Jump to content

Talk:Science Citation Index Expanded

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Missing source?

[edit]

The postulate that it was launched in 1964 is not backed up by sources. I believe it was 1963.

Speedy deletion?????

[edit]

This artilce was marked as speedy deletion. I don't know why. If it is a stub, it can be added a template of stub. Many versions of Wikipedia have this article. I don't see any reason to put it into speedy deletion. At least it can be a redirect page. --Neo-Jay 12:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

expanded a little

[edit]

I have just upgraded it, and plan to upgrade further. There is a considerable degree of overlap between the articles on ISI, WOK, WOS, SCI, Citation Index, Garfield, JCR, impact factor, citation impact etc etc I could see having the SCI, SSCI, A&HCI pages reduced to paragraphs on WoS, but I suspect there would be some confusion, because WoS is so easily confused with WoK, and WoK includes 20 or so databases. though the articles are short, I think it best to leave them in, as these will be the names that are generally known, & the reader should not have to figure out the relationships to get to a description.

In any case, it is no longer marked for speedy deletion. DGG 02:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. --Neo-Jay 04:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Partial update. I will add the history, which is interesting, but it is a question how much detail on use should be give--I've know people to object when I do, and when I don't. DGG 22:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional page

[edit]

So far, essentially just a promotional page, with almost all notes linking to thomson reuter or related sites.--78.15.203.60 (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction/lead

[edit]

Does anyone mind if I shorten the introduction by repositioning the second paragraph to the body? The article is very bare and the introduction is as big as the article. Maybe a little bigger. GBFEE (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know there's probably not a lot more to say about the index, so I'm not saying we should aim to fill out the article. GBFEE (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with repositioning the second paragraph into the body.---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this[1] okay? Should a different name for the section be used? Also, I found that I was torn on whether "Neuroscience Citation Index" and the "Chemistry Citation Index" should remain in the introduction. GBFEE (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Web of Science?

[edit]

If this index is part of Web of Science, why not merge the two articles together? (I won't formally propose a merger because I may just be missing something.) ScienceFlyer (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]