:
Many thanks to you both for all of this information, it is very helpful. I just noticed that the books section has been modified incorrectly (my full comment above has been copied and pasted)- please can this rectified? Can I also check that it will be ok for me to make the suggested edits personally
507:
This page, the page on the society, and each of the pages on the journals, needs some additional work. Suitable content for a journal page should include list of every editor in chief--partly because being ed. in chief of a major journal is considered proof of notability under WP:PROF , and we should
492:
I'd add a section on its history, including the year it first became available on line, and the year the full backfiles became available (and a indication if the backfiles are on another site, such as JStor) . Earlier titles not now published or changed should be included--there needs to be a section
488:
will serve the purpose, but I think they could be appropriately still included here, though not in one academic list but in sections, with some additional information. Giving additional information is the advantage of a list over a category. . (Qy. to
Physics114--which of its journals are not in JCR?
483:
In terms of content, there's a good deal more that can be said, and a number of sources about various aspects of the journals program, I'd suggest the ed. above look for them--I will look as I have the occasion. I would suggest adding sections for the conference series, one for the publication for
175:
2) 'External links' section - we migrated our
Electronic Journals service to IOPscience in 2007 and therefore the 'IOP Publishing Electronic Journals' titled link is wrong. When clicking on the link you will see that the URL redirects to the IOPscience service. I would like to amend the title to read
310:
for your help. Firstly, if I have third-party sources for the changes I wish to make, should I make these changes myself or should I post my suggestions to the talk page for an editor to review? Secondly, should I add in sources to the IOP Publishing page myself to help avoid the page being deleted?
512:
availability, if relevant; the circulation, if there's a published source for it, The Impact factor should indicate not just the number but the rank in the JCR subject field(s).(Include the year so it can be updated.) Now that 5 yr impact factors are available, they can be included also. It is
479:
First of all, I think IOP publishing should be a separate article. It's a major enterprise in its own right, and people here interested in it are not that likely to be interested in the society otherwise; conversely, people coming here for information about the
Society will probably be looking for
434:
Would it be possible to change this section to read something like: "IOP Publishing sold the books publishing division in 2005 to Taylor & Francis to focus on its resources on the journals portfolio; however, since then the publishing landscape and demand for ebooks has changed dramatically and
242:
I don't see any problem with you updating existing links yourself when they are broken, but I would question whether our article needs the quantity of external links in the body that it currently carries. Links to community websites are the sort of thing I would expect to find on the organisations
333:
It depends very much on what exactly you are adding. Fixing broken links and updating existing statistics from a reliable source are pretty uncontroversial actions as far as I am concerned. The article already states where the impact factor figure comes from; if that is the source you intend to
548:
Thanks. We would have a very different outlook on company articles. Since it appears valid as a separate article, I've made the correction. The sources didn't look very good at a glance, but since the current allegedly incorrect content had no sources anyway, I would consider it an improvement.
454:. The current article is filled with directory and trivia information and could be summarized in one good paragraph or sub-section over there. I don't know enough about these sorts of articles to judge though.
480:
information about what its professional designations mean. (It is becoming common practice here to merge articles on individual professional qualifications given by a society into the article on the society).
369:
in 20yy. This information will not age, and it continues to state the historic notability of the journal even if the impact factor subsequently collapses to zero or the journal goes out of print altogether.
430:
This entry is factually incorrect - IOP Publishing withdrew from publishing books in 2005 and sold the books division to Taylor and
Francis in 2005 . IOP Publishing launched its ebook initiative in 2012 .
179:
3) Again, in the 'external links' section, there are two
Inverse Problems weblinks, one of which links through to Headingley Vehicle Signs - this is incorrect and should be removed.
496:
I do not see anything I consider trivia, except possibly the section on the websites. It needs to be rewritten. It's promotional language to say whom it is published
186:. While IOP Publishing is a subsidiary of the Institute of Physics, it would be factually correct to replace the existing weblink 'IOP Publishing' with a link to
659:
472:
CorporateM asked me to take a look at this, since I've worked a good deal here and elsewhere on this sort of subject. I will comment on other aspects also.
133:
493:
somewhere on the history of J Physics and Proc Phys Soc., and this might be the place for it. . The history of its electronic publishing should be included.
382:
By by the way, please do not use my signature to refer to me. I would prefer that my signature is only seen on something I have actually signed. Thanks,
155:
I work in IOP Publishing's Public
Relations department and I'd like to make some factual changes to the IOP Publishing page and its associated pages.
365:
is a bad way of presenting information in an encyclopaedia. It will rapidly go out of date. Far better is to say that the impact factor was
164:
I would like to discuss a specific IOP Publishing associated page with editors to check that I am following the correct
Knowledge protocol.
654:
582:(i.e. I don't need to post to Talk)? I may have further questions as I go through the detailed bullet points. I hope that is ok. Thank you
127:
395:
320:
280:
256:
200:
I very much want to ensure that I am following
Knowledge's rules and that the editors are happy with edits to the IOP Publishing pages.
591:
463:
193:
Please can you confirm that it would be acceptable for me to make edits 1) and 2) myself and list edits 3) and 4) on the talk page of
485:
235:
508:
have eventually articles on every one of them as individuals. An article about a journal can also contain information about the
558:
444:
664:
549:
Physics114 if you want to continue improving articles in other areas where you have a COI, DGG has offered a good roadmap.
630:
521:, it is likely to be unsuitably promotional, such as a list of every possible subfield that it might be of interest to.
103:
649:
536:
405:
489:
and is there some reason, like their being too new?. I ask because any journal in JCR is considered notable here.)
161:
Is it acceptable for me to make multiple factual edits directly on the IOP Publishing page and associated pages?
80:
172:
1) I would like to replace the listed 2010 impact factor with the most recent impact factor result from 2011.
94:
58:
33:
513:
also possible to include a list of the 3 or 4 most influential articles, getting citation figures from
212:
267:
page and I have now seen the impact figure in the article. Otherwise, my comments above still apply.
102:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
421:
389:
304:
274:
250:
450:
I appreciate you using Request Edit, but it looks to me like a good candidate for a merge with
158:
However, as I have a conflict of interest, I would therefore like to ask editors for advice.
338:
39:
587:
554:
459:
451:
440:
316:
208:
182:
4) Also in this section, there is a heading titled 'Institute of Physics', which links to
8:
21:
384:
299:
269:
245:
619:
294:
231:
631:
http://www.ppa.co.uk/news/industry/2012/10/iop-publishing-launches-ebook-initiative/
264:
223:
194:
167:
583:
550:
455:
436:
312:
218:
Do you have reliable, third party, sources for the changes you wish to make, per
204:
514:
86:
643:
532:
518:
290:
227:
219:
509:
150:
263:
I have just realised that you were not discussing this page, but the
70:
52:
527:
99:
424:
by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
187:
183:
435:
IOP Publishing launched an ebook programme in 2012."
500:. Rather, the information should be given about its
98:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
76:
620:http://www.taylorandfrancisgroup.co.uk/members.asp
132:This article has not yet received a rating on the
641:
344:which will add the request to a patrolled list.
660:C-Class physics articles of Unknown-importance
525:Let me know if I can give any assistance.
486:Category:IOP Publishing academic journals
19:
642:
409:
92:This article is within the scope of
15:
655:Unknown-importance physics articles
38:It is of interest to the following
13:
14:
676:
504:-- this is basically a rewording.
413:
79:
69:
51:
20:
624:
613:
1:
592:18:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
559:21:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
537:18:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
464:17:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
357:By the way, saying statistic
213:09:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
112:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics
106:and see a list of open tasks.
445:15:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
396:19:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
321:17:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
281:17:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
257:17:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
236:17:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
115:Template:WikiProject Physics
7:
665:Implemented requested edits
10:
681:
134:project's importance scale
188:http://ioppublishing.org/
131:
64:
46:
650:C-Class physics articles
406:Books Publishing section
28:This article is rated
452:Institute of Physics
361:is currently value
184:http://www.iop.org/
95:WikiProject Physics
34:content assessment
428:
427:
148:
147:
144:
143:
140:
139:
672:
633:
628:
622:
617:
417:
416:
410:
392:
387:
343:
337:
307:
302:
277:
272:
265:Inverse Problems
253:
248:
195:Inverse Problems
168:Inverse Problems
120:
119:
118:physics articles
116:
113:
110:
89:
84:
83:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
47:
31:
25:
24:
16:
680:
679:
675:
674:
673:
671:
670:
669:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
629:
625:
618:
614:
414:
408:
390:
385:
341:
335:
305:
300:
275:
270:
251:
246:
153:
117:
114:
111:
108:
107:
85:
78:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
678:
668:
667:
662:
657:
652:
635:
634:
623:
611:
610:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
523:
522:
515:Web of Science
505:
494:
490:
481:
476:
475:
474:
473:
467:
466:
426:
425:
418:
407:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
326:
325:
324:
323:
284:
283:
260:
259:
239:
238:
176:'IOPscience'.
152:
149:
146:
145:
142:
141:
138:
137:
130:
124:
123:
121:
104:the discussion
91:
90:
87:Physics portal
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
677:
666:
663:
661:
658:
656:
653:
651:
648:
647:
645:
632:
627:
621:
616:
612:
609:
593:
589:
585:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
560:
556:
552:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
534:
530:
529:
520:
516:
511:
506:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
482:
478:
477:
471:
470:
469:
468:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
448:
447:
446:
442:
438:
432:
423:
419:
412:
411:
397:
394:
393:
388:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
368:
364:
360:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
340:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
322:
318:
314:
309:
308:
303:
296:
292:
288:
287:
286:
285:
282:
279:
278:
273:
266:
262:
261:
258:
255:
254:
249:
241:
240:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
216:
215:
214:
210:
206:
201:
198:
196:
191:
189:
185:
180:
177:
173:
170:
169:
165:
162:
159:
156:
135:
129:
126:
125:
122:
105:
101:
97:
96:
88:
82:
77:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
49:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
626:
615:
607:
526:
524:
501:
497:
433:
429:
422:edit request
383:
366:
362:
358:
339:request edit
298:
268:
244:
203:Many thanks
202:
199:
192:
181:
178:
174:
171:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
93:
40:WikiProjects
510:Open access
644:Categories
608:References
584:Physics114
551:CorporateM
456:CorporateM
437:Physics114
313:Physics114
289:Thank you
205:Physics114
224:WP:Verify
502:contents
386:Spinning
301:Spinning
271:Spinning
247:Spinning
291:ukexpat
228:ukexpat
109:Physics
100:Physics
59:Physics
30:C-class
519:WP:DCM
297:) and
36:scale.
533:talk
420:This
391:Spark
306:Spark
276:Spark
252:Spark
220:WP:RS
588:talk
555:Talk
460:Talk
441:talk
317:talk
295:talk
232:talk
222:and
209:talk
528:DGG
498:for
226:?--
197:?
151:COI
128:???
646::
590:)
557:)
535:)
462:)
443:)
342:}}
336:{{
319:)
234:)
211:)
190:.
586:(
553:(
531:(
458:(
439:(
367:x
363:y
359:x
315:(
293:(
230:(
207:(
136:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
.jpg){kind=small}
