Talk:Index Copernicus

Idiosyncratic

This is a very idiosyncratic database. It appears to use mostly user-contributed information. It's coverage is strange: the journal masterlist (first page under N) shows that the coverage of Nature was discontinued in 2010, but they do cover a Turkish-language neurology journal. Their criteria for evaluating "journal quality" are even stranger. For example, a journal will get positive marks if it is published on A4 format (a paper format a bit longer and narrower than US letter, used mostly in Europe, but not very often used for professionally-produced journals) and negative points if its abstracts are not structured (i.e., subdivided in different sections, like the article itself). I don't know how much it is actually used. We have no specific criteria for notability for databases, but my guess is that this one is at the lower end of the scale. --Crusio (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree it's on the lower end of the scale, it's certainly not a Current Contents, but at the same time not having an article is doing a disservice to the reader, as then they would have no information about the database. I know I've been puzzled several times about this database when writing journal articles, so I thought I'd just write the article and be done with it. The main problem seems to be that most sources I find are in polish, and I don't speak a word of it (and Google translate is less-than-stellar in Polish apparently). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I do agree that we need something about this (I didn't PROD it or something like that). But I'm not sure it's actually useful to list this in journal articles. I remember entering the info on Genes, Brain and Behavior myself into this database. There may have been some vetting (my memory is fuzzy about that), but there is absolutely no vetting for the scientist bios, where they also have weird criteria to come up with a score representing one's careers "value". In that sense, it's almost blog-like. It is indeed to bad that most info is in Polish (I don't understand that either) and their English is not always up to par. For the moment a rather mysterious database. --Crusio (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

undue?

pls see Talk:Predatory open access publishing#fringe theory? Fgnievinski (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Index Copernicus. 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/20140403010813/http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/11/21/index-copernicus-has-no-value/ to http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/11/21/index-copernicus-has-no-value/

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) 06:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)