Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal


 * 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   keep. There seems to be adequate consensus that the journal is sufficiently notable for inclusion within Wikipedia. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

No outside sources of notability Cynof  G  avuf 11:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Indexed in all major abstracting and indexing services, including Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science. Easily meets WP:Notability (academic journals) criterion 1. Article was written quite clumsily by a new user, I am currently doing some cleanup. --Crusio (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment While cleaning up the article I could not find any evidence that it is currently included in PubMed or Web of Science (but it is in Scopus). However, the previous version of the article claimed that the journal had been accepted, and as it seems to have been written by someone involved with the journal, that may well be true. It always takes a while for new journals to actually get included into PubMed or WoS after acceptance. In addition, BIIJ is OA and that means that it will be relatively simple to get into PubMed Central (and by extension into PubMed), so I don't really doubt the statement about PubMed. --Crusio (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Crusio. Gilo  &ouml;  17:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Agreed.  fetch  comms  ☛ 21:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not even indexed in PubMed. I'm betting it's not in WoS. It got an article in the Malaysian Star when it launched in 2005:, but nothing else. It's got no data in Scimago:. In Google Scholar, the first 100 articles I checked have only 30 citations between them, which is not evidence of having a significant impact. If the notability proposal for academic journals allows this journal, it needs revising or rejecting. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Scimago takes its data from Scopus. If the journal was included rather recently in Scopus, that would result in all indicators having a zero score, but that would not really be very meaningful. --Crusio (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is indeed in Scopus. (and probably will be in WoS,since the two tend to track each other closely). Looking in Scopus, in 2005 in published 11 articles, 4 of which have ever been cited, and highest c citation count 3, 2, 1, 1 ; in 2006 it published 55 articles, of which 24 have been cited, citation count 9,4,4,3,3,3,...; in 2007 it published 57, 14 cited, counts 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 .... ; in 2008, 33 with only 1 cited so far, 1 time. However, a correction factor is needed: the "citation half life" for journals in Radiology according to JCR  is 6 to 7 years, that is, half the citations arrive during the first 6.5 years, half afterward. For this journal, not even its earliest articles have reached that point yet: I would estimate the 2006 figures should be multiplied by 4 to give the ultimate citation count,  value, the 2007 by 5.  Additionally, these numbers only represent  that these only include the citations from other journals on Scopus list, which include almost no journals published in the languages of the area it serves. As a guestimate, multiple by 2 again. Those numbers are respectable for a specialized journal covering a non-central geographical area--and additionally, it is notable as the official publication of the various societies represented.  .    DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can someone actually check whether it is in WoS? Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is currently not included on the journal master list of WoS. However, if the decision to include it was recent, that may just mean that the list has not yet been updated. Same goes for the PubMed listing. Given that it is OA, it will almost certainly get into PubMed Central without much problem and from there into PubMed. --Crusio (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I checked Scopus. There's a total of 97 citations to 165 articles, with an h-index of only 4. On that basis this journal has little impact on the field. As future inclusion in PubMed and WoS is unverified the argument to keep is based on it being indexed in Scopus, which basically means that you agree with there being articles for all 18,000 journals tracked by Scopus. This clashes with the fact that Wikipedia is not a directory. This standard for keeping articles about journals is far too lax. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * please see my comment above for why the present count is a 5X underestimate-.   FWIW, I consider this as evidence that the guideline works. It just meets the guideline, and it's just notable.  DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fences  &amp;  Windows  regarding the issue of Wikipedia is not a directory, and agree having all 18,000 titles in Scopus is a bit too much. But in all fairness, discussing Wikipedia's standard of notability is outside the scope towards closing this discussion of AfD. I may have a vested interest on the matter, but I'm also being objective here. As of now, the journal passes the notability criterion listed in WP:Notability (academic journals), is it not? Unless the answer is in the negative, I'm proposing for this discussion to be closed. Nahrizuladib (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability (academic journals) is not an accepted guideline, it is a proposal that is not agreed upon. Citing it as though it was an agreed standard is not OK. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability established by being cited in other journals and also in a chapter within a textbook mentioned on the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses website. Indexed in Scopus and included in the draft Excellence in Research for Australia journal list for 2010. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: comment from the managing editor of the journal - -- John Vandenberg (chat) 13:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * he asks why we focus on WoS/Medline/Scopus--the reason is that it helps to have an objective standard, that we would otherwise use more of less the same criteria they do--stability, citations, publisher, sponsorship, substantial content etc., they are selective and help us avoid being a mere directory, and that they use guidelines consonant with the way academics think,I could substitute my own personal view as a librarian about whether I personally would buy or catalog the journal, but that's just me, and we don't go by  experts (FWIW, I would catalog it if I collected in the field, primarily on the basis of the sponsorship & to increase global diversity) . After all, publishers care very much about whether their journal gets in these indexes--and the reason is that it not only serves as a signal of notability but that it gets them readership which in turn leads to increased citations and notability.     DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply I totally agree. And that's why I keep asking, because the journal is already listed in Scopus, although not in WoS or Pubmed yet. And according to WP:Notability (academic journals), being listed in Scopus is enough to satisfy the notability criterion. Correct me if I'm wrong Nahrizuladib (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)nahrizuladib


 * Delete, I can't find any independent secondary sources that analyze or discuss this journal, probably because it is a very young journal. This journal fails the GNG completely, and that is my objective standard. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply I don't mean to sound biased; but isn't listed in Scopus enough? After all this is what being listed as one of the criterion to pass in WP:Notability (academic journals) Nahrizuladib (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)nahrizuladib
 * WP:Notability (academic journals) was soundly rejected. Using an unapproved guideline is counter to consensus. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the many "support" votes during the RfC of that proposed guideline, it is a bit much to say that it was "soundly rejected". However, it is clear that this proposal does not currently reflect consensus. Under GNG, the case is very clear. The journal is cited by multiple, reliable sources, hence notable. As far as I can see, in fact, many articles that would be rejected under the academic journal proposal would be kept under GNC. But as was remarked above, this is not the place to discuss that proposal. --Crusio (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cited? It is the articles in the journal that are cited. The journal itself has no secondary sources discussing it. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There was an article in the Malaysia Star (cited above, I put it in the article, but that was reverted). --Crusio (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That article was clearly a plant or press release. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply For the record the said articles were not press releases. The articles were dated 30 October 2005 (two more: here and here); while the journal's first issue was in July 2005. The work behind it started about 6 months earlier. Crusio: since the discussion is now heading towards whether the journal itself passes GNG, I will be more than happy to re-instate these references. Nahrizuladib (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with things being kept under the GNG. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep after re-instating an earlier, cleaned-up version by User:Crusio. For the record, I'm the Managing Editor of the journal. Nahrizuladib (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.