Talk:Boundary 2/Archive 1

Guillaume2303 is restricting expression

This section is to discuss changes to the main page. Deleting comments here is censorship.

STOP DELETING b2 TALK PAGE DISCUSSION. This page has POV issues, the recent edits address them. Have a problem with them? Discuss it here without censoring others' opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.140.76.234 (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Have problems with this article? Then first discuss here and present reliable sources. Till then, what you are doing is vandalism. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism?

This is vandalism? Well, yes I suppose- while "aggrandizement" may be true, it's a bit much. We'll take that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.140.76.234 (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• [Content removed per WP:Talk#How to use article talk pages, WP:TPYES, WP:DE, and WP:CONSENSUS} ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• If you have reliable sources to back up your assertions and allegations, then please provide those. But please stop removing sourced content. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• [Content removed per WP:Talk#How to use article talk pages, WP:TPYES, WP:DE, and WP:CONSENSUS} ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Explain why. Cite here with reliable sources..92.140.76.234 (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  [Content removed per WP:Talk#How to use article talk pages, WP:TPYES, WP:DE, and WP:CONSENSUS} ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Intending to present it another way is a POV issue .92.140.76.234 (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  If you have reliable sources to back up your assertions and allegations, then please provide those. But please stop removing sourced content. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Social Club? Recent Deletions, perceptions of Vandalism

"Complaining about other people reverting vandalism, and accusing them of censuring does not belong on talkpages: Talkpages are for discussing improvements to the article, only" User:Apokryltaros

Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.[[1]]

First, discuss why these comments (on talk and on the main page) are/were perceived as vandalism. I'm not sure I agree and I'd like to hear the explanation. I think the edits to the mainpage and certainly the questions posed here are attempts to improve the page. (And I agree completely with the ire for the deletions here.) Do I count? Or is this just up to the "editors" of this page? It seems to me the new edits offer another perspective of what this publication is, which is not in itself grounds for deletion--and it is certainly NOT grounds for deletion from talk page discussions. Should it be called a social club here?--is a spade a spade? Do away with "nonegalitarian and despotic" -- the modifiers are inferred.

Do not delete discussions. If several editors have discussed something on a talk page, do not delete the discussion if you do not agree with what has been said or if you think the discussion is over.[[2]]

194.78.195.29 (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for trying to get familiar with WP policies. I am always open for discussion. However, the other IP is not discussing. Inserting unsourced negative text in articles is vandalism. If such remarks are then subsequently posted on a talk page in a surreptitious attempt to get them in WP anyway, then thatis vandalism and such text will be removed from the talk page. If someone has a problem with anything in the article, then they can make an edit to improve the article, provided that they have a reliable source to back their edits up. Removing sources and sourced information and replacing it with unsourced allegations is, again, vandalism. It is clear that someone has a beef with this journal and its editor. WP is not the place to fight this out, however. I hope this explains my actions sufficiently. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Right up until things started to be deleted, that post reads like the beginning of a discussion to me. The purpose of the text on the talk page is to put a context to what has been removed from the main page. The discussion wouldn’t make sense without it!

I am not sure I understand what part of the poster’s remarks would need to be sourced, -- is there some assertion there that I am missing?-- and I am not entirely convinced that they are negative (that is, what had been posted in the mainpage section). It could be better nuanced, yes. But the idea is sound and I think it deserves a subheading or at least a sentence or two on the page. At any rate, “negative” in itself is not vandalism. Get rid of the two modifiers and the disapproving tone is gone. Hmm, and about the narcissism bit, are there laws of passion on WP? I mean, the text from the main page had just been censored off of the talk page...

At any rate, the issue is whether or not it (it being the post and response to it being taken off the talk page) is a good-faith intent to improve wikipedia. I’d say it certainly was – as crassness does not a poor idea make. Removing the text from the talk page because someone thinks it is “negative” seems out of line to me, especially the text initially posted to the main page. I mean, doesn’t someone have a right to defend their ideas from being summarily deleted? So I am putting it back here, minus the narcissism bit.

Further attempts to insert content that appears to be attempts to advance a POV WP:NPOV, WP:DE can be construed as vandalism. Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. Rants such as the above are not constructive for improving this article which is the purpose of talk pages. "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Also...it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements," WP:TALK. Also there is more on the talk page guideline that is relvant if the anonymous IP is interested. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagreement the Talk Page

This is the text that is being censored:

REMOVED AGAIN— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.140.76.234 (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.195.29 (talk)

“Rants such as the above are not constructive for improving this article which is the purpose of talk pages.” Steve Quinn

Not constructive for/according to whom? You? I find the perspective enlightening. Makes me read the journal itself in a new way. Again, do I count? Or is it only the "editors" of the page who have the authority to decide what is constructive?

As you censor the text above, take the time to explain:

Do you feel this is it a good-faith post? If not, what makes you think otherwise?

Again arises the issue: does my opinion that this text is constructive count? As you delete the text again, take the time to explain why my opinion is invalid.

(From my end, I am posting this (this re-post) in good-faith. I believe the original post was in good-faith—which is part of the reason it needs re-posting-- and that the dialogue that has come from it is a constructive one. Crassness and negativity are not vandalism. Disagreement with an institution’s definition of itself is not vandalism.)

Might as well put this here again as the censors overlooked it the last few times: Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.1

Also, as you censor this again, take the time to answer the questions I posed in the previous post:

What needs sourcing (i.e., the “unsourced negative text” ) from the original post?

What is the vandalism? POV? If so, what exactly is a-neutral? Be specific. (That might require citing from the post. Can you do that if it has been censored?)

194.78.195.29 (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Please, don't play the naive. You fully well know what you are doing. This is a peer-reviewed academic journal and there is a perfectly reliable source backing that up. You insist on changing this to it being the newsletter of some undefined club, without offering any source for that assertion. I see that you got around your block by switching IPs, so I'm going to request page protection for this article and talk page. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that page protection is probably necessary at this time. The anonymous IP is still endlessly repeating their self (same as mentioned in the previous edit hitories). The anonymous IP is also attempting to misuse policies and guidelines in order to serve a point of view. Instead, this person might wish to start a blog or visit an online forum in order to convince people of the merits of their important views. In addition, Wikipedia does not promote gossip in the main article or on the talk page. Rather, the goal of its editors is to build a high-quality encyclopedia within the context of a community. Finally, editors are not required to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. In particular, all I've seen is multiple attempts to insert POV material that appears to denigrate this subject while being argumentative in contradiction to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The above section

The anonymous IP just removed the above section [3] which I have restored [4]. It is now obvious that this Anonymous IP has no intention of contributing to this article and this discussion in a manner that is constructive and productive. Hopefully, we can eventually archive this entire discussion. It has been pretty useless in regards to improving the article. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Steve Quinn's removal and the Unanswered POV and Source Concerns

Yes, I am a novice editing on this platform. If I removed it, it was a mistake and one that occured because I was attempting to move it to the top of the page. Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boundary_2&oldid=500190099

I was under the impression new categories are to be at the top of the page.

At any rate, Quinn just deleted some comments of mine. Here's the gist of what was deleted:

This is the text that is being censored from this talk page:

(It has been removed by User:Guillaume2303 five times, Steve Quinn two times, and User:Apokryltaros once.)

REMOVED TEXT

While censoring the text that is so troublesome, please take the time to respond to the inquiries thus far ignored. For reference:

Do you feel this is it a good-faith post? If not, what makes you think otherwise?

Again arises the issue: does my opinion that this text is constructive count? Explain why my opinion is invalid. Is it only the "editors" of the page who have the authority to decide what is constructive?

What is the vandalism? POV? If so, what exactly is a-neutral? Be specific. (That might require citing from the post. Can you do that if it has been censored?)

(From my end, I am posting this (this re-re-re-re-post) in good-faith. I believe the original post was in good-faith—which is part of the reason it needs re-posting-- and that the dialogue that has come from it is a constructive one. Crassness and negativity are not vandalism. Disagreement with an institution’s definition of itself is not vandalism.) Might as well put this here again as the censors overlooked it the last few times: Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.

Please, don't play the naive. You fully well know what you are doing. This is a peer-reviewed academic journal and there is a perfectly reliable source backing that up. You insist on changing this to it being the newsletter of some undefined club, without offering any source for that assertion. I see that you got around your block by switching IPs, so I'm going to request page protection for this article and talk page. --User:Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Please, don't tell me what to do. I appreciate this first foray into understanding the motivation of your censorship, but the fact that the new text does not accord with the institution's definition of itself does not make it vandalism. This was a standard peer-reviewed academic journal until it stopped receiving manuscripts. This is a peer-reviewed academic journal and there is a perfectly reliable source backing that up. That may be, and part of the wikipedia project is to offer a forum to disagree with institutionalization of knowledge and such definitions. I take issue with that definition. Is that ok, Mr. Guillaume2303? Am I allowed to do that? It is a peer-reviewed academic-themed publication of one person's social network (or that of a few people), which is different than a standard academic journal.

194.78.195.29 (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• There is no need to move any sections to the top of the talk page, even though I agree it was probably a mistake (please see this). Editors are not required to evaluate other's opinions. All that is expected is to evaluate content that is either reliably sourced or that isn't it. User:Guillaume2303 already pointed out that proposed material that denigrates this subject requires reliable sources (WP:RS). In addition, reliable sources have not been presented. By obstinately insisting that this unsourced material be placed on the talk page in lieu of the article is promotion of a point of view. This contradicts WP:NPOV and the talk page guideline. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• The text is being discussed here because it was removed from the main page. The purpose of all this text is: what is the WP:NPOV issue with the paragraph? What makes it "denigrating" and what sources beyond those already cited would be acceptable? These questions have been repeated here multiple times because no one has answered them; the general response has been to censor the paragraph.

-That "The publication was a standard scholarly journal until the early 2000s, when it stopped accepting submissions" is referenced (See ref-5 on main page).

-That "one must have a social tie to the editor in order to participate" is inferred, as there are no submissions.

-That "The editor solicits texts from friends and colleagues" is inferred, as he cannot solicited a text from a person unknown to him.

-That "The invited submissions are sent out for reviews" is inferred, as the pub is referenced as peer-reviewed (see ref-1 on main page).

-b2 "is the triannual newsletter of Paul Bové’s social network" -- whether or not the publication is a newsletter is a semantic, not a citation (WP:RS), concern. That b2 derives solely from the editor's social network is inferred, again, as he cannot solicit a text from a person unknown to him.

194.78.195.29 (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Where in the sources already cited does it say what you just wrote above? If it isn't there then what other sources are available from a reputable magazine, a reputable newspaper, a reputable news web cite, review paper in a peer reviewed journal, or in a peer reviewed journal article? This is the essence of reliable sourcing. If what you wrote above is not summarized or otherwise discussed in a reliable source then we cannot use it in the article. Also, it is not likely to kept on this talk page for the same reason. Without any sources that say what you wrote it will most likely have to be removed. Furthermore, I reccomend that the anonymous IP voluntarily cofine himself / herself to correcting grammar, spelling, and other small errors in the many articles that do need such work until he / she learns the ropes here at Wikipedia. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, if the content is inferred it cannot be used because that would be considered synthesis, please see WP:SYNTH. The reliable source must actually say what is written in some way or other. In addition, if the publication describes itself as a journal then we also must describe it as journal. We are not granted lattitude to alter its description unless other sources say it is different. To do so would constitute contradict WP:NOR and maybe even WP:MADEUP. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

See above. The info is from references already cited on the main page.194.78.195.29 (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note here on this--I'll muse on it a bit. I am not sure that this synthesis argument holds up as grounds, though I'll think about it. The text as written is not implying any concept outside what is expressed in the reference.194.78.195.29 (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

As an editor, I have often solicited contributions from people outside of my social network: I knew about their work because I had read about it, not because I was personally acquainted with them. And boundary 2 is not unique in not accepting spontaneous submissions, but only invited ones: all Annual Reviews journals are by invitation only and we still call them scholarly journals. The stuff you are adding is designed to denigrate this publication and its editor. Negative information is certainly not forbidden on WP, but needs to be meticulously sourced. In this respect, I agree with Steve's removal of the "criticism" by Williams, as the source does not substantiate any intended criticism at all (nor even a "comment"): Williams asked this as a question to somebody he was interviewing and anybody who has ever done an interview knows that you sometimes ask questions without necessarily adhering to that particular point of view yourself. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a few points here I'd like to address, but I'm not exactly sure of the format protocol. At any rate:

If you disagreed with it, why not just remove the text instead of tweaking it first? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boundary_2&oldid=500233044 194.78.195.29 (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The stuff you are adding is designed to denigrate this publication and its editor. Negative information is certainly not forbidden on WP, but needs to be meticulously sourced. The entry clarifies how the publication functions, taking care to note that it is different than standard scholarly journals. Denigration is a strong term and this needs clarification. What is negative? 194.78.195.29 (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"And boundary 2 is not unique in not accepting spontaneous submissions, but only invited ones: all Annual Reviews journals are by invitation only and we still call them scholarly journals." That may be, but the case is that 99%+ of academic journals receive submissions; that makes these that you mention (as well as b2, South Atlantic Quarterly, and so on...) nonstandard. Whether or not "newsletter" is an appropriate replacement for publications that do not receive submissions is a semantic issue. 194.78.195.29 (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The entry I made yesterday (that was censored) notes: "The publication was a standard scholarly journal until the early 2000s, when it stopped accepting submissions." I am not sure what the issue is with that phrase. 194.78.195.29 (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The editor reads a text and then contacts the author--as soon as this occurs, the author is in the social network of the editor. As the entry reads, no texts come from outside the editor's social circle. Initiating contact makes no difference. 194.78.195.29 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

And for each an d every journal, the editor is in contact with the authors, so according to your definition, every journal only publishes articles from authors in the editor's social circle. In any case, you are clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia and I'm done trying to talk to you. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That is not true. Most journals receive submissions from anyone (whether or not s/he has a previous social contact with the editor). This is not the case with b2 and the others here mentioned. In the case of such a newsletter (academic-themed publication), if the author is unknown to the editor, there is no chance of publication.

The fact that you are not answering (cannot?) the questions here posed does not this vandalism make. The article reads like propaganda. This post is attempting to improve it.194.78.195.29 (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Off topic

Most all or all of the sections on this talk page appears to be off topic. Now that this page is semi-protected I would like to either delete all of the talk page sections, including this one, or archive them. However, I really don't see the benefit of archiving. The conversation seems to have stayed the same from one section to the next and from beginning to end. Very little or nothing was accomplished that pertains to the article. Therefore I reccomend all sections be deleted in order to leave a clean talk page. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree, and although it is not really all that useful to archive these rants, I have set up an archive and moved most sections there. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

An unhappy camper

What Steve Quinn just removed reads like the editor himself propagandizing the publication via the wikipedia page. Is Quinn sold out to this Bove guy or just out to get my edits at this point? Congratulations. All your great powers have managed to eliminate an idea you are against. The world is better because of your censorship. 194.78.195.29 (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• By now you should have figured out that the whole of Wikipedia is a cabal designed to provide false information about this publication! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, zing! That was a good one!194.78.195.29 (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• A true blue, authentic unhappy camper. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Double zing!194.78.195.29 (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about how this journal is closed to submissions

Just got sent a link here to this talk page and to the ones that were archived and I think there are some issues to be fleshed out before archival. In particular, I'd like to add something about how to discuss this journal's submissions policy on the man page. Evidently some WP editor's are seriously devoted to ensuring that this text not be seen, which is interesting in itself as it is on the talk page not the main page:

"boundary 2: an international journal of literature and culture is the triannual newsletter of Paul Bové’s social network. The publication was a standard scholarly journal until the early 2000s, when it stopped accepting submissions. The editor solicits texts from friends and colleagues, and one must have a social tie to the editor in order to participate. The invited submissions are sent out for reviews. The main objectives of the periodical involve identifying and analyzing tyrannies of thought.

The points should be nuanced but that text should be here on this page for others to discuss. There are also some issues that have been unduly archived that I would like to address:

What makes it "denigrating" and what sources beyond those already cited would be acceptable? (from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boundary_2&oldid=500422226)

I think the text is negative as many academics hold professional ethics in particular esteem. Asserting that the editorial team only solicits from friends and colleagues sounds preferential. (It might be said here though that it is also apparently the case.)

The fact that you are not answering (cannot?) the questions here posed does not this vandalism make. The article reads like propaganda. This post is attempting to improve it.

I partially agree. There is not anything incorrect about discussing how this publication is not a standard academic journal, and how its no-submissions policy shapes the outcome -- that being, who ultimately participates. This can and should be discussed here and possibly on the main page. Not doing so could be construed as misleading and a bit celebratory. It should be phrased, however, as with everything here, with care.

95.241.252.9 (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• OK, you got a new IP (can we just do away with the fiction "I just got emailed, etc"?) Let me discuss just the first phrase of your proposed "improvement". You start with deleting the sourced fact that this is a "peer-reviewed academic journal", including the (highly respectable) source. You replace this by saying that this is a "newsletter", stating that the difference is semantic. Either you really believe this (in which case you should read and learn quite a bit more before coming back here) or you actually know better and then I don't need to explain why that is wrong. Finally, you insist on adding that this is the "newsletter" of the editor's "social network". As I have explained earlier, that is rubbish, of course, there is no evidence that the editor only invites acquintances and if you think that "as soon as he invites someone he only knows from their work, they become part of his social network" is a valid argument, you have a wonderful career ahead of you in debating the number of angels that can dance on a pin. I'm not even going to go into detail about the rest of your unsourced text. If you think that Steve Quinn's and my horrible misbehavior should be exposed, you're free to report us on the administrators noticeboard. Now please stop wasting everybody's time here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Interview source

When someone conducts an interview, they often ask provocative questions that don't necessarily reflect the personal views of the interviewer. Therefore quoting such a question and attributing it to this person as an opinion he holds is inadmissible and improper use of sources. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Randy asked me to have a look, as one of the editors who specialize in academic journals. I took a look, and agree with him, so thoroughly that i decided to repeat his edit. (I'm acting as an ordinary editor, not an administrator). It clearly was not a judgment, nor was it necessarily the opinion of the interviewer, but a follow up question in an interview to ask the interviewee to expand on a particular point & explain a particular change. It's being used in a negative sense is improper cherry-picking. I'd repeat the whole exchange, but its publicly visible as ref2. To give some indication of the importance of the interview, which is the key source for the history of the journal, I added a sentence. DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

These above posts suggest that people are somehow not in control of their ideas and words, or somehow purposely mis-insinuate (is that a word?) their own thoughts and opinions in order to advance interviews – which of course isn’t the case. Williams is editor of the journal that is arguably the closest peer to b2; his comments are in the context of two editors discussing what their work -- and they appear in his own publication, meaning: the text is precisely his opinion (and it was probably re-tweaked in the transition from audio recording to type) and prepared just as he desires it to appear in print. The reaction is notable because we have the man who is probably the foremost expert in that subfield, editor of a peer journal, saying: “Really? …” about the publication practice of B2. I don't understand what would be a reason for this to be removed--and the fact that this text was deleted seems to be supporting a POV that this page should be celebrating the journal.

• Also whoever said this above was and is spot-on,correct. good to see it.

Peer Review

I've also heard that b2 is not peer-reviewed in the standard sense of the term. I couldn't access the link states it is peer-reviewed. I've heard that the articles are read only by the editor who solicited them. Once each issue is in print-proofs, so goes the rumor mill, the "submissions" are emailed to the others on the board as pdfs for their rubber stamp.

If that link that states b2 is peer-reviewed is indeed dead, this should be addressed because there's no mention of peer-review in the journal's material. I'd be willing to say that journal is "internally-reviewed" instead of peer-reviewed, as it's understood that internal reads would be by peers.174.49.172.92 (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

^^ that is an excellent observation and point. Perhaps the best way to resolve or adjudicate this is to go with "internally reviewed" rather than peer-reviewed, which implies an external and also variable set of reviewers/readers (depending on the submission and its area/field). b2 does not operate in that latter way. This is very clear. It is what we humanities type academics would call an in-house journal that is basically a network/group of freinds. THose aren't "peers" in a professional sense of disciplinary expertise. They -- or Paul Bove, the owner/editor -- solicit the piece and then review it internally amongst that board if at all. Plus, given how much self-publishing they (the board) do in their own journal, do we really want to call this a peer reviewed or even a refereed journal? It is a bit unseemly, no? It is more like an academic and liberal/literary version of something like New Left Review or some literary magazine. The latter do not however call themselves peer-reviewed. DRSamIam1977 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DRSamIam1977 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)DRSamIam1977 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC) DRSamIam1977 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• ALso: this ulrich's web thing is first of all locked behind a paywall and secondly appears to be a for-profit database. Maybe it is a good one but it is not an academic source itself. the other issue here is that "I" am not a "peer reviewed" journal just because I say I am. If it is a closed journal then how would anyone know? There is a LOT of misleading and self-promotional info that subtend academic journals, esp private ones. We have to guard against that, and also this stuff matters for academics and professionals too, for institutional reasons relating to promotion, tenure, and so on. DRSamIam1977 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DRSamIam1977 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC) DRSamIam1977 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• This issue has been hashed, re-hashed, and re-re-hashed multiple times in the past, please see the talk page archive. Ulrich's is a very respected and reliable academic database, which indeed is behind a paywall. That is no problem for using it as a reliable source, though. Everything that you "have heard" is not a reliable source, though, and cannot be used to source this article. Hair-splitting that the journal is "internally reviewed" is just that, hair-splitting. If you have reliable sources that call this an in-house journal or that assert that anything unseemly is going on here, show them. If not, please go edit elsewhere. --Randykitty (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• I feel you randykitty about hearsay but you sound like you work for Ulrich's database company, and also like you are not a humanist academic. It may have been discussed before but obviously it has not been resolved-- hence the re-hashing. If it is a closed journal then it is internal review. b2 obviously *says* it is in house-- they dont take submissions and they review it amongst themselves, not amongst the general discipline of say literary studies. Again compare to NLR or PMLA. This isn't hair-splitting. I like all 3 of these journals for what they are and offer, but let's be a bit more rigorous here. We right now do not have a reliable source that says it IS peer reviewed, or not. I am an academic who reviews things for journals in my field and know the difference but it is hard to prove ANY of this, true. This entry reads to me like mostly PR. cheers DRSamIam1977 (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, but we have a reliable source that this is peer-reviewed: Ulrich's. And personally I don't see anything promotional in this article. Finally, who employs me and what I am or am not is not important here at all. If you want to accuse me of something (WP:COI or something like that), you can go to WP:ANI and complain (and get yourself blocked from editing, see WP:NPA). --Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No it is not reliable-- and why so angry? do you work for b2 then? what are your qualifications? Tons of ppl tell you what is going on or object to "your" page -- do you own it? why? -- and you freak out. And good grief it is just a discussion. You think b2 is peer reviewed just because it says so (and does it really say so?) -- or Ulrich does, which is just some lame for-profit database company that, in turn, is taking their word for it. And it is behind a pay wall. Do you even know what peer review means? This is very clearly an INTERNALLY REVIEWED journal. WHy are you so invested in saying it is not, when everyone who visits the page tells you otherwise? that is odd. DRSamIam1977 (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Guilty as charged: I am impatient with you. Look at it: every now and them somebody creates a new account. Apparently not interested in improving the encyclopedia, the new account immediately starts attacking this page. And, of course, anybody who disagrees with them is working for Ulrich's, or for the journal, or has no clue about humanities, or doesn't know what peer review means, or whatever. Talk about being angry, it's not me who is throwing around accusations here. As for your assertion that "tons of people tell me that I'm wrong", no, that's incorrect. Several established editors have commented on these issues. The difference just is that they content themselves with briefly stating their opinions and then move on. You and these other POV pushers just keep dropping huge walls of text on this talk page trying to drown out any opposition, making it seem like they are a majority. --Randykitty (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• hi randykitty, I am not angry at all, just trying to correct a page I read and know something about. Pity you cannot allow that in this case or presumably the others who said similar things in the past. We are allowed to state our opinions -- thanks man! -- but of course can't change the page. But we have the secret agenda and not you personally? Meanwhile you pretend you know this is a peer reviewed journal, when you do not know this at all, except for an unsubstantiated link to a private, non academic company. EVen the journal's own press page does not say it is peer reviewed. It would, if it was. And you seem to not get the non standard practices of the journal-- that it is closed and done in-house. Academic journals that count as peer reviewed, externally reviewed, do NOT do that. WHy can't you see that? It is not controversial at all but common knowledge. You are very proprietary about this page. It is not a horrible entry but also clearly not a good one and very debatable or this would not keep happening. DRSamIam1977 (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• BY the way, the "archives" links do not seem to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DRSamIam1977 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Work fine for me. "Archive 1" is a bluelink, the other archives have not been filled yet. --Randykitty (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone been able to access the link that says b2 peer-reviewed? I can't get there. If it's a dead link, or one that dates to before 2008 (when the editing policies changed at b2), the peer-reviewed language should be modified. The journal functions outside the standard policies used by other journals in Humanities/Cultural Studies (see the Williams article) and the page should reflect that.174.49.172.92 (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• • This by the way is well said-- the entry does not reflect how unusual and non-standard the journal's pub practice is. DRSamIam1977 (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• It's not a "dead link" and being behind a paywall does not in any way disqualify a source. And you can change the article if you have a reliable source for your assertions, but otherwise it remains as it is. --Randykitty (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that's it's a pay-for-use system. I am asking if you (or someone who has access) has checked whether or not it is up to date. If so, please cut and paste the text here, with the date it was posted.174.49.172.92 (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Can't you read? The reference clearly states that it was accessed in 2012, so it was checked recently. And cutting/pasting text would be a copyvio, as you should know. --Randykitty (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What's important is the date that the material being cited was published, not when it was retrieved. Are you able to access it and check? And by cut and paste --cough-cough-- fair use?-- or paraphrase whatever is there.174.49.172.92 (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ulrich's statements about peer review are the one word "peer-reviewed" in the description of the journal. To the best of my knowledge it copies whatever the journal says unless there is evidence against it. They are extremely accurate in doing that, and in screening out absurdities and errors. In 30 years of working with journals I have never caught them in an error, though they are sometimes a year or two out of date. But the journal publisher in this case is one of the 2 leading US university press publishers of academic journals and an exceedingly reliable source that is not at all likely to compromise its reputation. There are many forms of peer-review, and many degrees of quality. Some of the highest quality journals in the world are not peer-reviewed, but reviewed by staff editors, such as one-half of Nature. PLOS One is not peer-reviewed in the usual sense. Some of the worst journals in the world are peer-reviewed, in a cursory way, with the apparent result of taking anything that looks like it could be published to slightly resemble a scientific article. What makes a difference is the quality of the review, whoever does it or however it is done. The way to handle this is to quote what the journal says about itself, and ascribe it to the journal. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hi DGG I agree with almost all of that, thanks for it. Love the point about quality. But still are you not saying that Ulrich's just takes their word for it? That is what I noted, and I think it makes them unreliable in deciding whether or not a journal is actually peer reviewed. Which info IS important actually for academics and grad stduents and admin people and might say somethng about the journal's reliability. boundary 2 is a reputable journal, surely, Duke UP is a major press but as someone who has published with them myself, I would not assume that makes it that good or reliable. You should see their warehouse! A shed in Durham, NC-- not exactly a high powered or welathy press. All univ presses are pretty shoe-string. ANyway-- I think this is grounds for removing the peer review bit-- and also because as someone notes below, b2 does not even call itself peer-reviewed anymore on their webpage or their book/j jackets. This is NOT a disparagement of the journal-- I mentioned NLR below as another example. If you dont want to say intenrally reviwed (which is what it is really) then just "reviewed" or just "refereed". Or the entry should reflect this "controversy" or ambiguity. DRSamIam1977 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how having a nice warehouse would relate to the repute, reliabilty or quality of the publisher? Dricherby (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Dricherby, that was just a joke or friendly digression-- not germane to the actual discussion here. But also: to say something is a "leading university press" based on its name is also problematic. Is USA Today the leading newspaper in AMerica? Time magazine? cheers.... DRSamIam1977 (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• There are no sources for any "controversy". And if you read what DGG actually says, the "peer-reviewed" bit should stay. --Randykitty (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Per DGG's entry, the peer-reviewed bit should come out (as I noted below already...) because b2 no longer describes itself as "peer-reviewed". DGG says: The way to handle this is to quote what the journal says about itself, and ascribe it to the journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.172.92 (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope. DGG says that Ulrich's takes its info from the journals themselves and that we should follow what the journal says, which is "peer-reviewed". --Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the journal no longer describes itself as "peer-reviewed." DGG would like to "quote how the journal describes itself" -- to use the term "peer-reviewed" which does not appear in their description would be inaccurate.174.49.172.92 (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hey if you look here: http://boundary2.org/about/ or here: http://boundary2.dukejournals.org/ you can see that they do NOT describe their own jorunal as peer-reviwed. They even tell you what I just did for that matter, above: there is no external review but only board-review, and said board people get their own space to pub their work there. This is simply not external peer review and, again, unusual and controversial within academe/humanities. Therefore removing the reference to it being peer -reviewed seems rational and appropriate. WHat more proof do you possibly need? No one is dumping on the journal's content/quality. What is at stake is an accurate description of the journal's editorial practice/review -- even in their own freaking words at this point. This is a very germane issue. It seems like some folks simply do not want "newbies" to mess with their turf on these pages. I dont think that is very WIki in spirit. I say it should be edited. DRSamIam1977 (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)DRSamIam1977 (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Nobody says that "peer review" has to be external. An editorial board also consists of "peers". And if you care to look at some other journal websites, you will see that they certainly are not the only journal that doesn't explicitly mentions peer review. As for "board review", they don't say that only the board reviews papers either (although as said, even if they did, that still doesn't mean the journal is not peer-reviewed). And as for your accusation: I have no problem at all with newbies that "mess" with pages. I do have problems with POV warriors that do not contribute to the encyclopedia and are only here to push their own POV on one single issue. --Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

randykitty you are clearly not an academic. They clearly say the board does it-- and gives the board ppl free space. No way this counts as peer-review, which implies external review in 99.9% of cases -- I dont know of one that does not. Or some board that is truly huge and actually contains experts in all the fields and subfields it publishes in. You have never read this journal right? Again THEY do not say it is peer reviewed but you do b/c you have urlich's rubbish and b/c it is part of a large publisher? If I say I am not jesus christ but my weirdo or random neighbor says I am, what do you put on WIki? Rumored to be CHrist? Or just Christ?

• Until someone demonstrates that the Ulrich reference is 2009 or later, the source should be considered outdated. The journal has not described itself as "peer-reviewed" in 5 years. I agree with DGG, who notes thatThe way to handle this is to quote what the journal says about itself, and ascribe it to the journal. POV warriors are troublesome, particularly those who push a POV based on outdated sources (unless I'm mistaken; again, 99th time, someone check the source) and in doing so demonstrate their WP:OAA issues.174.49.172.92 (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• First, there is a consensus agreement to keep "peer reviewed" in the first sentence of the article. Saying that the consensus is the opposite is a misreading of these discussions. Second, peer review is at least implied because this journal, b2, is listed in some selective and prestigious databases. The only way this journal could be listed in these selective databases is as peer reviewed and have stringent quality control. The peer review process in this case can also mean high editorial standards, which is the meaning of reputable peer review in the first place.

Also, as DGG mentioned this is a publisher of high repute, and "one of the 2 leading US university press publishers of academic journals and an exceedingly reliable source." Also, choosing the year "2009" as the demarcation that determines the description is outdated is arbitrary. What source says before 2009 is outdated? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No consensus agreement-- just ownership of the page by some people who are wiki full timers/lifers. There is only one database so why the plural? And it is dubious, as discussed here clearly. The freaking b2 journal itself does not call itself peer-reviewed, but wiki does? Because some dude named randykitty wants his page the way he wants it?

A publisher of high repute according to whom? Source? Rationale? B/c my internet friend said so? Good lord, this is like saying USA today is a paper of high repute, McDOnalds a leading restaurant and so on.... DRSamIam1977 (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

In protest of b2 becoming too insular (it was transforming into the editor's plaything, apparently), some very important people in the board room left. I won't mention names but they're out there in one of the references cited. That event coincided with the peer-reviewed language coming out of the frontmatter. It's tough to document that, though. I see your point. At any rate, invited submission are "reviewed" by the editor, who is the only person reading these "submissions" before they go to proofs (again, tough to document that). He certainly is not a "peer" in all the disciplines that appear in print. The journal has an academic theme but is more like a Time Magazine-type rag in its publication process than a standard academic journal. 174.49.172.92 (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The above by 174 is quite true. NOT a peer review because the editor, Dr Paul Bove is not a freaking expert or Peer on all the random subjects the J publishes, nor is his perfunctory board of friends/colleagues he happens to know. Againi b2 is mor elike NLR than a real academic journal that is part of a discipline or even several disciplines. DRSamIam1977 (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know what you, 174.49.172.92, think "POV warrior" means but it most certainly does not mean, "Several people with wide-ranging records of contributions to a variety of topics on Wikipedia, who collectively prefer the word of a reliable secondary source that says X, over a primary source that expresses no opinion on X." Dricherby (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Again you say Ulirch's dated, for-proft database is reliable 2ndary source. Just like the Yeloow Pages are a good source on the reality of New York City. I'm an academic and I never heard of the thing. And then you say, so-and-so with a lot of posts on wiki is an expert so Eff you. DRSamIam1977 (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• By saying there is only one database, which implies Ulrich's, is not correct pertaining to academic journals. Journals that are worthy of note are indexed in selective databases. It is very important to a notable journal that it be indexed in appropriate databases. Therefore, this one is indexed (and abstracted) in more than only Ulrich's. The prestigious / selective databases to which I refer are: "Arts and Humanities Citation Index", "Current Contents/Arts and Humanities", "Scopus", "CSA/ProQuest Sociological Abstracts", and "Expanded Academic ASAP". There might be a couple more. The "Humanities Abstracts" I think is part of H.W. Wilson, which is now part of EBSCO, and H.W. Wilson has a good reputation. Please see the section entitled "Abstracting and indexing" on this article's page. I am sorry but trite opinions are not persuasive. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• The supposed prestige of one thing or another has no relevance here. (Maybe there's room for discussion re: the hard sciences, but this is the Humanities.) The articles in b2 have been solicited for publication, read only by the person who solicited them (who is not a peer), and they not sent to be reviewed by any other scholar until they are in proofs (which is to say they cannot be changed). The articles cannot be rejected once submitted. The question is: how should a publication like this be categorized? (Feel free, Quinn, Kitty and the others, to chime in here.) In my opinion, it's inaccurate to call such a process a "peer-review" (bearing in mind how that term is generally used) and a stretch to list it under the label of standard academic journals, at it has an academic theme - yes - but does not have standard practices that are characteristic of academic journals. 174.49.172.92 (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• It's quite simple. We have a reliable source that says the journal is peer-reviewed. We have the opinion of somebody on a Wikipedia talk page who says it isn't. The journal homepage doesn't say it's peer-reviewed but doesn't say it isn't, either. The reliable source trumps the opinions expressed on the Wikipedia talk page any day of the week. End of. Dricherby (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have not seen any sources that says 174.49.172.92's description is the actual peer review process of this journal. Do you have any sources? I have already shown that this is a peer reviewed journal based on the services and databases that index this journal. Also, it is highly unlikely that 174.49.172.92's description is actually the peer review process of this journal. It sounds more like hearsay or "heard on the street". Also, no discussion is required for "hard science" or the humanities pertaining to selective and prestigious abstracting and indexing services. It is a fact pertaining to academic journals in "hard science", "soft science", "comfy science", "unyielding science", "pliable science", "amiable science", "moderate science", mediocre science", "social or anti-social science" or the humanities. This is indeed a peer reviewed academic journal. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yawn. All this nonsense in quotation marks and defense of outdated sources doesn't make b2 peer-reviewed. The page is inaccurate.174.49.172.92 (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• WP:TRUTH. --Randykitty (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Find a reliable source to back up your claim, 174.49.172.49. Until then, please stop flogging this dead horse. Dricherby (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sometimes the posts on here are high on the unintentional comedy scale. You're doing the horse flogging. The truth is that it's not peer-reviewed.174.49.172.92 (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Find a reliable source to back up your claim. Dricherby (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Find a source that says the Ulrich reference is current. The term "peer-reviewed" was removed from their frontmatter several years ago following the editorial mutiny.174.49.172.92 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope, that's not how it works. The Ulrich's ref could be from 1805 for all I care. If that's the last reliable reference, that's what our article is gong to say. Apart from that, I think it's time to stop feeding the trolls. --Randykitty (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for reiterating my case, Kitty. Ulrich should not be considered the last reliable source unless someone confirms that it is current to some point after the last editorial change at b2.174.49.172.92 (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• The journal's frontmatter is not a source because it doesn't say whether the journal is peer-reviewed or not. Dricherby (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• To quote the above: "The journal's frontmatter is not a source." That's the argument? Is this a joke?174.49.172.92 (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Don't quote me out of context. The rest of the sentence is important to the meaning. Dricherby (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• The context is right above it, which was noted. The argument is that b2's frontmatter is not a source. That sounds like a joke.174.49.172.92 (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Nothing is a source for something it doesn't talk about. Dricherby (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Correct, it says nothing about peer-review. Thanks for reiterating my point. 174.49.172.92 (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmm so the journal does NOT say it is peer reviewed, but you anonymous wiki-pals say it is anyway, based on "Ulrich's Web." Where is Ulrich's getting its info? Apparently not from the journal! Seems like from years and years ago, according to the above. Ulrich is authoritative because you say it is? Honestly this is why I tell my students to NEVER read or at least never CITE anything from WIki. Do you lot work for the journal, or for Ulrich's? Odd that you control this page and dont allow changes. Meanwhile I dont think any MLA members would agree with you. This is not a peer reviewed journal. It does not take submissions but solicits them personally. Do you think it would turn down any such invitees? Ha ha! It is Paul Bove's journal, plus his buddies. Apparently they sit on this page too? Weird. I guess there is a reason they do so much self-publishing in their own journal. And then get wiki editors to call it peer-reviewed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.136.168

Ulrich generally gets their information directly from journals. In this case the database is out of date, which happens from time to time. The wiki warriors who troll this page won't have it another way, though, until Ulrich is updated with the journal's correct information. For some editors, that the b2 editorial board/pub policies changed -- and the journal does not describe itself as peer-reviewed -- has no relevance, apparently 204.15.145.111 (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

We've been through this manyd times. If you have a reliable source that explicitly says the journal is not peer-reviewed, please cite it. It is not enough to draw inferences from a source failing to say that the journal is peer-reviewed. Dricherby (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. The question is whether we deduce it from the facts, or trust Ulrichs. I think we can do neither--Ulrichs does not attempt to be accurate in the details. this is WP, so we simply report what we see. This situation is not unique, and there's a general practice here when as otherwise reliable source says something which is contradicted by the actual facts when looked at in detail, is to report them both, with the evidence, and let the reader judge. Blindly following a source is unreasonable.

More precisely: In the text, report that Ulrichs lists it as peer reviewed, and say also what the journal says in its website. If you want a single phrase, to the best of my understanding it's "not conventionally peer-reviewed' , If you ask whether or not it's peer reviewed and want a yes or no answer, it cannot be provided. If the infobox demands one, that's the problem with trying to summarize information into an infobox. I would leave that line blank.

I've given you the best advice I can. I've said it , and explained it, at least twice. I cannot compel anyone to take it. The question of what single word to use in complicated situations is a frequently occurring one here--it comes up with infoboxes, it comes up with titles. With title, we can't avoid it. With infoboxes, often we can. We can always avoid it for the article, even in the lede paragraph, because we can explain instead of trying to fit it into a single sentence.

The issue here is because the notability of the journal was questioned, and it seems to be mistakenly thought that peer-reviewed makes it more notable. The questioning of the notability is in my opinion fairly absurd also--it's an important unconventional humanities journal. You can argue it further as long as you like, but I've said what I have to say as well as I can. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a good summary of the situation. Ulrich's says it is peer reviewed, which is the only source we have. We have no other source about how peer review is conducted at this journal (or not, as the case may be). Per WP:TRUTH, what we have to report is what the sources say, not what we know or think to know. As for the line in the infobox, I've never understood why that line exists anyway and always leave it blank in any journal article that I edit. I agree completely with DGG that whether or not the journal is peer-reviewed does not have any effect on its notability. As soon as somebody comes up with a reliable source describing exactly what editorial procedures are followed at this journal, I'll support changing the current article. Until then, it should remain as it is. --Randykitty (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yawn. Wasn't this posted just the other day: The wiki warriors who troll this page won't have it another way, though, until Ulrich is updated with the journal's correct information. Go wiki warriors, go! RandyKtty and Quinn own the page and that's that, regardless if what they argue is contradicted by the journal's frontmatter. What type of source would trump the frontmatter, Sir Owner(s) Kitty/Quinn?136.145.122.85 (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I can see the rationale for keeping "peer review" in this article based on what the source(s) says. At the same time, after looking at the issue containing essays on the emergence of China, and the historical signifgance of this emergence (here) , I agree that this is an unconventional academic journal. And I am not seeing where experts on Chinese culture are needed to be present on the editorial board so that we may view these members as the peers that review (See discussion here) . These articles can be broadly grouped under the social studies discipline. As such, these articles are not more remarkable than could be fournd in the New York Times, Time magazine, The New Yorker, or The Atalantic, which are also reputable and trusted for their accuracy. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And who says that those papers were not reviewed by China experts that are not editorial board members? We only have a few anonymous IPs who claim that this doesn't happen. As long as we have no sources either way, we should stick to the one source we have (Ulrich's). Yawn indeed. --Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The source is the frontmatter, which said "peer-reviewed" until the editorial mutiny. Now it says " ". Again, x3, The wiki warriors who troll this page won't have it another way, though, until Ulrich is updated with the journal's correct information. Go wiki warriors, go!!136.145.122.85 (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, concluding from that that the journal is not peer reviewed is unallowable WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. And if you have an unassailable source that says that Ulrich's publishes wrong information, then Ulrich's is not a reliable source any more and we'll remove it. It's up to you to show that the article needs changing and up till now, apart from throwing around accusations, you have done no such thing. --Randykitty (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, concluding from that that the journal is peer reviewed based on an outdated source is unallowable WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. If you lack unassailable evidence that Ulrich has been updated since the change in editorial policies at b2, then Ulrich's is not a reliable source and should be removed. As the owner of the article and chief wikiwarrior, it's up to you to show that the reference is current, and apart from throwing around accusations, you have done no such thing. Any opinion apart from yours and Quinn doesn't matter, you are the only ones who may change the page. As I've stated now x4. The wiki warriors who troll this page won't have it another way, though, until Ulrich is updated with the journal's correct information. 136.145.122.85 (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is the other way around: there is no evidence that Ulrich's is outdated, except your opinion that it is. Hence, it is up to you to show that it is not current, not up to me to show that it is current. And this is my last response, I'm done feeding the trolls. --Randykitty (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If it were up to date, Ulrich's and the frontmatter of the journal would be in accordance. x5: The wiki warriors who troll this page won't have it another way, though, until Ulrich is updated with the journal's correct information.136.145.122.85 (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"Atypical"

Peter chanpanman6: Actually, I know several journals that only publish invited articles (see the whole Annual Reviews series for example), so I don't really see why it is necessary to insert the word "atypical". Can you explain perhaps? --Randykitty (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks RandyK I have not logged in recently. There are many journals that do solicited ones only-- especially in your fields I take it. But in the literary humanities (boundary's purview) it is much less common. Esp when the J claims to be peer reviewed and yet broad in scope-- I can only think of bnoundary2 that does that. Think of PMLA the flagship language/lit one or Social Text or Minn. Review or any of the top journals in the MLA/humanities world really, aside from SAQ.(these are peers of bondary2). IN short most J's in this area are open submission before they peer review or decline to review. Plus the editors of b2 kind of announce it when they said they made a momentous decision to stop open submissions to better take on the "tyrannies of thought". Anyway it is a controversial decision (if you look at other academic wikis) but moreover simply atypical. Personally I dont think it is a BAD one, but its atypical either way. Peter chanpanman6 (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Misconceptions: Limiting to solicited submissions does not exclude peer review. Far as I know, this practice is more common in humanities than in the sciences, because most publications are in the form of books, not journals. And books, of course, do not accept unsolicited submissions. So in order to say that this is "atypical" or whatever, you'll need a good source. In my eyes, it's just a different way of doing things. --Randykitty (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of misconceptions, most publications in the humanities are in journals not books (in the form of articles). Surely you are aware of the crisis in publishing on this very subject, i.e. the book standard for tenure when presses have such huge cutbacks for humanities type books especially; and the rise of so very many journals of open access or online variety and the challenges that poses (and opportunities). That's easily google-able and spoken to by press editors even.

Other point: you say "far as I know..." but you too don't offer any citations or sources for your strange belief that it is NOT atypical to have closed-house or invite-only journals. You ask me to prove it, which is kind of like proving water is wet; and you cant source your view either....... Most journals do indeed take submissions (ie are open to receiving them, even if they dont send them out for review). I know this is not "proof" but any graduate student in social scinecesd or humanities would know this... like we know water is wet. Not trying to insult you-- hope it doesn't seem that way. Anyway I think it is somewhat important to register this fact -- and to keep the original edits/entry in there (and which I didnt write) -- because open journals are important to keep that way, so that publishing isn't only a matter of contacts and who you know etc. There IS a trend in having them go close-shop-- this b2 journal was at the forefront of that. SAQ is like that now too. Other J's are still open but have special issues frequently (since book contracts are harder to get b/c of cutbacks). Open is important for newer faculty and, again, keeping things less feudal/clubby in general.

So reverting for this reason--

also-- note I am not trashing the J. Its a decent one that I read sometimes. I am sure they use referees. Peter chanpanman6 (talk)

• Here are two whole series of journals (not just a single one) that all are by invitation only. This is not atypical at all, just a different model: Current Opinion and Annual Reviews. There certainly are more examples. I think you should self-revert or back up your view that this is "atypical", now that I have given you other examples of journals that do not accept spontaneous submissions. By the way, I maintain that in the humanities book publishing is the main vehicle of publication. Most of the journals you mention are completely forgettable. --Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)