Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metascience (journal)

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 keep. Daniel (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metascience (journal)

[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)

I was not about to find significant independent coverage. Journal has an impact factor of .1. May not be notable. Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found two in-depth published reviews in unrelated journals, also establishing its earlier history back to 1984. I think it passes WP:GNG. As for the impact factor, I think that that's almost completely irrelevant. Impact factors tell you something about the spikiness of citations to recent papers in journals for fast-moving journal-based fields. They tell you almost nothing about the typical or median or long-term citations of papers in the same journals. And in this case it's a journal for book reviews in the humanities. Who cites book reviews? That's missing the point of the journal. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with David Eppstein. The index factor also is different dependent on the site you use - 2 on some sites 0.149 on others.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The journal has no impact factor, as it isn't indexed in any Clarivate database. However, it's indexed by Scopus and we generally take that to satisfy NJournals. The two in-depth reviews added to the article by David show that it even passes GNG (quite rare for an academic journal). The article can be expanded according to the tips given in our journal article writing guide. --Randykitty (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thank you for the additional sources. Agreed. Basicly it passes WP:GNG. --Kemalcan (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For a journal of this type and in this field, impact factor is a meaningless number. High, low, who cares? Here, we have scholarly sources writing about it, and it's indexed in a selective database. XOR'easter (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2021 (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.