Talk:NLM Technical Bulletin

Peer review?

I can't find any information from them on whether this periodical is peer reviewed, so I would assume it is not as they don't publish research.

But interestingly, it is listed on library listings as being peer reviewed (examples here, here, and here, but all Primo library catalogs should show the same thing).

Is it really peer reviewed? BhamBoi (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Of course it isn't peer-reviewed, it's a newsletter, not an academic journal. That some libraries list it otherwise is proof again that library catalogues are unreliable, even if they are maintained by a large library like NLM. Their catalogue is reliable for listing inclusion in one of their databases (such as MEDLINE or PMC), but hardly for anything else. Publisher info is often outdated, CODEN's are wronog more often than not, etc. This article should have an appropriate infobox, not the journal infobox. --Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Academic society newsletters typically have journal infoboxes, since those are the most relevant information, including indexing. The peer review thing is a bit of a red herring here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• That's news to me. Any examples? No newsletters that I know have any indexing beyond WorldCat (which is pretty meaningless and horribly unreliable anyway), which can be accommodated in the magazine infobox. --Randykitty (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

In your opinion, should we use Journal- or Magazine- categorization? BhamBoi (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Magazine, it most definitely is not an academic journal. --Randykitty (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)