Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Global Health (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Global Health

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journal. Recently restored after having been deleted at AfD about a year ago. Article claims that the journal is included in PubMed, Web of Knowledge, an EBSCO database, and CINAHL. PubMed indexation is automatic for any open access journal included in PubMed Central and therefore not selective. According to the coverage lists for the Web of Science and CINAHL, the journal is not included in those databases. EBSCO databases are not very selective and "EBSCO Health Policy Reference Center" is only a minor one. Therefore, this still does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG: no independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Randykitty for taking the time to explain. I am looking for evidence for the Web of Science and CINAHL indexing. If that evidence is found (as in an online link like the ones that you have presented) would that mean that the journal is notable enough? I read the notability guidelines and I understand that it may not be notable enough anyway - but I wanted just to double check with you. Also - how long before this article gets deleted? e-korax (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs get closed after 7 days (if a consensus has emerged), so there are still 5 days to go. WoS would be perfect as evidence, Scopus is good, too. I'm not sure whether indexing in CINAHL alone would be considered enough evidence of notability (I mentioned it above because it was mentioned in the article). --Randykitty (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randykitty. In your first point you mention that "PubMed indexation is automatic for any open access journal included in PubMed Central and therefore not selective". In the NML catalogue FAQ however mentions that only 20-25% of the reviewed journals are selected for indexation (FAQ: Journal Selection for MEDLINE® Indexing at NLM). Does that change your view on this point?e-korax (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the criteria that you mention are for inclusion in MEDLINE, not PubMed Central. MEDLINE is indeed selective and evidence of notability, but unfortunately, this journal is included in the non-selective PMC, but not in MEDLINE. --Randykitty (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I see. I was hoping that other users would have helped by now in editing this article. I don't think I have any more information to add and as it looks my information may not be 100% correct sometimes. Based on the notability criteria I agree that we should delete it. I will try adding it back when hard evidence of inclusion on selective databases is found and when it gains impact factor. Thanks for all the help.e-korax (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thank you for relisting, I somehow missed the first listing of this. I am loath to delete the article as the journal is relatively new, it is published by a respected educational institution with a worldwide reputation (U. of Edinburgh), has on its editorial board scholars from a number of developing countries, and publishes medical-related articles written by scholars from a number of developing countries. These facts make the journal rather unique and valuable. I understand the concerns about information contained in the article that may be erroneous, but this calls for editing, not deletion. WP:NJournals does not call for any specific indexing source in the notability criteria. The journal does meet the criterion: "the journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources". Google scholar turns up citations of articles from this journal in the National Institute for Health databases, including the National Center for Biotechnology Information database; Lancet; PLOS Medicine; the Central Asian Journal of Global Health; the Journal of Global Health Care Systems; International Journal of Global Health and Health Disparities; and others including citations in published books. This makes the article pertinent to our readers. Meclee (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, but you completely misinterpret WP:NJournals. When we talk at AfD about notability of just one single academic, we require hundreds if not thousands of citations to establish notability. A handful of citations to a complete journal therefore does not make it notable (otherwise we could just stop having AfDs for academic journals at all, because all but the absolutely newest of them will have at least some citations to them). Being new is not a reason to keep a journal either: as we cannot predict how it will fare in the future. NJournals, contrary to what you say, does call for specific indexing criteria, namely being indexed in selective, major databases. (That excludes GS, by the way, because although it is major, it is absolutely not selective). --Randykitty (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The newness of the journal was only one rationale given, linked with the reputation of the publisher and the editorial board. Being indexed in selective, major databases is only a measure for Criterion 1. The argument is for inclusion under Criterion 3. GS is not being used as an index, but to count citations, of which there are hundreds (221), I only listed a handful. Since it is a new journal (2011), one could not expect thousands of citations. Meclee (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When talking about a journal, to me 221 citations is a "handful"... Article creation is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An impressive new journal in an important scientific field. The University of Edinburgh is a leading public health research center. The journal's editorial board, including regional editors from around the world is quite impressive. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but notability is not inherited. In these discussions we have never given any weight to who is or is not on an editorial board for that reason. Whether we think this journal is impressive or not is also immaterial. What is material is the fact that there is an absolute absence of independent sources and that the journal is not included in any selective database. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute insistence that inclusion in a selective indexing database is the primary criterion for notability seems quite contrary to WP:NJournals. The citations I'm referencing are citations of articles in the journal, not the "complete journal" (to which there are over 37K citations); 221 citations of articles in the journal seems very good for a journal less than 2 years old. Is the major problem that the journal is electronic? It also has a print ISBN, though most libraries will not carry a print copy where an electronic copy is available. Electronic journals have become well accepted in most academic circles, now.Meclee (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comments have nothing to do with the journal being electronic only, as yous ay, many journals nowadays are electronic only and more and more journals are abandoning print. However, I'm afraid you're misinterpreting the GS search results. I get 228 "hits". Those are items published in this journal (and journals with similar names, such as the Journal of Global Health Care Systems). The number of citations, though, is MUCH lower. As far as I can see, there are less than 10 articles that have been cited even once, 1 article cited twice, and 1 article cited three times. Even for a journal that has been around for only 2 years, that is pretty abysmal. Many new journals get into the Journal Citation Reports in their first year of publication and then start with an impact factor of 2 or 3 (meaning that in the mean, every article they published has been cited 2 or 3 times). Having 221 GS hits is just a function of how many items the journal (and those with similar names) have published, but it doesn't say anything about the impact that those items have made. So to get back to NJournals, you are right that inclusion in selective databases is not the only way that a journal can get notable, but this one does not meet any of the criteria in NJournals and doesn't have any independent sources, so it doesn't meet WP:GNG either. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that you can start in Journal Citation Reports with an impact factor, because you need to be 2 years in WoS to get the official impact factor. e-korax (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that normally an IF is calculated over 2 years. However, it is a common misconception that this means that journals have to wait 3.5 years (2 years of publication data, one year for the citations to be counted, half a year until those get published) before they get an IF. Some journals get included in JCR after just 1 year and obtain an IF the next year, based on 1 year of citation data only. To name just one example: Genes, Brain and Behavior, established in 2002. If you have back access to the JCR you can see this. My access goes back to the 2004 JCR (published 2005). If you search for this journal, you'll see that it has an IF of 3.846. If you clikc on "impact factor trend", you will see that it had a 2003 IF of 2.864. Scroll down to the calculation, and you'll see that this is based on citation in 2003 to articles published in 2002, whereas for citations in 2003 to articles published in 2001 you'll see 0 citations and 0 items published. There are more examples of course, but one is enough to demonstrate the principle. In the mean, this new journal's articles got cited almost 3 times within a year of being established. --Randykitty (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no prejudice to recreation once it is listed in selective abstracting databases, such as Medline. As the nominator notes the journal does not appear to be abstracted by CINAHL or Web of Science. New journals can attain notability very quickly but it's the exception not the rule; many fold after a few issues. This has only published 4 issues so far. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.