Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NAJMS

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. Clear concensus to delete, but without prejudice to recreate should notability be established in the future -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NAJMS

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

Relatively new journal, not indexed anywhere (except by the Library of congress, which indexes everything). Article creation premature, not notable yet. Does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:N. Crusio (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per nom Polargeo (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while it does exist, and that's usually my inclusion criteria for journals, this one seems to have more editors than papers published suggesting that it's not quite ready for primetime. Add to that that I could find only two people that included it on their CV. Google turns up nothing substantial. And it has not been cited in the literature. So I'd recommend deleting for now, but recreating if it ever becomes regularly cited. -Atmoz (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically per nom and Atmoz's research. I have to say, I have never seen a journal with so many editors. It makes you wonder a. what all these people do and b. if they ever get it done. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually pretty normal for clinically-focused journals (see here, or here, or here, or here....(wow)). The vast majority of these are unpaid reviewers/referees. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appeal

I disclose my conflict of interest with the journal, for I'm one of managing editors and an editor of the journal. I also would like to thank you for your consideration and valuble input on the journal.
We are fully aware of the editor number problem, and are shrinking it down. I also submit you a piece of suggestion. Go read the articles, not just the editorial board member names. A hidden fact/concern is that there are too many Chinese? We are also working to diversity our editorial board. However, please do not judge an editorial board or a person just by his or her race ethnicity, if this comes to your mind.
Please give careful consideration of your own qualification(s). Please do not easily following what the "nom" says. Sorry, I'm new and don't get what "nom" is. Educate me on this, if you will. This medical journal is primarily for clinical and translational research. If you merely have any medical training or qualification, please take caution while judging its value or impact. Because it does not fall in your expertise, and you might not be the right person to review. Do not get me wrong, however, you are of course entitled and welcome to express your thoughts and constructive suggestions, freely and independently. Our goal is to promote general public health at large.
Let me just briefly introduce one of our recent articles: The breast cancer screening is under scrunity for recent research suggesting it does not find new "bad" tumors, rather "ok" or slow growing tumors. What does it mean for general practitioner, here comes our commentary: Early Detection and Prevention of Breast Cancer- A reflection of the USPSTF 2009 recommendation -- Jon Zhang (talk) Jon Zhang (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "nom" is the "nomination" (the top four lines of this discussion) or the "nominator" (myself). If somebody votes "per nom", it means that this person agrees with the deletion rationale presented. As far as I can see nobody here has commented upon the diversity (or lack thereof) of the editorial board, just on the fact that most people that are on the board do not even bother to mention this in their CV. Nobody here either comments on the quality of the material published in your journal, as that is not the subject of this discussion. We try to establish whether the journal is "notable" in the sense that this is used in Wikipedia, which is independent of quality (indeed something of very low quality or a very bad person can be very notable just because of that). If your journal publishes good quality material, I am sure that in time it will get cited frequently, included in major databases, covered in independent reliable sources, in short, become notable. However, at this point this is not yet the case and WP is not a crystal ball. --Crusio (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment

CV listing: Google propably was used to come to the conclusion that "most people that are on the board do not even bother to mention this in their CV". The fact is most of the board editors did not update online CVs, or simply do not publish their CVs online. List a couple with CV here: Calvin Pan and Lanjing Zhang.
I do not agree to include a journal without looking into its article quality. One may at least rely on journal's reputation, which however is associated with its article impact and quality.
It came to my impression that inclusion in indexing agencies, aka SCI and Scopus, is your sole resource/requirement of inclusion in WP academic journals. Pubmed and google scholar are excluded according to your guideline, WP:N. How to define the reliable resources, and who? It is exactly the reason why I object to your guideline, WP:N, for potential controversy, misuse and misleading info.
Inclusion of NAJMS article in WP is a much smaller matter than the inclusion criteria/guideline itself. Again, I appreciate the time and efforts on initiating the project, of you and Headbomb. I have deep passion for the WP since my first contribution to it in 2005, and wish it become better and better. This is the WP community, at the end. Thanks! Jon Zhang (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Yes, this is not an attack on the quality of the journal, it simply means that we think the journal has not been verified to be notable (in the Wikipedian sense). Young journals have an uphill battle here because they didn't have the time to become highly-cited, and are often not yet indexed by relevant databases. Most people are convinced that journals are notable when they are indexed by one or more selective databases, or are the official publications of large professional associations (or national ones), although there are other ways to show notability (usually that means the journal is controversial, or otherwise made the news). So basically, the creation of this article is premature. Assuming NAJMS become notable in the future, the article can be recreated. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, "we don't think that we have enough independent(!) sources to write an article about this journal" (the sole issue at hand here) is completely unrelated to whether the journal can be WP:CITEd as a reliable source in other articles. To give an example, we have plenty of independent sources complaining about the lack of peer review at Medical Hypotheses, so it gets an article, but most medicine-related editors would still prefer that papers from that journal not be cited in articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Echoing Crusio, a journal doesn't really exist to to the world if it isn't in PubMed. And independent review, as is provided by selective indexing, is needed to give strength the implied claim that it is a trustworthy journal, which is less clear from a glance at the articles as it is for, say, BMC Surgery. I've probably expressed myself more harshly than my opinion is, apologies for that. Narayanese (talk) 11:07, 4 March 2010 (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.