This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
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
That the journal is peer reviewed has been added to the lede sentence; I omitted it originally as I did not notice this being stated on the journal pages. Is there support for this assertion? Also, I referenced factual claims to different parts of the T&F website; these have been removed. Is there some reason not to include references that support the statements made? The journal itself is a reliable source for information on its aims, the identity of its editors, and the places it is abstracted / indexed, surely? EdChem (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Instructions for Authors says "By submitting your paper to International Journal of Aviation Psychology you are agreeing to any necessary originality checks your paper may have to undergo during the peer review and production processes." I removed those references: Information that can easily be found on a journal's homepage should not be used to create multiple (seemingly different) references, because excessive linking to a journal's homepage could be construed as spam/promotional. Hence I have made it a habit to remove such references, to avoid problems with overzealous spam-fighters. For a short, stub-like article like this, not every word needs to be sourced, as it will be clear that the information comes from the journal's website. By the way, you were right about the copyvio without the quotation marks. I overlooked the fact that this text came verbatim from the website. Again, that is something that I normally try to avoid, because it often unwittingly introduces promotional language (as in the present case, the addition of the words "safe, effective "). Perhaps it would be better to re-word this as follows: "covering research on aviation systems, mostly from an applied psychological point of view, but including aspects pertaining to engineering and computer science, education, and physiology." --Randykitty (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I missed that comment in the Instructions for Authors. Re the references, I prefer to indicate where I sourced information but I recognise the argument about it being possible to construe as promotional. I also prefer to have the aims in the journals own words and am not disturbed by "safe" and "effective" but I deliberately didn't quote the "Four divergent academic disciplines contribute heavily to its contents, making it truly interdisciplinary in nature and scope" bit because that is unencyclopedically promotional. I'm not sure about "mostly" in your wording. EdChem (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Perhaps better to omit "mostly" completely. --Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leave out "mostly" and your statement asserts that everything is from an applied psychological point of view. The journal's aims speak of "the development and management of safe, effective aviation systems from the standpoint of the human operators." Developing and evaluating and then educating humans about novel aviation systems need not be reported from such a point of view. EdChem (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it is false. As far as I see, the journal is about the development of aviation systems and the "human point of view" is the applied psychology angle. As with all psychology, from time to time, they'll use data from, say, physiology (mostly sensory physiology, I would think - something like "this contrast is below the detection threshold of human eyes" or "talking on a cell phone will distract a pilot" :-). The "education" angle will be mostly (or even exclusively) about pilot training, again using applied psychology ("how best to train pilots"). If I look at the tables of contents, I indeed see only articles that are obviously (applied) psychological in nature. The other fields are really very secondary (I did not see, for example, a single article dealing mainly with engineering or computer science questions). Journals will often argue that they are broader than they are because, for some reason that completely escapes me, they seem to think that calling themselves "interdisciplinary" or "multidisciplinary" makes their journal more attractive. --Randykitty (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A study of the human's use of heads-up displays using sensors to track eye movements, focus time and location, etc, would be within the journal's scope but not applied psychology - it might address where the line is between effective adjunct and distraction, for example. Your opinion (or mine) on categorising the journal and its content is irrelevant as OR, the direct statement of aims is unambiguous. If the "safe, effective" bit really bothers you, we could add an ellipsis: "the development and management of ... aviation systems from the standpoint of the human operators." EdChem (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends on how you read what the journal says (and I include into that the journal's title). And the kind of research that you describe, although having a clear sensory physiological component, is still applied psychology to me (AP includes studies of attention and such, for example). Anyway, I can live with the current text, we should not spend so much time on a minor issue like this when there is so much more to do in WP Journals... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
