Talk:Vicky Goh

Hi :, thanks for the constructive feedback. I have updated the article according to your suggestions, but I have some further questions as follows:

(1) "What needs to be listed is the books she edited and the peer-reviewed journal papers with the highest citation figures. Chapters are secondary" - I have added another book edited by her and the number of citations for peer-review papers with the highest citation figures. What do you mean by that the chapters are secondary? Do you mean that they are just a supporting factor, or should these not be included?

(2) "It does not matter how many total publications or total citations; notability is from publishing papers which make an influence on the field, as shown by their very high citations: list them, with the individual values. h index discriminates between the weak and the medium level, not the medium and the exceptional." - Agree. In this case, I was able to find the citation figure, but it is not always the case. Let's say if I am unable to find these citation numbers on Google or journal website, would it be sufficient to demonstrate that the paper was published in a high impact journal, for example, Lancet, Nature, or, Science, all of which have high impact factors, which reflect the average number of citations per article for that journal, so in that case can it be assumed that the paper will have a high impact and that number of citation are not required?

(3) "President of a national society matters, but not in-house service." - I agree, but which society in this article is an in-house service? Thanks, Earthianyogi (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * chapter: normallly in most fields, chapters are minor, but to write the chapter on something in a standard medical textbook is to some degree an exception & can be more significant, because med textbooks are generally written by a combination of such authoritative chapters. ,

Journal figures:it helps to be published in a major journal, but even the best journal sometimes publishes insignif or even erroneous work. Citation numbers should aways be availabe--if not in scopus, in google scholar. The current expected level in biomedicine is 2 or more papers with >100 citations.  DGG ( talk ) 11:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC) About books: In practice, the criterion for an ordinary author is two sucessful books,in the snese of having substantial reviews in reliable sources. (as in other fields, 1 blockbuster will do also), In the academic fields where books counnt more than journals, such as the hmanities, histo

(1) I agree with "even the best journal sometimes publishes insignif or even erroneous work", but don't you think citing the number of citations is slightly redundant. For example, if we know the impact factor of a journal (yearly average number of citations that articles get in that journal) let's say 10, and we know that a paper was published 10 years ago, so we can assume that the paper in question will have on an average 100 citations, approximately. Is n't that the whole point of publishing papers in high-impact journal anyways? I feel that the number of citations may be more relevant when a paper was published in a low-impact journal, but received a large number of citations.

(2) Also, when one of the condition of notability is met (i.e. she is full-professor), then why do we need to care about other secondary items?

(3) Where do you get these numbers "The current expected level in biomedicine is 2 or more papers with >100 citations"?

Earthianyogi (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not laying down the law, I'm giving you advice on what will work best to get the article accepted, advice based on 13 years of experience in working primarily with biographical articles on scientists and other academics. . The guidelines as written are at WP:PROF. The practical guidelines are however what the conseus decides to do at individual AfD discussions. 1/ I have argued for years that the condition ought to be full professor ata major research institution. This has unfortunately never been accepted. What is accepted is "a named chair appointment or distinguished professor app"     A year ago I would have said the level in biomedicine is at least one article with 100, and I continue to argue that as my opinion of what we ought to do, but some people there ask for more, so 2 or more is definitely safer at present. 3. The number of citations in different papers in a journal varies very widely; even the best journals have papers that get almost no citations--you can check this for yourself in Scopus. The point of publishing in a high impact factor journal is the hope that it will be widely read and cited, because people are more likely to read such journals.

Now, what actually happens at afd is not all that predictable. Sometimes very weak articles are accepted, for any one of a variety of reasons and sometimes papers that shouldn't be accepted are, again for any one of a variety of reasons; these reasons can include the people who happen to show up for discussion  or  can be one of many extraneous factors or even prejudices. When I give advice, I think it is my obligation to give safe conservative advice. But Wikipedia is the sort of place almost anything can happen.  DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , I fully respect your ideas and advice, that I is why I am discussing and asking questions. If you don't wish to share ideas, then it is a different matter alltogether.

I just feel that we should set some sort of quantitative metric to Wiki system, like you said, and i fully support. Also, it needs to be understood what % of people in the world endup getting a PhD, of those what %get a postdoc, of those how many are able to reach a faculty position, and of those how many become a full prof. Surely, getting a full-professorship should be considered notable. And there may be some differences in the US or the UK system.

Wikipedia's notability criteria (WP:ARTIST) says that a person is (likely) notable enough for an article if they are included in several museum collections. How is that more notable than being a full-professor, who help shape our society.

Also, what does it mean by "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. In addition, WP:AUTHOR also applies if the professor has written even a single book. Cheers.

Earthianyogi (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , Hello, Could you please explain your comments a bit more.

1. Expand the sections “books edited”: How many more books are needed? There may not be more available. Is there a criterion for numbers.

2. “chapters edited”: How many more chapters are needed? There may be a few, but I suppose they are all secondary? Is there a criterion for numbers.

3. “publications”: How many more are needed? I was previously rejected for listing more journal publications. I am not sure why some reviewers like this point, and others do not. They say it is not a CV, and others say it is just a biography of a person, and not many papers should be listed. There does not seem to be a criterion.

4. Also, try to add more refs: Currently, the article has 21 references, almost each line has a citation (not that I feel each line needs citation as the info is taken from the parent profile page on KCL website). Which type of references are needed, do you mean scientific documents published by her? Is there a criterion for numbers.

Thanks Earthianyogi (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Earthianyogi,
 * 1. There’s no official number but I would say 5 should establish obvious notability.
 * 2. Just list the ones with lots of citations.
 * 3. This section is probably alright if you do the other two decently.
 * 4. Every paragraph should have AT LEAST 1 to 2 refs.

Note: Citation number 23 has a screwy date. Eternal Shadow  Talk  17:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , I have made the changes as you suggested and resubmitted. Please note that this section at the bottom is not created by me, it is automatically created. Earthianyogi (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * about books: To meet wp:author usually takes at least two successful books-- successful in the sense of having substantial critical attention from reliable sources which have coverage/ In those fields  of the academic world such as humanities or history where books count much more than journals the criteria depends to a considerable extent over which publisher it is: basically it has to be one of the major academic publishers -- which comprise the University presses plus   the very few of the publishers that deal with serious academic books. With the editorship counts depends on the degree of involvement if the editor merely collects articles the degree of involvement can be very little. It  also depends upon field the major editors of the most important standard textbooks in law and medicine can be notable on that basis. Pamphlets are not books  even though published by the University press. Government documents are usually not books-- but there are exceptions and the individual titles have to be looked at.  DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)