Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academic journals

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Academic journals. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Academic journals|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Academic journals. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Shortcut

Academic journals

[edit]

Al-Ādab wa-l-Fann (magazine)

[edit]
Al-Ādab wa-l-Fann (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has been tagged for notability concerns since 2018. Upon review, there is no evidence to demonstrate its notability. Furthermore, no independent and reliable sources exist to substantiate its significance.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hadatha

[edit]
Al Hadatha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was tagged for notability by Randykitty in 2021. A detailed review reveals an over-reliance on self-references and directory websites. There is no indication of notability, and no independent, reliable sources are available to support the subject.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re.press

[edit]
Re.press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet WP:GNG, sources are comprised of 4 personal blogs, 2 subpages from the subjects website, and 1 post from a defunct small publishers community which contained the subject. No other reliable sources can be found on the subject, and searches only turn up books printed by the subject. CitrusHemlock 23:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transactions on Graph Data and Knowledge

[edit]
Transactions on Graph Data and Knowledge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

New journal, indexed in some databases that are rather trivial for an OA journal, but not any selective databases as required by WP:NJournals (see MIAR). The article appears to be well-sourced, until one starts to look at the references in detail: all of them are either written by people involved with the journal, or are press releases, or source things that are only tangentially related to the journal, e.g., a reference (currently #16) to the publishing platform used but otherwise not even mentioning the journal. In short, this fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This appears to be a very respectable new diamond-access journal, published by a good academic research center who also publish many major conference proceedings in computer science. That said, our applicable notability guidelines require in-depth coverage in publications independent of the journal, a standard that is often difficult to meet for major and well-established journals. Without a media splash this is unlikely for new journals to achieve. I would suggest a redirect to the journal it is intended to replace, and a mention there, but we have no reliable independent sources that could support even that much content. I did find [2] but I'm unsure of its reliability and independence. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick and thorough feedback (the CS perspective is appreciated). Moving content to existing articles would be a backup option. Regarding the sources, I am still puzzled by the requirement, since the claims that have TGDK-affiliated sources are all of a kind where these sources seem to be just right. For example, the EiCs have published an article that gives their motivation for creating a new journal and that mentions which other people were involved in the history. It is not a third-party source, but how could a third (uninvolved) party claim to know any of this? It's fine if the answer is that we don't want information about a group's motivation or "private" activities in a Wikipedia page, but if we do, then we will usually need to take some of the involved persons' word for it. For other references the case is even stronger, e.g., when Dagstuhl Publishing "claims" that their license is CC-By, then this is actually making it true (you cannot claim to publish a document under a license and not also do it). None of this comment has any bearing on notability (the main issue here, I agree), but I would like to understand which "self-referenced" claims are considered problematic here at all, in case I might make them again in other pages.
    [P.S. Small clarification: TGDK is not "intended to replace" JWS. Colleagues from our research community have decided to take over JWS after the mass resignations from the EB, and we wish them all the best in their efforts. Our main sponsor SWSA supports JWS alongside TGDK.]
    --Markus Krötzsch 16:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have created the article since I believe that the journal has reached the notability of typical computer science journal articles in Wikipedia (I have disclosed my CoI, but also note that I am only affiliated in a voluntary capacity with the journal, and not in any way affiliated with Dagstuhl Publishing). I would like to disentangle the critique of the sources from the question of notability in the discussion:
  • The sources are adequate for the facts that they support, which are questions like "What is the license of the journal?", "Who are the editors?", and "Which submission software do they use?". You will not find any evaluative claims sourced to either the publisher or the researchers involved. Claims about indexing and archiving are sourced to the responsible parties.
  • The journal is notable since it is frequently cited by other reliable sources, notably in other research publications. What is "frequent" must of course be related to what is normal in the research field (you have more citations in medicine than in computer science). The young age of the journal must not be held against it (citations grow over time), and in particular it should not be levied against OA journals that some publisher-controlled indexing services have embargo times of three to five years before including new journals. TGDK follows the standard processes for registering in these services, and this will just go through once the waiting time is over (at least I have never heard of a case where this was not successful for an international academic journal with a notable and experienced editorial board). The journal is already included in one discriminating index, DBLP, which is specifically relevant in computer science and that does not automatically pick up all journals.
From studying Wikipedia policies, I think both "delete" and "keep" would be viable options here. The practical consequence of "delete" would be that some content of TGDK would move to Journal of Web Semantics and to Dagstuhl (where it is now merely linked to). This would be okay as well (for me personally), but it would lead to a worse structure for Wikipedia that is less accessible (Dagstuhl's page is very long, and already conflates the publishing branch with event hosting; and JWS continues to be an independent Elsevier journal that is not a natural place to look for content on TGDK). This is why I believe that Wikipedia is better served by keeping the separate page for now. --Markus Krötzsch 07:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is incorrect to state that "some publisher-controlled indexing services have embargo times of three to five years before including new journals". Some of the most selective databases (Elsevier's Scopus and Clarivate's citation databases) often include new journals within 1 year of publication. --Randykitty (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, the mandated waiting times are really in effect. If you have heard of examples that bypassed this, then maybe they had a special connection to the (usually commercial) indexing service in question? It's certainly not a path that is open to TGDK. For example, Elsevier's Scopus has published guidelines that state that "it is general policy that a journal needs to have a publication history of at least two years before it can be reviewed for Scopus coverage". This agrees with information that we have received from Dagstuhl that states that you can first apply for inclusion in the third year of publication. Anyway, if you read the inclusion guidelines, then you realise that the bar there is quite low, so I would find it strange if Wikipedia would rely on this for notability. --Markus Krötzsch 10:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those rules are not written in stone: I know of at least one quarterly journal that was included in the Science Citation Index Expanded after only 3 published issues. It's unusual, but it happens. Unfortunately I have no published source of this, so you'll have to trust me on my word... --Randykitty (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe we are all discussing this is in good faith. Note that both Markus and I are discussing this under our full names under which we also publish our scientific work. Any intellectual dishonesty on our side would reflect on our scientific reputations, and so possibly affect our careers. We are as accountable here as it gets. Anyway, your claim was that this happens "often". I'm sure you would agree that the distinction between "has happened once or twice" and "often" does rather matter for whether it is a reasonable thing to require at this point. Jan Hidders (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, simply put, this fails WP:NJOURNALS because it's WP:TOOSOON. Maybe in a few years, if it becomes an established mainstream journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the criteria for notability of journals that is mentioned in the policy is whether the relevant academic community has taken notice of the journal. That is undeniably the case. If you check the editorial board on [3] and cross check it with the main researchers that publish in established venues (think The Web Conference, SIGMOD, VLDB, ESWC, ISWC, etc.) and journals (e.g., Journal of Web Semantics) on subjects in this domain (graph data management) you will see that this editorial board *is* actually that academic community. That by itself, the fact that this very well established community of considerable size and authority decided to start a new open-access journal, makes it already notable. We are clearly and verifiably not talking here about a small fringe group who is starting a separate journal that is disconnected from the main academic community. [Disclaimer: I am on the EB of this journal. I also have several decades of experience as an academic researcher in this domain so can speak with some authority here, but what I said can be independently verified. I'm also the guy who helped Wikimedia transition from a file-based backed to a database-backend. Not that it matters, but I just wanted to have mentioned it. :-)] Jan Hidders (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The composition of the editorial board is completely irrelevant. See WP:NOTINHERIT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is highly relevant. It means the academic community has taken note, and in fact so much so, that most of them signed up to the EB. Note that the argumentation is not that it is important because the most important researchers are associated with it. The argument is that it is important and noteworthy because this particular scientific community decided to start a new journal. That is not the same thing, and so WP:NOTINHERIT is besides the point here. Jan Hidders (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, if you have a conflict of interest, you should declare that (as Markus did above). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I declared my connection in my very first response on this page.
    And, yes, I had also already familiarised myself with WP:N and WP:GNG. I did not see anything there that explicitly rules out what I'm arguing for as evidence of notability. On the contrary, there is an explicit mention in WP:NJOURNALS that it is relevant whether the journal has received notice from the academic community, and it clearly and verifiably has. This is apart from the fact that it is already being cited, which you can also verify. It is clearly the case that this not some obscure new journal that nobody is taking notice of. I would also emphasise that the guidelines are, you know, guidelines. The ultimate question is if this is worthy of an encyclopedia article that people who are interested in knowledge-graph research would be interested in reading. I don't see how anybody knowledgable in that field could argue that it is not.
    I do understand that as an outsider you would like to follow the rule of "this should be evidenced by outside source material that discusses it" but I would argue that in this case that is a bit unfair given the size of the connected community. Pretty much anyone who would be discussing this journal somewhat authoritatively is connected to it. That would leave citations elsewhere in notable journals and conference papers as a source of evidence, and those, as already discussed, do exist. Jan Hidders (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to formulate a consensus here: Headbomb is right that, when it comes to discussions on Wikipedia, personal standing or expertise does not matter. We are discussing as contributors here, not as experts from the research community that would be most interested in this article. Yet Jan Hidders is right that the academic standing of the editorial board affects the notability of a journal, since it is a relevant criterion for those authorities that Wikipedia does recognize (e.g., Elsevier names "editor standing" as a criterion for inclusion in Scopus). So when we ask if a journal can be notable even before the (hard-to-avoid) embargo time of those companies, then we should allow their underlying criteria in the discussion. Of course, this can only add to the overall picture, never be the only criterion. --Markus Krötzsch 16:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The journal could fail tomorrow. Internal dissent. Publishing a weird paper, leading to a boycott of the journal. Lack of funding. Bad management. We don't have a crystal ball.
No one is saying the journal is bad or unreliable. But it is not notable. Not yet anyway. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no criterion for notability of journals "mentioned in the policy". There is the WP:GNG, which is required for topics that do not have an SNG listed at WP:N. NJOURNALS is an essay, not a guideline, and therefore its criteria do not supply a valid reason to keep or delete this article. As David said, the journal needs significant, independent, secondary coverage in reliable sources to meet our guideline; if it does not have such coverage it should be deleted or redirected to somewhere where primary and/or non-independent and/or non-significant sourcing would be due. JoelleJay (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that the journal meets GNG, which is the only guideline applicable. JoelleJay (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Dear all: Thanks for contributing your opinions. I think we are beyond the stage here where the deletion is still in question, so I would go ahead and implement the redirecting solution as suggested by David Eppstein. My plan is to integrate some basic info into the Dagstuhl page (and make a specific section the redirect target). Please leave the TGDK page alive for the moment, so I can implement these changes over the coming week. --Markus Krötzsch 14:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academic_journals&oldid=1262579508"