Talk:Overload (magazine)

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

On peer-reviewed, magazine vs journal and potential conflict of interest[edit]

First of all, I shall say that I'm one of the contributors to Overload. Not sure if it puts me into position of conflict of interest, but I think it needs to be mentioned.

Now, about it being peer-reviewed. As a contributor, I know for sure it is indeed peer-reviewed (every article is sent by editor to several experts in the field), but this obviously doesn't count as reliable source. Still, as this is an internal practice nobody except for contributors and editors can possibly know for sure, the big question is "what can be a reliable source for this kind of information?" ACCU itself has indeed stated that "It relies on a team of advisors who work with authors to ensure that the articles are both clear and accurate.", which IMHO is very close to the definition of peer-reviewed, so I propose to re-instate "peer-reviewed" unless there are objections.

Similar question revolves around terminology "journal" vs "magazine". "Magazine" is defined as "generally financed by advertising, by a purchase price, by pre-paid magazine subscriptions, or all three.". In fact, Overload is not financed by advertising (quick look at it compared, say, to CUJ, should be enough to see it), not financed by a purchase price or price of subscription (it is available online for free), and is financed by membership fees of ACCU (in a very similar way to ACM and IEEE publications which, to the best of my knowledge, are usually recognized as 'journals'). On this basis, I propose to re-instate it as a "journal" (while there is no reliable proof, there is no reliable proof for 'magazine' too).

Ipsign (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure that this really constitutes "peer review" in the normal meaning of the term. Reading that editorial, it looks like every submission gets accepted, only that editors and "readers" help improve it before publication. The latter (the improving) is something that every newspaper or magazine does, too. As for reliable sources, almost any academic journal that I am aware of, mentions peer review (and the possibility of rejection) in their instructions for authors (or sometimes in the scope statement). As for how it is financed, as far as I can see it is paid from (part of the ACCU) membership fees, which can be regarded as subscription. But personally, I don't think the way of financing is very important in deciding whether this is an academic journal or not. I have taken a look at the last issue of Overload, and it definitely looks like a magazine to me, not a scientific publication at all. I don't see any reason to revert the move and think that the remark in the article about this magazine being a "peer-reviewed journal" should be removed. Meanwhile, I will post a notice on the WPJournals project talk page, to get the opinion of some more editors here. --Crusio (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at a recent issue, the cover of the issue states it is a magazine. The tone of the articles is clearly more like a magazine article than an academic review, although some do have references. I'm not familiar with computer literature, but it seems to me to most resemble Scientific American in type of article, which is classified as a magazine. If it is peer reviewed then, as Crusio writes, this is usually clearly stated in the instructions to authors. The statement "Overload publishes a high standard of articles about all aspects of software development. It relies on a team of advisors who work with authors to ensure that the articles are both clear and accurate." does not seem to me to constitute peer review in the usual use of the term. In my opinion "peer reviewed" should be definitely removed from the article, and it's probably most appropriate to refer to it as a magazine. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reached similar conclusions to those of Crusio and Espresso Addict. A peer reviewed publication, as the term is traditionally understood, usually has a place, at their website or in print or both, with instructions for authors wishing to contribute a paper; those instructions usually also mention something about the external refereeing procedures used. None of that is present here. There is no mention at all, at the ACCU's website or in the printed version of The overload of any instructions for submitting papers for publication or of the refereeing process used. Describing the publication as "peer reviewed" is inappropriate under these circumstances. Nsk92 (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree; if we take a look at definition of peer-reviewed as it is given by Wikipedia, we'll clearly see that peer-review as such has absolutely nothing to do with being "academic", but is only "self-regulation by a profession... involving qualified individuals with the related field", which is certainly present in Overload. For some (rather strange for me) reason, "peer-reviewed journal" is interpreted quite differently from "journal" which is subject to "peer-review", and while I'm not 100% sure if Overload qualifies as "peer-reviewed journal" (which seems to be the point of the comments above), IMO it clearly qualifies as "journal subject to peer review" (or "magazine subject to peer-review", though the latter would sound rather strange). If it would help to remove objections, I will certainly have no problems with replacing peer-reviewed journal with "journal subject to peer-review" or "journal with articles subject to peer-review". Ipsign (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia itself is not a WP:RS and we are not under any particular obligation to follow the specific definition that the peer-review article uses, or at least I don't see a reason to follow the most generous and vague interpretation of that term. On the contrary, in case of relying on a primary ref (the journal's description of itself), one must follow the most conservative and strict interpretation of any such term, per the WP:SELFPUB mandate that for claims sourced to self-published sources "the material is not unduly self-serving". The term "peer-reviewed" when made by a journal about itself, is certainly self-promotional. Thus, in cases of relying on a primary source, the "peer-reviewed" description should only be used in pretty clear-cut cases, when there is a direct (rather than inferred) claim of being peer-reviewed at the journal's website and when there is no particular reason to doubt it. In cases of doubt and other types of fuzzy situations, like this one, a secondary source must be provided to justify the "peer-reviewed" designation. Nsk92 (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While Wikipedia might be not a reliable source, I would expect it to keep internal consistency and to reflect consensus. As (as it seems from this discussion) there is a consensus that "peer-review" should *always* be understood as "academic peer-review", then it should call for rewriting of the article on peer-review, shouldn't it? Would be perfectly fine with me, especially as it would eliminate rather strange inconsistency between "peer-reviewed journal" and "peer-reviewed journal". Ipsign (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: about financing: sure, it is covered by membership fees, but in this regard, as I've said, it is not different from any ACM or IEEE publication; for example, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering is mostly covered by IEEE membership fees, but is clearly mentioned (and widely accepted) as a 'journal' (among the very top in the field). About articles in last issue (#82): I've checked and found that *all* articles there have references, though style indeed varies. Ipsign (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the issue of financing is particularly relevant - many, if not most, academic journals are financed by subscription fees, and there is no problem with that. However, "journal" is another fuzzy term, whose meaning is really only well defined in the case of an academic journal - a peer-reviewed scholarly publication in which research in a particular academic discipline is published. The Overload, fairly clearly, isn't that, so it should not be described as a "journal" - a "magazine" is much more appropriate here. Nsk92 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I will separately ask guys from Overload to clarify their policies about articles (I certainly agree it is a good thing for them to clarify their policies regardless of Wikipedia, and agree they're not clear now). I hope it does not violate any Wikipedia policies (just to make it clear: I'm neither an editor, nor I'm mentioned on this page in any other capacity). My objective is to give as accurate as possible description to Overload, and my subjective feeling is that "computer magazine" (which causes immediate associations with things like PC Mag) is not the best way to describe it; if answering the question "what is 'Overload' is closer to: PC Mag or IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering?", I would definitely say it's *much* closer to "IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering". Even if I need to choose which of Scientific American and IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering Overload is closer to, I'd certainly say Overload is closer to "IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering". Ipsign (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Overload 98, this is clearly a professional magazine, and not an academic journals. This in no way implies that content is of low-quality, or not reviewed by peers (however the process does not sound like formal academic peer review, but rather like requests for opinions from colleagues and other professionals), but the scope of the journal does not focus on academic interests (compare with Journal of Computer and System Sciences for example). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that a description for this publication is magazine or professional magazine. As stated earlier, financing is not a concern as it appears to be common practice for academic journals to charge a subscription, unless it is an "open-access" journal. However, based on the available ACCU description I am not seeing "peer review". As stated above, an academic journal is usually very clear about its peer review process. In addition, a journal's description of its peer review process is clearly recognizable. The description given at the ACCU is hazy or fuzzy at best, but personally, I do not think it indicates a peer review process. Without a peer review process this cannot qualify as an academic journal. As Headbomb pointed out, it may be reviewed by peers and is of high quality, but it does not appear to be a formal academic peer review. It might even be described as a "professional-technical" magazine. Here is an article about an actual peer reviewed magazine Computer (magazine), from the IEEE Computer Society. Here is an online description of the magazine [1], and notice that "peer-reviewed" is part of the description along with its coverage. Here is a paragraph description of the review process as part of the author guidelines; [2]. Instructions for reviewers of this magazine are given here; [3]. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the aforementioned "IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering" here is an online description of the academic journal [4]. Notice in the above navigation bar there is a navigation tab entitled "Instructions for Peer Review". This indicates "peer review" right away. On this page [5] various links (Editor-in-Chief Center, Author Center, etc., etc.) lead to descriptions of the formal peer review process. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being hopelessly outnumbered, I will not continue this argument now (except for a point not directly related to this article), but I hope it should be ok to re-start this discussion if/when ACCU/Overload will clarify their policies on review. Also I hope that describing it as 'professional computer magazine' will not cause that much debate. Ipsign (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On link to BibTex[edit]

Is there a reason why this link cannot be restored as an external link: BibTeX Bibliography of C Vu and Overload journal articles? I feel it would be quite useful addition for those interested in full bibliography of the Overload in one place in a standard format (and no, I'm not owning that site nor affiliated with the author). Ipsign (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]