Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupational Health Science

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 redirect to Society for Occupational Health Psychology. Sandstein 18:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Occupational Health Science[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)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." PROD opposed by article creator on talk page with the argument that notable people/publisher/society are involved with this journal. Obviously, notability is not inherited and even reputable publishers produce the occasional dud. In the absence of any sourcing (except the journal homepage) or indexing in any selective index, this fails NJournals and GNG big time. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my field. Finally something I can comment on with a hint of knowledge. (Oh, wait, that's "Occupational Health" and "science", not "Occupational" and "health science". Never mind.)
Slight joking aside, let's look at WP:JOURNALCRIT first. Criterion 3 is an automatic fail: journal created in 2017. Criterion 2 is a fail: a cursory examination of Google News (for instance) turns up four hits, one of which is the journal itself, filed under "Psychology". Huh. The others don't mention a journal and "occupational health science" together in the same article, let alone both in the same sentence. OK, so Criterion 1: influential in a subject area? Given the lack of sources and the recent creation of the journal, fail.
Let's look at GNG. Fail: no sources cover this that are independent of the subject.
Finally, notability is not inherent, under the policy of WP:NJOURNALS.
~~As such, without additional evidence showing influence or independent sources, this is a clear delete.~~ —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 15:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby withdraw my vote for deletion, and replace it with a vote for redirect to Society for Occupational Health Psychology, per the reasoning of Nick Moyes, below. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 00:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I write as an individual with a certain amount of expertise in the field known as occupational health psychology (OHP). Occupational Health Science (OHS) merits a WP entry, and should not be deleted. OHS was recently founded by the Society for Occupational Health Psychology, an organization dedicated to the advancement of the OHP. OHS is published by a well-regarded science publisher, Springer. Manuscript submission began in 2017. During the 2017-2018 period, OHS editors and reviewers have been reviewing submissions and selecting papers for publication. The editors will publish its first volume in the second half of 2018, probably in the fall.

The journal is not yet indexed by PsycINFO because the first volume is still in the wings. Even when OHS will be published, there will be a lag between when the journal before it will be indexed. There typically is such a lag for a new journal. For example, when Anxiety, Stress, and Coping was launched there was a several-year wait before it got indexed in PsycINFO. Although getting indexed in PsycINFO is a "low bar" for quality recognition, PsycINFO does not publish predatory journals and other journals of ill repute. I don't anticipate a long wait for OHS to enter PsycINFO because most of the membership of the parent organization, SOHP, are members of APA, which publishes PsycINFO. As publishable papers accumulate, coverage by PsycINFO will start.

The editor-in-chief and the associate editors of OHS journal are highly regarded researchers in the field of OHP.

OHS is a serious journal published by (a) a reputable science-oriented organization and (b) a reputable science-oriented publisher and (c) has a leading OHP researchers at the helm. The journal's notability is clear. The OHS entry should remain.

Of course all those qualities (reputable publisher, reputable editorial staff, reputable organization behind it) don't guarantee that the journal will be a clunker. The probability is exceedingly low.

The journal is shaping up to be of the caliber of Work & Stress and the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology.

I am therefore opposed to deleting the OHS entry from WP entry. Iss246 (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The facts regarding the Society and Springer, though, not only don't substantiate your claim of notability, Iss246, they undermine it. Per WP:NJOURNALS, the baseline for notability revolves around two major themes: no inherent notability, and no inherited notability. As such, the journal itself has no inherent reason to be notable, especially if it hasn't even been printed yet. And even if it is published by Springer, and founded by the Society, their notability doesn't transfer over to the journal.

Since Volume 1 of the journal hasn't been published yet, I would argue that the journal is not notable now. It may be notable at a later time, once the first volume of submissions has been published, but it is not notable at the present. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 23:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Society for Occupational Health Psychology. In arguing for its retention, Iss246 provides us with all the arguments for actually not keeping this page ("OHS was recently founded"; "The journal is not yet indexed by PsycINFO because the first volume is still in the wings."; "The editors will publish its first volume in the second half of 2018, probably in the fall."). Javert2113 gives a persuasive reason for the journal not meeting our notabilty threshold. Whilst it's clearly WP:TOOSOON right now, this journal might indeed merit a page once it becomes noted. So, for now, a REDIRECT rather than a deletion seems a sensible course of action here. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons I stated for notability were turned on their head. I gave reasons for the strength of the journal, and the editors turned those reasons into a heritability issue. It's not heritability. The composition of the staff and the supporting organization reflect on the journal's quality. Iss246 (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is that the journal must be notable, because notable publishers/staff are involved. That's INHERITED in a nutshell. As for PsycINFO indexing, that would still be a long way from showing notability for this journal. --Randykitty (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Society for Occupational Health Psychology. My own search for reliable sourcing or selective indexing came up short. I agree with Nick Moyes that the lack of sourcing is likely due to it being far too soon for sourcing to develop. It is a plausible search term and we have a redirect target that places the journal in context. Hence redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 17:49, 13 June 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.

I will re-create an entry after the journal's first issues appear in print or online. Iss246 (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]