Talk:Open Biology
Latest comment: 12 years ago by DGG in topic First article has appeared
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
File:Open biology.jpg Nominated for Deletion
editAn image used in this article, File:Open biology.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
First article has appeared
editIn September 2011 this journal began publication, though with only a single article explaining its mission. A Google Scholar search for "open biology" "royal society" finds the one article which the journal has so far published as well as two external references:
- The first article to appear, hosted at rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org.
- A 2011 paper by R. Horton in The Lancet, discussing the concept of the new journal
- A 2011 paper by D.W.Lewis in College & Research Libraries, "The inevitability of open access", discussing the concept of the new journal and predicting that the open access model will take over academic publishing within 15 years. –EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's a good start, but both really only mention OB in passing. --Crusio (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- That first aeticle isn't exactly an article in the usual sense, just an editorial statement of purpose. But my own opinion remains that a journal from the RS is notable the day it's announced--is notable even if it ends up not being published, I'll check again to see if there are some more 3rd party refs yet, to satisfy those who think they are essential. I think we can go by the overwhelming probability of notability -- it's not like a BLP of an accused person who stands only a chance of being convicted. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- We now have 14 articles online, so I would hope this is sufficient evidence of serious intent. It would be helpful to have some guidance as to what else we need to add to the entry in terms of "inline citations" and to what type of sources. Also, I am not sure why this happened: "File:Open biology.jpg Nominated for Deletion" Can anyone enlighten? Thanks PointOfPresence (talk) 09:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- The deletion discussion is here. The logo came from a copyrighted page and therefore cannot be uploaded to Commons. You can upload it here with a "fair use" rationale (which is not allowed on Commons). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- We now have 14 articles online, so I would hope this is sufficient evidence of serious intent. It would be helpful to have some guidance as to what else we need to add to the entry in terms of "inline citations" and to what type of sources. Also, I am not sure why this happened: "File:Open biology.jpg Nominated for Deletion" Can anyone enlighten? Thanks PointOfPresence (talk) 09:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I added some information to show it is already actually publishing articles. What is needed now is published comments from third parties about the journal. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)