Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology

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 no consensus. Sandstein 13:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by DGG with reason "all APA journals are probably notable". However, notability is not inherited. In the absence of any independent sources, article creation is WP:TOOSOON (and even well-established publishers produce the occasional dud, journals that fold after only a few volumes). Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can not immediately recall a case where any of the US major scientific societies has produced a journal that does not prove to be notable, though I'm not 100% confident that there has never been such a case. It's not an other articles exist argument to say that if 99% percent are notable, this is likely to be also within the tolerance level of WP. DGG ( talk ) 10:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC) .[reply]

I have a little list on my userpage with journals from major publishers/major societies that folded after a few years. It's rare perhaps, but not unheard of. --Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Psychological Association#Publications, mostly per WP:TOOSOON. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Top 10 results in Google Books shows that Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology is recognized among academics as the solid #2 journal for educators in psychology, after #1 journal Teaching of Psychology. The other books also have many citations from Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, so it appears that many influential papers are published by the journal.

Internationalizing the Teaching of Psychology by Uwe Gielen, Grant J. Rich, Harold Takooshian: describes what type of papers the journal publishes, under a section called "Publishing Outlets on Psychology Teaching"

An Evidence-based Guide to College and University Teaching: Developing the Model Teacher by Aaron S. Richmond, Guy A. Boysen, Regan A R Gurung: uses Scholarship as the psychology example of a journal that educators can publish in. There are other examples of biology education journals, music education journals, etc.

The Oxford Handbook of Undergraduate Psychology Education: Dana S. Dunn: describes the history of the journal's founding, and how the APA started the journal to give more publishing opportunities to educators

Germanhexagon (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Germanhexagon (talk · contribs) "Top 10 results in Google Books shows that Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology is recognized among academics as the solid #2 journal for educators in psychology, after #1 journal Teaching of Psychology." Do you have a reference/link for this? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

well, yes ... it's actually the first book that I listed .... :/ Germanhexagon (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Germanhexagon: I mean a link/reference that shows that specifically "Top 10 results in Google Books shows that Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology is recognized among academics as the solid #2 journal for educators in psychology, after #1 journal Teaching of Psychology." Not the first result in google search that cites this journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused? The first book ranks the top journals in this field, and adds a paragraph about each of the journals' major focuses. It answers the question you're asking .... Germanhexagon (talk)

11:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, do you have a link to that book? I want to examine the source for myself if possible. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joke, right? I gave you the title and author of the book. I'm not even a master of Google-fu, I literally just click the "books" link given at the top of the Wikipedia page. Ok fine here it is:

Internationalizing the Teaching of Psychology by Uwe Gielen, Grant J. Rich, Harold Takooshian

https://books.google.com/books?id=b00xDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA78&dq="Scholarship+of+Teaching+and+Learning+in+Psychology"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVioyUsv3ZAhVEnq0KHU16DmIQ6AEIUDAI#v=onepage&q="Scholarship%20of%20Teaching%20and%20Learning%20in%20Psychology"

Germanhexagon (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is just a list of publishing outlets that appears to attempt to be exhaustive. It's not ranked in any meaningful way that I can see (this journal comes second because the first journal mentioned is from the same publisher, the APA) and the description is just that, a neutral description and does not constitute an analysis of the journal at all. --Randykitty (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Then it is as I suspected, this claim is not supported by the book. All the book writes about Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology is that it's a recently launched journal, not that it had any impact, and it certainly does not support the claim that "Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology is recognized among academics as the solid #2 journal for educators in psychology, after #1 journal Teaching of Psychology". It simply appears second in an unranked list of journals related to teaching psychology. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find the second book. The third has 7 mentions of "Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology" and if you go through this, there is actually only a single one that refers to this journal (in a chapter written by an editorial board member of the journal). --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- the 2nd book at a trivial mention (4th one on the link). None of this seems to be substantial covered beyond mentioning the journal exists. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have to type the title into Google Books. If you type it into main Google, it'll take you to Amazon or Barnes and Noble and the like.

Honestly I'm not sure what sort of coverage you are looking for. This coverage shows that this is a small, but respected and influential paper in the niche academic field of psychology pedagogy .... whatever that is. There are 3 secondary sources that give reasonable descriptions of the journal. The major journal in the field is Teaching of Psychology which similarly doesn't get vast amounts of 3rd party coverage.
What stands out to me is that, even in secondary sources, the number of citations from this journal is increasing substantially. In PubMed, articles from Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology are starting to be indexed. It will probably get a decent impact factor, given that the journal has only existed since 2015. Speaking of 2015, this journal is about old enough to be assigned an impact factor. Impact factors are released in the summer, so in 3 months? 4 months? It may be too soon, but it seems a waste to delete this article and then revive it in 4 months time anyway.

Book #1: The list doesn't look randomly ranked or unranked to me. It starts off with #1 oldest, most established journal, Teaching of Psychology, which is confirmed by [1]. #2 is of course, our journal, #3 is a microsite journal, #4 classroom psychology journal, and #5 helping graduate students journal. That shows a roughly descending order of importance.
Book #2: This journal is not only mentioned to say it exists. The journal was used as an example of its field (other journals were named for other fields), which suggests influence in its subject area.
Book #3: It's doesn't discredit notability if the secondary source's chapter was written by an editorial member. Academic books on broad topics usually have an editor who will write the introductory chapter, and then he'll strong arm a dozen of his friends and colleagues to write the other chapters.

Germanhexagon (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The journal will not get an impact factor any time soon, as it is not indexed by the Science Citation Index. As for your remark about book 1: that sounds like there's one significant journal, Teaching of Psychology and then a (small) handful of non-notable ones. Book 2: I disagree with your interpretation. Book 3: I don't see where you want to go with your remark. If the editorial board member mentioning their journal was "strongarmed" into contributing that chapter, then that lends even less weight to this mention. The PubMed thing is absolutely trivial. The journal is [Title+Abbreviation not indexed by the National Library of Medicine]. Instead, some articles (at this point [jour only one]) are listed if they have been deposited in PubMed Central if authors were obliged to comply with public access policies. PMC includes everything that is OA and funded by the US government, so this kind of inclusion is trivial. --Randykitty (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2018 (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.