Talk:Confluence (journal)

Peer review

At the moment I can't determine if this journal is actually peer reviewed as an academic journal. There may be some author to editor process, as with a commercial publishing house, except with university editors. There is a list of "Editorial Reviewers", but there is nothing that says in what capacity they are connected to their respective universities. Some of these could be graduate students. Nothing says they are faculty, and nothing says what their job is in a peer review process. Also, there is no description of a peer review process. Although the title says "journal" I think this is merely a college magazine. Even community colleges have these.----Steve Quinn (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also what is interdisciplinary about it? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The title of the journal is "Confluence: The academic journal of graduate liberal studies programs."Typically publications from university press' stipulate magazine vs. journal. I guess you are not familair with interdisciplinary studies. Liberal studies is a field that incorporates various academic disciplines, cross-cuts departments and seeks to find ways to blend multiple academic fields. There's more information out there, colleges like Dartmouth, Duke and Georgetown have had Liberal Studies programs for years. Moreover, the Association for Graduate Liberal Studies Programs is the agency comprised of representatives from these colleges. Confluence is the official academic journal of the program in the U.S., sponsored by AGLSP. What is "interdisciplinary about it?". Did you read the description? It publishes fiction, nonfiction, research and other pieces written by faculty and alumni. College magazines are published by one college, usually by one dept. That's not the case with this journal. Since Liberal Studies is the program it represents, it would follow that the journal would represent this field, right? It's not a large journal guys, so don't expect to see a large board of editorial reviewers such as in JAMA. There's a list of the editorial board on the AGLSP sight. BUt it is a bonafide journal, not a magazine, and in the spirit of maintaining what WP is about, that is spreading the knowledge, I think it would be best to discuss concerns here on the talk apge before making assumptions and deleting articles. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is best to discuss concerns here on the talk page before making assumptions and deleting articles. At the moment, I think this journal can demonstrate notability because of the list of institutions directly involved with this publication. So I don't see a necessity to request deletion.

However, the term peer reviewed journal may have to be changed. We can get into a discussion of what I am talking about later. Hopefully other editors will get involved with this conversation. It may be reviewed by peers, but that is different from a peer review process such as occurs with peer reviewed, scientific journals. That can be put on the back burner for now. At the moment I am simply trying to help establish notability. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources

None of the three descriptions of the journal [1], [2], say it is peer reviewed , nor do they say or imply it is an academic journal. Hence, these descriptions cannot be used in the article. The three descriptions do say it is an interdisciplinary journal, and this can be used in the article.

The PDF reference from Dartmouth can be used only to underline that this is an interdisciplinary journal. This is because the only reference to Confluence is the following:

Ian Isherwood ’06 published an article on Confederate memorials at Gettysburg titled “Monumental Fallacy: Memorials to the Lost Cause at Gettysburg” in Confluence: The Graduate Journal of Liberal Studies. The newsletter does demonstrate the diversity and interdisciplinary nature of a liberal studies background, and that may be useful.

Anyway, I hope you understand why it is necessary to alter the description of this journal in the article. In any case, I rewrote the description and added an infobox. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The article looks better now and your work is appreciated. In terms of the peer review issue, I do not not what criteria you need for this journal to fulfill this criteria. I'll do my best to find some sources that will help. There's a large editorial board listed (equipped with experts in diverse academic fields), and at least one description I have read states manuscripts are processed according to this procedure. However, it's obviously not a scientific journal, so any hope that research published in the journal is peer-reviewed in the same sense it is in JAMA is unreasonable. Then again, the journal doesn't publish just science. Since it is interdisciplinary, there are many academic disciplines represented in each issue. Thus, the large board of editorial reviewers on the board from various institutions. From what I understand "peer-review" can include only two scholars in smaller publications but can also be much larger.

That being said, I do feel that the "academic journal" piece should stay. What seems to make this journal interesting and unique is the fact it is not rooted in one discipline. There's original research, book reviews, fiction, and review articles. Seems like academic journal content to me. Moreover, the definition of academic journal on WP pertains to journals that publish scholarship in one discipline only, and as I mentioned before I think that is short sighted. I would think that a journal can be both academic and interdisciplinary. Perhaps this is a rare case, and if it is, even more reason to make sure it is faithfully represented in a project (that often is mired in bureaucratic quibbles, hair-splitting arguments and juvenile temper tantrums) who's purpose is to share knowledge. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally, WikiProject Academic Journals, recently had a similar discussion regarding peer review for an article on another publication. The peer review process is made obivous by a publication that has one. That is not the case with this journal. Anyway, we can get into a more in-depth discussion in a moment, and you will see the criteria involved with peer review. Just to be clear I had no intention of viewing this as a scientific journal. Since (as you say) JAMA is interdisciplinary this will probably be a good example of what is involved.

On another note: I don't think there is a limit on the number of scholars or editors involved with the peer review process. I was reading about a fairly notable journal last night (Acadiensis) , with this journal, Confluence, in mind . That particular journal falls within the scope of liberal studies (the focus is history). Several anonymous readers (independent reviewers) are involved with the actual peer review. which is then handed off to a journal editor who summarizes the reviewer's comments and communicates this to the author of the submitted work. The process is here. Another attribute which seperates Acadiensis from Confluence, as an academic journal, is that it is indexed in Thomson Reuters' Arts & Humanities Citation Index and Current Contents -Arts & Humanities (index). It is listed here, and here at Thomson Reuters.

There are many journal articles on Wikipedia that decribe the interdisciplinary scope of said journal.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

My 2c on this say Steve Quinn is correct. I saw no evidence of a peer review process for this journal. The process might be called "editorial review", and could be described on the article's body if properly sourced, but does not belong in the lead. --Muhandes (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

JAMA

With JAMA peer reviewed is in the first line of the description, here [3]. It is obvious. There is no mystery here, as with "Confluence". Here is an overview of JAMA's review process [4], and here [5]. Also, peer review is a weighing factor for notability.

Another factor (notability) is that this journal has an impact factor (28.9), and it is very discriminating regarding the aritcles that are accepted for publication. JAMA has a very high bar - "JAMA's acceptance rate is approximately 9% of the nearly 6000 solicited and unsolicited manuscripts it receives annually..." In the Editorial Review and Publication section, again, the acceptance rate of 9% is stated [6].

Finally, JAMA is indexed in Science Citation Index, Current Contents / Clinical Medicine, Current Contents / Life Sciences, and BIOSIS Previews [7].---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability

It appears that I am unable to establish notability for this journal. I think it will not make the cut. Would you consider merging this into another (notable) article? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I looked up Confluence at a few of the colleges on the list (of colleges invloved) and there is no notable content regarding this journal at the sites I looked at. You might want to go through the entire list and see if something useful turns up. It would have to be more than a blurb saying articles from this program can be published in this journal. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think a merge sould be a good idea. Perhaps we can list it as a journal. On one hand, you mentioned that the publication can demonstrate notability because of the multitude of institutions affiliated with it. There are literally dozens of major universities that contribute scholarly material to this journal, including the likies of Duke, Johns Hopkins, Dartmouth and Georgetown. Now, the issue seems to be if it is peer-reviewed or not. If it is, then it fulfills the criteria of notability. If not, it will be axed. You know, it's interesting that just the other night I was perusing at least six pages on WP, whereupon an article about a "literary journal" went on to describe the publication. Not one of these "journals" had fulfilled any said criteria of notability, only two had sources, and the bulk were published electronically with no listed editor. Yet, they've been up for years. I guess what I am saying is that perhaps Confluence isn't peer reviewed. If you are judging it by the standards that a peer in the field of scholarship reviews the work anonymously, then it does. But of course the definition is a nebulous one as evidenced by the article peer review. I don't even see a consensus there.

And I was not comparing this journal with JAMA. I apologize if I wasn't clear. Please understand interdisciplinary studies and those published in JAMA. Perhaps it is difficult to understand if looking at it only from a scientific field. The journal you described, while purporting to encourage various approaches to history, is not within the same scope of Confluence. That journal is devoted to Atlantic studies. There's a limit right there on the material. Confluence, as the description states, encourages publications that are from all areas of academia, regardless of region or discipline.

Is interdisciplinary studies represented on WP? I don't think so. Can publications like Confluence help build the web? I think so. Can it demonstrate notability? Perhaps, but let's work together.

Jimsteele9999 (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Jim, to see what is needed to make a journal notable, see WP:Notability (academic journals) (but note that many editors here find that essay too "soft" and ask more). On WP, we use "journal" to mean "academic journal". I don't know of any example where a periodical was accepted to be an academic journal without being peer-reviewed. If it is not reviewed, we class it as a magazine. In any case, whether academic journal or magazine, much more than being peer-reviewed is needed to be notable. I understand your concern about other articles being around that seem to meet the criteria even less. Well, WP has millions of articles and it is unavoidable that there will be articles that do not adhere to the applicable guidelines and policies and should not be here (or at least not in that particular form). See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or, less reverently, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) for a discussion of this argument. Eventually, one would hope, those articles will be taken care of, too. --Crusio (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Literary journals

I hate to say it, but "Confluence" is looking more like a literary magazine. However, no matter how it is categorized, it still has the title of a journal. In any case, the catch is notablity. Regarding other journals:

I have come across the category "Literary journals". I looked at just at some of the articles there, some claim peer review (Start with the letter A), another claimed academic journal, which I rewrote, because it is a "Literary Journal" (see:American Literature (journal). I don't see this as an academic journal, as it is described over and over while working on articles within this project. However, this particlular journal is indexed in a number of databases (which I added). It has a list containing citations for 50, of its most frequently cited papers here: [8]. The indexing and the citing of its articles make a very strong case for its notablilty. In fact, for me, this is a slam dunk.

I am not saying that someone doesn't need to go through this category, and do rewrites and reccomendations. However, let's look at another example of an article that needs a rewrite, American Literary History. It claims to be peer reviewed. However, nothing in its description [9] says it is peer reviewed. Author guidelines are often a good place to see if there is a peer review process. So looking at "Information for authors" [10] I see that there is nothing describing a peer review process. Therefore this will have to be taken out of the aritcle. On this page there is, however, an excellent description of this journal's scope. The scope appears interdisciplinary. Regarding the description of the journal in the Wikipedia article, I would change "academic journal" to "literary history" journal. Going back, once more to this journal's first general description again [11] I see that it is indexed in a number of databases.

Here is an article I authored within the last day Modern Language Quarterly. It is a literary history journal. Hopefully these examples are helpful. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

Here is a link for its most cited full text articles: [12]. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Perusals

Regarding the articles that you perused, if you wish you can pass the titles (that you can recall) on to me. I will look into them to see if I can ferret out relevant information external to the Wikipedia article. I can re-write or reccomend them for AfD, whichever is appropriate.Steve Quinn (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Also with the types of articles that you were looking at, don't take them at face value. More than likely other editors have checked out these journals external to Wikipedia, and determined their notability, or were relying on references derived from the article. It just means the article needs further expansion - and the journal is probably notable. Not everyone comes back and completes the article he or she started. They get distracted? or move on to other things. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Universities

The "dozens" of universities do not necessarily contribute to this joural. The few sites I looked at only mentioned this journal as place to possibly publish work. I don't see this journal as a focus of these institutions. I thought it would be, but this seems to be outside their purveiw. I am willing to be proven wrong, in the hope that something notable turns up. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The editorial review board here [13] lists scholars from various institutions. Perhaps this was what you were referring to initially when you said Confluence would meet notability based on the fact it is affiliated with so many institutions. If not, then certainly there are more listed via AGLSP. Crusio, you mentioned being included in the library of congress has no bearing on notability, because the LOC catalogues "everything". If by that you mean there is no selection criteria you are wrong. I think particularly with budegts the way they are, the "inclusiveness" you mentioned takes a back seat to concerns over time, space and money. See [14]

One of the problems is when discussing this with editors whom are rooted in science is that there's only one perspective here. And saying that I acknowledge your proficiency in the process here at WP, but just how much experience in interdisciplinary studies do you have? The fact so many universities are affiliated with it, that nationally scholars contribute bonafide material to it, and that an international academic agency sponsors it all attests to the interdisciplinary nature of it. I do think it was interesting that the bulk of the databases you said Confluence should show up center on science-based articles. Once again, it shows how the many notable academic publications based in the humanities are under-represented in academia, particularly when their publications do not solicit research dollars often associated with scientific journals. It is hard to see the trees when you are always calcualting the area of the forest.

If classification as a literary magazine is apt, so be it. I'd like some time to find some more sources, access some materials, before that, but if that helps us discuss one less here, then...once more unto the breeches we go.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest soliciting the opinion of User:DGG. He a retired (academic) librarian with a vast knowledge of all kinds of journals. --Crusio (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

1. The people on the editorial board are there as individuals, not representatives of their institutions. The wide variety of institutions does show that this is not merely a journal devoted to publishing the output of a single academic program. This is not a determinative factor in notability, but it is relevant among other indications.
2. The journal is not peer-reviewed, but reviewed by a small board of reviewers. (A very large board can be the equivalent of peer-review if the specialties are covered--there is no hard and fast distinction. Having a pre-established board is a common older practice, still often used in the humanities.) Looking at this editorial board, I see that some, like Easterson, ere primarily creative artists or writers, some, like Gillis, are academic scholars, some, like Rivers, are primarily educators, and some, like Starosta, are rather hard to classify. The same goes for the contents: It is not primarily a literary journal, at least as present--there is only a small amount of fiction and poetry. Judging by their titles, the articles are some of them conventional scholarship, some considerably broader and impressionistic. Looking at Google Scholar to see where it is cited, some of the articles are certainly cited in conventional peer-reviewed journals, but none of them very heavily; others are clearly not amenable to academic citation.
3. Publications do not necessarily fall into neat categories, and I do not know exactly what to call it in terms of the usual designations: it's a hybrid, and clearly from the editorial statement are intended to be such--they call it "interdisciplinary journal dedicated to the publication of scholarly works". Academic journal and academic magazine are both appropriate; Literary magazine and Peer-reviewed journal are both not.
4. A solution to the question of what to call it occurred to me in searching, and I did accordingly. There are over 100 periodical publications with the name Confluence in their titles, many simply named Confluence. They cover a wide range of subjects and originating countries. The full title of this publication is "Confluence : the journal of graduate liberal studies." I have changed the article title to that.
5. A small but respectable number of libraries seem to hold it for a journal of this type. I think it's borderline notable. It's well-established, non-trivial, and not junk, unlike some of the totally non-notable new online-only journals we've been recently getting articles on. I'm prepared to stretch things a little for publications of this sort, where there are no really set definitions and characteristics, and also for articles on areas where we have very little coverage. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

DGG, excellent work. Thank you for doing this and putting in the time to do it. I also want to point out that the title of this article now has a period at the end of it, after the page move.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

DGG, I concur. Particularly with 4 and 5. Much time was spent attempting to compartimentalize this journal, and while I understand this is important for the purpose of catagories I don't think lack of a label means an informative, sourced article ought to be axed. Moreover, I don't see one journal nor academic magazine on WP devoted to liberal studies besides this one, and if it wasn't a bonafide academic publication then we wouldn't be at this point now. The redirect is also a welcomed change. I think that takes care of the notability issue so these tags can go away, if others are in agreement.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• As so often, I'm a bit more stringent than DGG and think that this is just on the wrong side of the notability threshold. Having said this, I also agree with him that this is a decent article, not promotional or something like that, and we should be flexible if anything, so I don't mind this staying and removing the notability tags. --Crusio (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• As per DGG some of the articles are cited in conventional peer-reviewed journals (even if not very heavily), academic journal and academic magazine are both appropriate, it appears to be borderline notable, and most important for me - it is well-established, non-trivial, and not junk. This publication has been hard to define, and perhaps some of its characteristics fall outside what I normally deal with on this project. After DGG's assessment I realize this is the most unique journal I have come across, and it is an area where we have very little coverage. Having summarized all that I say keep the article and remove the notability tags. If I may blow my own horn - I must have picked up on this publication's notable "flavor" in the beginning, because I did say it appears notable, because of the list of institutions. And it appears to have turned out that way, even if for more reasons than I foresaw (toot! toot!). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A tale of two examples

Two examples of interdisciplinary liberal studies journals:

(One of these will end up on Wikipedia, the other one is already on Wikipedia)

First, liberal studies (liberal arts) in "modern colleges and universities include the study of literature, languages, philosophy, history, mathematics, and science" [15].

Second, the aforementioned journal "Acadiensis" (the study of Atlantic Canada) covers the following topics: history, geography, political science, folklore, literature, sociology, economics and other areas [16]. Although it concentrates on a geographical region it nevertheless cuts across disciplines, and is therefore interdisciplinary - just what you have been talking about.

Third, American Literary History invites "interdisciplinary studies from related fields " [17]. It also appears to be interdisciplinary in scope: social, economic, and political aims; literary change (literature history); defining genres (more than one genre); periodicity (temporal diversity).

Also this journal covers: [18](related) gender studies, ethnic issues, native American issues, the reading process, reception, American criticism; interdisciplinary approaches. Also it covers the linguistic, hermeneutics, and meta-critical inquiries that American literary study raises. The journal also welcomes articles from other disciplines...

Finally, there are interdisciplinary science journals. So "interdisciplinary" is not exclusive liberal studies.

---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The difference between those, of course, and Confluence, is that the former (while interdisciplinary in scope) are rooted in one area, while the latter has more breadth then all of the examples provided so far. I'm not being difficult here (at least not on purpose)--it's just a fact not one of the examples of other journals invites poetry, fiction, research and book reviews on any scholarly topic. From what the description (mission) of Confluence states, and the publications prove, there are no constraints such as region (e.g. America) or field (e.g. History). I saw one past issue included fiction, a piece on computer science, a book review pertaining to General Robert E. Lee and medical advancement in Japan.

Yes, I know there are science journals that are interdisciplinary. But having a journal devoted to chemical engineering that accepts articles on the history of germ warfare is still a journal devoted to science.

I'm not saying your examples aren't interdisciplinary. But I am saying the journals, while cross-cutting disciplines, are rooted in one academic discipline. Being rooted in liberal studies makes Confluence a genuine interdisciplinary publication (from the standpoint of a liberal studies program) and a unique case. But you're right, the scope, unlike those venerable ones like JAMA is not as tethered to one field. Perhaps that is what helps many of the other journals become easily catagorized. And perhaps that is one of the reasons it is difficult to catagorize Confluence. But this encyclopedia is about sharing knowledge, knowledge that is verified and notable. I think the Confluence, as a journal, magazine, university publication or whatever is decided stands as a bonafide addition that's notable. In terms of the other articles I perused, I will be sure to note them and give you the names. But for now I'd like to continue to improve this article. I'm not a great multi-tasker, and my proficiency as an editor leaves much to be desired. But I think this page looks a lot better and is in much better shape then before, much thanks to all above for the work done so far...Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Databases

The three aforementioned literature journals (arguably liberal studies) list indexing in databases, which index journals outside of science. In particular the Thomoson Reuters databases that are listed are not science journal indexes. If you look at the listed indexes in in Modern Language Quarterly , and American Literature (journal) , you will see just from the titles that these databases (when combined) cut across all disciplines. Also, if you get to read the descriptions of a number of the databases you will see this is so. This also applies to American Literary History, but you have to go online at the moment to see the indexing. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Confluence: The Journal of Graduate Liberal Studies. 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/20100825235906/http://www.aglsp.org/services-1.html to http://www.aglsp.org/services-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008065523/http://www.confluence.ou.edu/about.html to http://www.confluence.ou.edu/about.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)