Talk:Q13442814

Autodescription — scholarly article (Q13442814)

description: article in an academic publication, usually peer reviewed

Useful links:

Pretty display of data  (with Wikidata:Reasonator)
Pretty display of data (with Wikidata:Sqid)
View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
Scholia
Report on constraint conformation of “scholarly article” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
Number of statements about scholarly article by property (query)
All claims about scholarly article (query)
List of items with same label (query)
List of lexemes with sense scholarly article (query)

Classification of the class scholarly article (Q13442814)  

For help about classification, see Wikidata:Classification.

Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)

scholarly article (Q13442814)

Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)

⟨scholarly article⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1)

Generic queries for classes

See also

This documentation is generated using {{Item documentation}}.

Import from Wikipedia?[edit]

Just like there are tools (like PrepBio) that enables one to get a quick start on a Wikipedia article, is there a tool that enables one to turn a structured citation on Wikipedia (for example, this: Cole, Elizabeth (1951), "In Search of Francis Tregian", Music & Letters, 33: 28–32, doi:10.1093/ml/xxxiii.1.28) into the beginnings of a Wikidata entry for scholarly articles and books? -Kosboot (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can copy-paste the DOI into the search field of Scholia at https://scholia.toolforge.org/ and it will generate quickstatements for entry into Wikidata. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with item and suggested changes[edit]

Please see Wikidata:Project_chat#Bulk_fixing_error. --- Jura 10:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What difference from magazine article (Q30070590) now? They have the same translation into Russian, so I have problem in understanding... --Infovarius (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment at Wikidata:Project_chat#Bulk_fixing_error? --- Jura 23:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't. All I can say that I can't define exactly the difference between discussed items. Infovarius (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, it's first of all usage: If you need an item for P31, use Q13442814. If you want to make subclasses, use or debate about the others. --- Jura 13:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not magazine article (Q30070590)? --Infovarius (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Infovarius: I am suggesting moving back to the old name, see the discussion at Wikidata:Project_chat#Bulk_fixing_error. A change in the semantics of such a central node is really problematic, because other items will get the wrong label. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the bold step of reverting this item back to "scholarly article", instead of "journal article". The issue is that most of the thousand articles I have added as instances of this item are scholarly articles and not journal articles. The renaming to "scientific article" or "journal article" misannotated a large portion of what I have added. I think that "scholarly articles" embrace most of what this item has been used for. Note that Q86995636 is currently dangling. Because of naming collision I reverted it back to the first version. We could use that for "scientific article". — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a correct way to deal with the problem but this is not it. Assume we always know the journal is scholarly. Also people working manually know if the article is a scholarly article. Bots usually don't know this, it does not help that most articles are scholarly, bots have no way to know this 100% and since most article items are by bots lots of the statements are now wrong again. Of course bots need to be fixed too to use a different item. --SCIdude (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The label was recently changed again from 'scholarly article' to 'scientific article'. I'm reverting this change simply because the two terms are not equivalent. There are many scholarly articles in business, arts, humanities, law etc. that are not scientific articles but clearly meet the item description of an 'article in an academic publication, usually peer reviewed'. I'm not sure about the alternative labels 'scientific paper' and 'article in science'. They are similarly inaccurate - they refer only to one sub-class of this item - but people may nevertheless use them to search for this item. I'm inclined to remove but have left them in for now to see if others have a view. I suppose one possibility would be to keep the alternative labels that reference science and add in equivalents for other areas of study as well (e.g. 'humanities paper', 'article in law') but that seems messy to me. AmW22 (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The switch back sounds sensible to me. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Label change to Scientific Article[edit]

@Desoda: I would argue that your recent change of the English Label to "scientific article" is inappropriate without some discussion. Given that this not all scholarly articles are scientific, but the reverse is probably true, your change mislabels items about articles about, e.g., dragons, fairies, Dracula, other fiction. I'm not arguing that "scholarly article" is most accurate, but that there should be a discussion. @Pintoch: Respectfully, Trilotat (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fnielsen: for consideration given their earlier comment about the impact of such bulk changes. Trilotat (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AmW22, Richard_Nevell, SCIdude: for consideration given their earlier comment about the impact of such bulk changes. Trilotat (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the broader term of scholarly over scientific is more inclusive and reflective of Wikidata's contents. Hopefully the label can be restored soon. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trilotat: My apolgies. I looked at the other languages' labels/IWs and older revisions, subsequently overreached and made a hasty change. I have reverted my edit. I do recommend taking a look at the other languages' labels and IWs, though. Their usage seem, to me, to reflect the earlier, narrower meaning of "scientific article". Those labels might need to change to reflect that. As well as moving some IWs to other, more suitable, items. In my opinion. 🗨 desoda (Talk | Contributions) 15:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Desoda: Thank you for your reply and revert. I am embarassed that I don't know what IW. I hope it's not something obvious, like "Interwebs". Thanks again. Trilotat (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just an abbriviation for interwiki. Sitelinks is what they're called now, I guess. Old habits… 🗨 desoda (Talk | Contributions) 00:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between Q191067, Q13442814 and Q18918145 and Q591041?[edit]

I'm trying to work out the differences between article (Q191067), scholarly article (Q13442814), academic journal article (Q18918145) and scientific publication (Q591041). So far I seem to see that the intention is:

academic journal article academic journal article (Q18918145) is a subset of
- scholarly article scholarly article (Q13442814); and
- a broader element 'scholarly work'
  - scholarly article scholarly article (Q13442814) is "usually" peer-reviewed and is a subset of:
  - scientific publication scientific publication (Q591041); and
  - article article (Q191067); and
  - two more generic elements 'scholarly work' and 'scientific literature'
    - article article (Q191067) is not necessarily peer-reviewed
    - scientific publication scientific publication (Q591041) is a subset of elements with broader meanings

So it seems like:

the closest to a regular peer-reviewed article is scholarly article (Q13442814);
academic journal article (Q18918145) is a subset of scholarly article (Q13442814), so academic journal article (Q18918145) should also be "usually" peer-reviewed - but this doesn't seem to be currently stated;
scientific publication scientific publication (Q591041) is likely to be non-peer-reviewed, but somehow still viewed as scientific (e.g. from the pre-peer-review epoch, like most of Einstein's papers?)

Is there a subcategory of scholarly article (Q13442814) that is definitely peer-reviewed? It can't currently be academic journal article (Q18918145) unless there's a decision that Q18918145 is intended to be for articles that are definitely peer-reviewed.

Is there an element for categorising predatory journal articles that are claimed to be peer-reviewed?

Boud (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC) (typo correction Boud (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

@Boud: en:Scientific literature has a good discussion of what "scientific publication" encompasses, and some of the subclassifications. If you think there's a need for a "peer reviewed scholarly article" and no existing item quite matches that then feel free to create one. However, it might be better to propose it as an orthogonal property - "peer review status" maybe? - so it could be applied to any scientific publication of whatever type. We do have peer review URL (P7347) already but that only helps if the reviews were actually made public. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArthurPSmith: the Wikipedia article en:Scientific literature seems fine overall, and I full agree that there is a huge range of nuances in what counts as scientific literature generically and scientific peer-reviewed journal articles more specifically. Whether we want all of the Venn diagram of different sub-/super-/overlapping categories in that article and sub-articles in Wikidata is a can of worms that I'm not volunteering to help with, sorry! en:Scientific journal gets closer to what I'm interested in. It adds to the Wikidata-level elements by adding scientific journal (Q5633421) to the list above, but that's probably OK. scientific journal (Q5633421) for a journal is a sub-class of scientific publication (Q591041). scholarly article (Q13442814) for an article is also a sub-class of scientific publication (Q591041). That makes sense because articles and the journals they are published in are both part of scientific publications.

peer review URL (P7347) is interesting for the (currently tiny number of) journals that either optionally or necessarily publish peer reviews.

I don't think that there would be much point having a "peer review status" property for individual research papers. A paper will only get a volume and page number in a "regular" peer-reviewed journal once it has been formally accepted. So if an article has a journal name + volume + page, then the peer-review question is really about whether the journal itself is peer-reviewed. While it's generally clear whether a journal's about and scope pages claim that the journal is peer-reviewed, whether it is really peer-reviewed or not, and how seriously that takes place, require external w:WP:RS for evidence. Boud (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah there are definitely issues with definition and validation regarding peer review. Maybe the best we can do is find external sources that do some sort of assessment on this? Having a Directory of Open Access Journals ID (P5115) for example is an indicator that could be meaningful like that. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]