Talk:Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics

Deprodding

I plan to deprod this article as the journal appears to indexed in SCOPUS, which according the WP:NJournals suggests that the journal is notable. The journal has a SCOPUS Sourcerecord id of 5700165211 in the latest list of SCOPUS journals at Scopus - SciVerse title list (xls file) --Mark viking (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for checking that. I have the old version of Office and cannot open the title list (too large to be converted...) --Randykitty (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a big file. I was able to open it with Gnumeric. --Mark viking (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

2004-2006 was covered in the ADSABS database. Not really sure why coverage stopped. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Mark and Headbomb, how come you two read the Scopus reference differently? If it is not in Scopus, then what is the evidence for notability, if any? --Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Headbomb added that the journal was indexed in the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) from 2004-2006. As far as I know ADS and Scopus are independent entities, so there is no conflict here. But perhaps I misunderstood your question. --Mark viking (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it's indeed a bit confusing. I was referring to the fact that he removed the mention of the Scopus listing that you added and said in his edit summary that the reference didn't support the listing. --Randykitty (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not in Scopus. I'm saying the webpage that was given as a reference ([1]) did not support the claim. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I've now installed Gnumeric (thanks for the tip, Mark!) If I understand correctly, Headbomb's only problem was the sourcing. I'll re-add Scopus with (hopefully) a more appropriate reference. --Randykitty (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It's somewhat of a shame we can't find better sources, the peer-review quality in this journal seems very uneven... I haven't looked much, but no one seems to have noticed this. I don't know how widespread this is, but that Sorli guy... well let's just say he uses viXra [2]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't disagree, this really is borderline. But listing in Scopus meets WP:NJournals, although I have to say that I find Scopus becoming less and less selective, including quite a lot of shady, questionable journals (the current journal being one of them). --Randykitty (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics. 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/20131202041814/http://cdn.elsevier.com:80/assets/excel_doc/0003/148548/title_list.xlsx to http://cdn.elsevier.com/assets/excel_doc/0003/148548/title_list.xlsx

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: 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) 07:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)