Talk:Biology Open
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Notability edit
Copied from User_talk:Fgnievinski#Biology_Open: Your edit summary claims that i is indexed by Thomson Reuters, but when I search for the ISSN (2046-6390) in their Master List, I don't find anything, which is why I redirected it. Where did you find that ISI indexes it? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- In the journal about page: [1] Fgnievinski (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think Thomson Reuters is probably a better source for what they cover than the journal itself. It's not necessarily incorrect, but it wouldn't be the first time that a journal claims to be indexed by Web of Science without it being true. One possibility is that they were notified about future inclusion by ISI, but that this is not in the database yet. Whatever may be the case, I suggest to restore the redirect until an independent source confirms listing. --Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- It might be that Thomson didn't update their website. Doubting the publisher's claims is unreasonable. Fgnievinski (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's not as unreasonable as you think, I have seen such incorrect claims before. The publisher is an interested party and not independent. WP cannot put up stuff that is not confirmed by independent reliable sources (but you undoubtedly already knew that). --Randykitty (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I'll reinstate the redirect. Better not to given the benefit of the doubt. I'm taking the liberty of moving this discussion to the article's talk page. Fgnievinski (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's not as unreasonable as you think, I have seen such incorrect claims before. The publisher is an interested party and not independent. WP cannot put up stuff that is not confirmed by independent reliable sources (but you undoubtedly already knew that). --Randykitty (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- It might be that Thomson didn't update their website. Doubting the publisher's claims is unreasonable. Fgnievinski (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think Thomson Reuters is probably a better source for what they cover than the journal itself. It's not necessarily incorrect, but it wouldn't be the first time that a journal claims to be indexed by Web of Science without it being true. One possibility is that they were notified about future inclusion by ISI, but that this is not in the database yet. Whatever may be the case, I suggest to restore the redirect until an independent source confirms listing. --Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Biology Open. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110223001535/http://www.biologists.com/web/index.html to http://www.biologists.com/web/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 19:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)