CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry

journal

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionFeb 6, 2025
Entity authorityQ3428521 ↗
Source-derived summary

Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry is the official review journal of the Mineralogical Society of America and The Geochemical Society. It was established in 1974 as Mineralogical Society of America Short Course Notes and renamed to Reviews in Mineralogy in 1980. It obtained its present name in 2000.

Abstracting and indexing

The journal is abstracted and indexed in GeoRef, Scopus, and Science Citation Index Expanded.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry” as journal. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Reviews, Mineralogy and Geochemistry.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1974, 1980, 2000—that can be checked directly. The linked authority record independently contributes the date 1974-01-01. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Reviews, Mineralogy and Geochemistry providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry”, the useful work is to connect “journal” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Feb 6, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q3428521. 4 of 4 selected statements include explicit references; 1 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1974, 1980 and 2000.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry primary sources, Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry archive and Reviews research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.