Contents

Talk:List of chemistry journals

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Academic Journals This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article. Chemistry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Review Journals[edit]

There is some discussion on Talk:List of scientific journals about where review journals fit in that article, as review journals do not have a high number of references or a high impact factor. I added the paragraph below there and thought I should also add it here.

My thoughts after a night's sleep are to create a new page List of review journals in chemistry and move all the purely review journals from List of scientific journals in chemistry to there. This will make the latter more manageable as there are many many more journals to add and will also allow an introduction on the importance of review articles for people entering a field and also allow mention of which review journals have high impact factors. What do people think? --Bduke 02:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review journals don't have a high impact factor? Chemical Reviews has the second highest impact factor for a chemistry journal (the top is Surface Science Reports)! More than half of the top 20 chemistry journals by impact factor are review journals. Itub 16:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edited List of scientific journals to include the top journals on the basis of most frequently referenced by Chemical Abstracts in 2004. J. Biol. Chem is No. 1 and JACS is No. 6 (the ones in between are Physics journals. On that list, Chem. Rev. is No 756 amd Acc. Chem. Res. and Chem. Soc. Rev. are not in the list of the top 1000. Could you let me have the details of the list you are refering to? My e-mail is one my User page. I'm confused about which criteria we should use for determining the top chemistry journals. I do not know too much about how these impact factors are obtained. --Bduke 21:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply here so that other readers know what we are talking about. :) I searched the 2004 Journal Citation Reports from the Institute for Scientific Information for journals in subject categories CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL; CHEMISTRY, APPLIED; CHEMISTRY, INORGANIC & NUCLEAR; CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL; CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY; CHEMISTRY, ORGANIC; CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL, sorted by impact factor. Here are the top 10

N      Title                   Impact factor
1      SURF SCI REP            21.35
2      CHEM REV                20.233
3      NAT MATER               13.531
4      ACCOUNTS CHEM RES       13.154
5      ANNU REV PHYS CHEM      11.944
6      CHEM SOC REV            10.836
7      ADV CATAL               9.75
8      ANGEW CHEM INT EDIT     9.161
9      ALDRICHIM ACTA          8.833
10     NANO LETT               8.449
11     MED RES REV             8.418
12     CATAL REV               8
13     NAT PROD REP            7.89
14     PROG INORG CHEM         7.2
15     J AM CHEM SOC           6.903
16     SEP PURIF METHOD        6.667
17     COORDIN CHEM REV        6.446
18     PROG SOLID STATE CH     5.857
19     ADV FUNCT MATER         5.679
20     ADV ORGANOMET CHEM      5.5

The impact factor is a function of the number of citations and the number of articles (basically the average number of times each article is cited). Review journals tend to have high impact factors because they publish relatively few articles, but they are cited many times. Chem. Rev was cited 45129 times and published 183 articles. JACS has 231890 citations, but ends up with a lower impact factor because it published many more articles: 3167. Surf. Sci. Rep. may have ended up at the top by luck, because it only published 11 articles. For comparison, Nature and Science have impact factors around 32. The highest impact factor from all categories is Annu. Rev. Immunol., with 52.431. Itub 22:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. This is fascinating. There is no overlap between the top 10 in your list and the top 10 in the list I used for List of scientific journals. It looks like 6 review journals in the top 10. Only JACS appears in both lists of the top 20. I am now completely unsure about how we select 10 top journals in a NPOV way for List of scientific journals. I am going to move the discussion over to Talk:List of scientific journals, refering back to your most usefull data, and see how the debate goes there. Please join in there. --Bduke 22:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HiItub, I'm working on getting this list in wiki format possibly to put on this page. Perhaps you can help. What is MED RES REV? I have found Med Care Res Rvv, but is this it? Also is it really an appropriate journal to list under Chemistry. Is ADV FUNCT MATER really chemistry? It looks like SEP PURIF METHOD changed to SEP PURIF REV in 2004. Is that right? Is it Separation and Purification Reviews? If you recommend dropping some as not chemistry, could you give me the next on the list to replace them keeping a list of 20? Many thanks. --Bduke 02:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is "MEDICINAL RESEARCH REVIEWS". I don't think every journal in this list is "really chemistry", but I don't think we should get into listing by impact factor here anyway. I just provided the evidence to show that review journals tend to have high impact factors. As for the more subjective "impact" of a journal, I think that the total number of citations gives can give a better idea (althought certainly not perfect). Here are the top 20 by citations:

1  J AM CHEM SOC     231890
2 ANGEW CHEM INT EDIT   76904
3 J ORG CHEM   74650
4 TETRAHEDRON LETT   67752
5 ANAL CHEM   59525
6 CHEM COMMUN   53341
7 INORG CHEM   51887
8 LANGMUIR   46314
9 J PHYS CHEM B   46122
10 CHEM PHYS LETT   45476
11 CHEM REV   45129
12 J CHROMATOGR A   41467
13 TETRAHEDRON   37427
14 ANAL BIOCHEM   34282
15 J MED CHEM   32138
16 J AGR FOOD CHEM   27992
17 ORGANOMETALLICS   27459
18 J PHYS CHEM A   27189
19 CHEM MATER   26511
20 SURF SCI   26223

Itub 00:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for that. There are two issues that concern me and they are quite different:-

1. I want to list about 8, 9 or 10 on List of scientific journals, depending whether it seems sensible to add more review journals. I have currently listed 9 from the 2004 Chem. Abs. total reference list. Your new list from Sci Index is rather different. Chem. Abs. is headed by J. Biol.Chem and has J.Chem.Phys fairly high, while it does not have Angew Chem.
2. I think it would be instructive to head List of scientific journals in chemistry with the top 20 using different criteria. That is why I want to have your views about whether some in the impact list are not chemistry, and what would replace them if some or removed. Now I have the question whether I use your total cites list above to replace the Chem. Abs. list or add it and have three lists. I think I will add it for now, put them on the page, and see what you and others think. --Bduke 00:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an introduction that lists the top 20 journals using three criteria along with some introductory explanatory text. I think this improves the list. What do people think? It still needs:-

• Proper references for the Science Citation Index lists.
• Adding some of the journals in these lists to the full alphabetical list below.
• Adding web references for many of them.
• Writing articles for at least the redlinks in the three top 20 lists.

--Bduke 01:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dot points 2 and 3 done. --Bduke 05:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC) - modified. --Bduke 11:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nobody has objected to me adding these lists of important journals by three different criteria. I propose we leave them. However we do need a proper reference for the data Itub provided from Sci Citation Index. Itub, Could you please provide that - either on the page itself or here or to me? Thanks. --Bduke 03:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's the proper way of citing it, but here's the product page: http://scientific.thomson.com/products/jcr/ . It's not a free resource, but research universities typically have institutional access. Specifically, I used the 2004 edition. For the list of "general chemistry" journals, I searched for journals classified as "CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY". I removed some that I decided were not really general chemistry: J. Comp. Chem., Chem. Pharm. Bull., Pharm. Res., J. Pharm. Sci., J. Control Release, Nano Lett., J. Phys. Chem. Solids, Chem. Res. Toxicol.

Thanks. That seems fine. I'll try to check it later today. I have institutional access at Monash University. I have to go to a breakfast meeting now. --Bduke 20:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, somewhere you asked about J. Phys. Chem. It turns out it's not on any of my lists because it's classified it under "Physics, Chemical", which I didn't include. Itub 17:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Could I trouble you to do the search again with it included? I think it would give us better lists, but we could always justify not including by arguing it is physics. --Bduke 20:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is (same categories as above, plus PHYSICS, ATOMIC, MOLECULAR & CHEMICAL):

1 J AM CHEM SOC   
2 J CHEM PHYS 
3 ANGEW CHEM INT EDIT 
4 J ORG CHEM 
5 TETRAHEDRON LETT 
6 ANAL CHEM 
7 PHYS REV A 
8 CHEM COMMUN 
9 INORG CHEM 
10 LANGMUIR 
11 J PHYS CHEM B 
12 CHEM PHYS LETT 
13 CHEM REV 
14 J CHROMATOGR A 
15 TETRAHEDRON 
16 ANAL BIOCHEM 
17 J MED CHEM 
18 J AGR FOOD CHEM 
19 ORGANOMETALLICS 
20 J PHYS CHEM A 

Itub 20:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the second list accordingly but did not add PHYS REV A as it is not really chemical these days. So I just added J CHEM PHYS and dropped the last one of the old list. I have added journals in the alphabetical sections arising from the list of general chemistry journals which is now what is in the List of scientific journals chemistry section. Fixing the redlinks on these with new articles is I believe now the priority for these two pages. --Bduke 00:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you call that a jounal in chemistry? J. magn. Reson, JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE, http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622884/description ChristianB 18:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd call it chemistry, although since it is an interdisciplinary topic you could also call it physics. --Itub 14:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list named a journal called "Inorganic Chemical Communications"; I could not find any evidence of it but I did find an "Inorganic Chemistry Communications," so I changed the spelling and added a link...if there is indeed a journal using "chemical" it should be added as well Mah159 (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just examples:

Please compare the following http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+validation&as_publication=Analytical+Chemistry&btnG=Search

with

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+validation&as_publication=Cambridge+Journal+of+Economics&btnG=Search --222.64.20.183 (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+validation&as_publication=European+Review+of+Agricultural+Economics&btnG=Search --222.64.20.183 (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not bad
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+validation&as_publication=Journal+of+Hydrologic+Engineering&btnG=Search --222.64.20.183 (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+validation&as_publication=Journal+of+Environmental+Engineering&btnG=Search --222.64.20.183 (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mh.....so so
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+validation&as_publication=Astronomical+Journal&btnG=Search --222.64.20.183 (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+validation&as_publication=Astrophysical+Journal&btnG=Search --222.64.20.183 (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so so, too
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+validation&as_publication=International+Journal+of+Food+Science+%26+Technology&btnG=Search --222.67.216.110 (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good one http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+validation&as_publication=Chemical+Engineering+Journal&btnG=Search --222.67.216.110 (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These two are too contrast http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+validation&as_publication=American+Family+Physician&btnG=Search

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+validation&as_publication=British+Medical+Journal&btnG=Search --222.67.216.110 (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but is pity of http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+validation&as_publication=International+Journal+of+Medical+Sciences&btnG=Search --222.67.216.110 (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

out dated http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=validation&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=The+American+Journal+of+the+Medical+Sciences&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.67.216.110 (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+validation&as_publication=Journal+of+Cardiac+Failure&btnG=Search --222.67.216.110 (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both are so so http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+validation&as_publication=International+Journal+of+Biological+Sciences&btnG=Search

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+validation&as_publication=Journal+of+Cell+Biology&btnG=Search --222.67.216.110 (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=validation&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=Electoral+Studies&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=validation&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=Presidential+Studies+Quarterly&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.64.21.146 (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mh....poor http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+validation&as_publication=The+Leadership+Quarterly&btnG=Search --222.64.21.146 (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC regarding the standardization of journal lists names. Please comment at Talk:List of journals#RFC. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]