Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Spine Surgery (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. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Spine Surgery[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Other than the journal's own self-proclaiming of being peer-reviewed, no other sourcing indicating it is. Being from a publisher notorious for producing non-peered reviewed publications, not sure this passes notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any reliable sources not affiliated with the publishing company, and being listed in PubMed along with tens of thousands of other journals is not an indication of notability (trivial mention only). There is also no impact factor for this journal in this list, which in accordance with WP:JOURNALCRIT, strongly suggests that this journal is not frequently cited and is not influential. Hence, the lack of citations and mentions means that WP:GNG is also not fulfilled. ComplexRational (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The editor-in-chief seem an Associate Professor of UNSW [1]. But it seem there is not much source to prove the GNG notability of the journal, nor it was cited by many other articles. However, i am not in this field, i am undecided on keep or delete or not. Matthew hk (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Redirect back to AME Publishing Company, as before. Fails WP:NJOURNAL. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, restore redirect, protect. Peer review is just a process and whether it is any good depends on the editors and reviewers. In the present case, the publisher has a reputation of weak (if any) peer review. However, this is rather irrelevant to the question of notability: journals with good, stringent peer review can still be non-notable. What clinches the deal here is that this journal is not indexed in any selective database and that there are no independent sources. The journal claims to be included in PubMed, which is correct, but that is only an access platform. PubMed includes all journals in MEDLINE (which is a selective database) AND those in PubMedCentral, which includes almost all OA journals in the life sciences (a notable exception being OMICS journals), and therefore is not selective at all. The current journal is in PubMed because as an OA journal it isin PMC, it is not in any of the more discerning databases to which PubMed is the access platform. In short, this journal misses WP:NJournals and WP:GNG by a mile. --Randykitty (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect back to AME Publishing Company. It is probably good for people looking into this journal that we have something about it which a web search will return, but we have nothing really to say about it other than who publishes it. XOR'easter (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's an undeclared COI here (and if the article creator edited as part of his job, undisclosed paid editing, too): the article creator (who is editing under his own name) works for the same institute as the editor-in-chief of the journal. I don't suspect anything nefarious here, just being unfamiliar with WPs rules on COI/PAID, but thought it was worth mentioning. I have warned the editor on his talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The editor-in-chief, according to the CV in UNSW website and in this wiki article, was Associate Professor Ralph Mobbs, while the article creator, was Timanchoy. I don't object the accusation of Timanchoy is a paid editor, but it seem Timanchoy (may be actually spells as Timan Choy? Tim An Choy? ) is not equal to Ralph Mobbs by common sense on spelling. That user created parallel draft under draft title Draft:Journal of Spine Surgery (JSS) and then it was moved to Draft:Journal of Spine Surgery, as well as turn this article from redirect. The user also created NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group, which Dr. Mobbs is a director of NeuroSpineClinic. It could only suggested that someone is being paid to promote the journal and the clinic/research group, but not enough information for Dr.Mobbs using alias to create wiki articles himself. Matthew hk (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matthew hk - I don't think that Randykitty was insinuating that Mobbs was using an alias. If you go to the page on the Clinic's website (found here), you can see that there is a research assistant by the name of Wen Jie Choy, also known an Timan Choy. Since he works for the organization, there is definitely COI, and one might argue defact paid editing, since he is paid to work for the group. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then it isn't the same thing of the edit-in-chief wrote the wiki article himself, but the wiki article creator had oddly the same name with Dr. Mobbs' co-worker/employee. As well as "institute" is ambiguous, UNSW or Prince of Wales School? So it end up is the clinic. Matthew hk (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew hk, you're misreading my comment. I did not say that the EIC wrote this article under another name. What I said was that the editor who wrote the article works at the same institution as the EIC, as Onel5969 explained. --Randykitty (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then restore redirect and lock it down. Legacypac (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear All, I wish to clarify my position. I was a student of both A/Prof Ralph Mobbs and NSURG. Although I am a research Coordinator, I was not paid by NSURG to do so. It is voluntary work. The reason of writing this both articles up is because I have learnt a lot and benefited a lot from NSURG which I think it deserves a mention in Wikipedia. Also, NSURG is a non-profit organisation, hence, there is no money flow within. In regards to the Journal of Spine Surgery, yes I admit the journal is new. Hence there is limited indexing and still currently lacks an impact factor. However, given that it has been around for many years, I was told by the editor-in-chief (A/Prof Mobbs) that these are currently in application progress and JSS will soon receive more indexing and an impact factor. This journal is a peer-reviewed journal and nothing dodgy is going behind the scenes. I sincerely hope my explanation clarifies all confusions. Timanchoy 11:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It still WP:COI. Matthew hk (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2019 (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.