Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupational Health Science (journal) (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge‎ to Society for Occupational Health Psychology. Star Mississippi 03:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Occupational Health Science (journal)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Occupational Health Science (journal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been taken to AfD already 3 times before under two different names (Occupational Health Science and Occupational Health Science (journal)). It was re-created again today with several claims purported to show that the journal now is notable. To start, it is claimed that the journal is "reviewed" by "the Science Citation Index's Web of Science."Apart from the fact that this is inverse (WoS is a platform providing access to the SCI, this is incorrect. Searching for the journal in Clarivate's master journal list shows that it is not included in the SCI, but in the much less selective Emerging Sources Citation Index. Since 2023, those journals receive an impact factor, but that is rather trivial. Next it is claimed that the journal is included in MEDLINE. This is incorrect, too: the NLM catalog explicitly states "Not currently indexed for MEDLINE". Some articles are included in PubMed Central because that is required for studies financed by the US government, but again that is rather trivial and does not contribute to notability. Next it is claimed that "The Occupational Health Psychology–Total Worker Health program housed at Portland State University also underlined the importance of OHS as a key resource for research in OHP." Checking the link reveals no such thing, the journal is just listed in the lowest category of 3 as "Additional OHP Journals". References 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10 are just in-passing mentions. The journal is indeed indexed in PsycINFO, but that is not considered a selective database in the sense of WP:NJournals. Reference 11 is the journal's own homepage and reference 12 is used to support indexing in Scopus. Unfortunately, research.com is not a very reliable source and indeed Scopus itself does not list the journal. In conclusion, no valid claims to notability have been added since this was last at AfD (March 2023). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I changed the article in a number of significant ways given the past debate about the article. I did the following:
(1) I used many sources that are external to the journal.
(2) I sourced the databases where the journal is indexed. I sourced the indexes themselves rather than use the journal's website in the spirit of minimizing the use of the journal's website and increasing reliance on external sources.
(3) I obtained the impact factor, which is higher than the impact of other journals in WP.
The journal is more notable given the above. I used the citation style of the American Psychological Association because the article psychology-related.
I shared the above information with administrator @user:CycloneYoris yesterday who was slating the article for deletion. The administrator then changed his mind about slating the article for deletion after I explained the above. Iss246 (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That CycloneYoris (justifiedly) found that the article is not G4-eligible doesn't mean that it's notable. I have discussed every single source that you mentioned in my nom and conclude that the journal still is not notable. --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Society for Occupational Health Psychology. Indeed as RK explains, the journal is not notable. Merging is best. If not, delete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I observed that an editor wrote that "the NLM catalog explicitly states 'Not currently indexed for MEDLINE.'" I conducted a search of the NLM at https://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/pubmed/J_Medline.txt. I found that Occupational Health Science is indexed. The index is alphabetized. The NlmId is 101715919. Iss246 (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is the journal identifier in Pubmed, which is legally require to index some article, regardless of provenance. Namely articles subject to US funding. MEDLINE is not Pubmed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I observed that the journal is indexed by APA in PsycInfo. See https://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psycinfo/journal-coverage-list.pdf Iss246 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be taken both ways. When OHS was not in PsycInfo that was considered a demerit for the journal. Now that it is indexed in PsycInfo an editor can write that PsycInfo isn't sufficiently selective. PsycInfo is the database for psychological research and practice. Iss246 (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore the appearances in citation indices, those are irrelevant to notability as the actual guideline for journals is GNG, which requires SIGCOV in multiple secondary independent RS. JoelleJay (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Portland State Total Worker Health website, the journal is listed there among the journal resources. See https://sites.google.com/pdx.edu/occupational-health-psychology/ohp-resources#h.p_lwz4w8TnR9W8 Iss246 (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NJournals, to be notable a journal has to meet one of 3 criteria:

  • 1: Reliable sources consider it influential
  • 2: Frequently cited in other reliable sources
  • 3: It is historically important in its subject area

In Paul Spector's history of the OHP field [1], he notes (p. 17) the launching of OHS by Society of Occupational Health Psychology as an important milestone in the field's development, supporting criterion 3. OHS also has a reasonable citation impact, supporting 2. Where a journal is indexed is not one of the criteria. I see that OHS meets 2 of the 3 criteria, and only needs 1 to be considered notable. Psyc12 (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Psyc12, NJOURNALS is an essay, not a guideline. The guideline relevant to notability of journals is WP:GNG, which requires SIGCOV in IRS sources. JoelleJay (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of others, here are the relevant excerpts from [1]:

It has its own journals. Work & Stress was founded in 1981 by Tom Cox at the University of Nottingham in the UK. Although the focus at the time was occupational stress, today it has broadened to incorporate all topics in occupational health psychology. Other journals focus on stress in general, including occupational stress (e.g., International Journal of Stress Management), whereas occupational health psychology journals such as Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and Occupational Health Science are major outlets for occupational stress research.

While describing "characteristics that define [OHP] as an established field":

OHP Journals. APA has supported the development of OHP by publishing Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. In 2016, SOHP launched Occupational Health Science to be an interdisciplinary OHP journal. Work & Stress originally devoted to occupational stress evolved into a broader OHP journal as it became affiliated with the EAOHP (Cox & Tisserand, 2006).

Suriname0 (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Spector, P. E. (2023). From Occupational Fatigue to Occupational Health. In L. M. Lapierre & C. Cooper (Eds.), Organizational Stress and Well-Being (Cambridge Companions to Management. (pp. 7-29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781009268332.003
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Occupational_Health_Science_(journal)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1194861657"