Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current Pediatric Research


 * 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 delete. Well, it looks like consensus is that this is not notable. The confusion about whether the sole argument cited in favour of notability applies to the article topic or to some other journal with the same name does not help. Redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Current Pediatric Research

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An open access journal listed by Beall as predatory. Not in ISI, not in DOAJ, no impact factor, not indexed in PubMed. And we can't really say any of that because there are no reliable independent sources about the journal other than Beall's list and mirrors. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 16:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 16:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I lean keep here. It may not be indexed in PUBMEB, but it's indexed in "Scopus, SCImago, Elsevier Biobase, Compendex, IndMedica, FLUIDEX, Geobase, Excerpta Medica, EMBASE, J-Gate, EMbiology, Biosis Previews, Biosis, Electronic Database, Chemical Abstracts, EBSCO Publishing, Science Edition, CINAHL." according to the journal website. Scopus alone is usually worthy of inclusion.
 * If we don't trust the journal website, then lists Scopus, EMBASE and SCImago.  Gonna  here. It has a ridiculously low impact metric however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed to delete. Too many signs of predatoriness, basic information cannot even be trusted, and a journal of utterly low impact. All of this combined voids any presumption of notability we may grant to journals normally. Scopus may usually be selective enough, but this is clearly a case where they either erred, or that the journal got hijacked after inclusion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Indexing in Scopus is sufficient. their coverage is sometimes not very exclusive, but our coverage also should be a s broad as possible, because the information on journals helps the evaluation of references using them. I do point out, though, that most of the others listed are unselective. I'm not sure where the got the  impact factor given on their website ( 1.63); it's not high for a journal in this field, but it's not ridiculously low  .   DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the SJR, which lists a total of something like 8 citations in the last year. I call that ridiculously low for a medical journal. I don't believe the 1.63 impact factor, since it's not covered by Journal Citation Reports. It has to be one of the fake impact factors, or a plain and simply lie. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Indexing in SCOPUS is not, and cannot be, sufficient, because SCOPUS does not give us any commentary on the quality of the journal. It's not in ISI, not in DOAJ, not in JCR, not in PubMed (wich is a definite problem for a medical journal) and, as randykitty correctly identified, we can't say any of that because the only independent source that has anything to say about it at all, is Beall. How can we have an WP:NPOV article on what is, according to all the evidence, a fake journal, when the only admissible source is presence in an index?
 * And this is getting a bit weird. The journal homepage is with a company called Allied Academies, based in London. The index page says the ISSN is linked to an Indian publisher called Scientific Publishers. The "source" link in the index gores to pedatricresearch.info, which doesn't exist. The SJR for the Indian journal is 0.12, whereas this journal claims 1.63. Literally nothing about this checks out., please check it yourself. It is possibly a hijacked journal, I don't know, but it is pretty clear to me that we need secondary sources, not primary, for exactly that reason. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Indices like Scopus don't need to give commentary, this is about selectivity. Scopus also computes the SCImago Journal Rank, for what it's worth. In this case, I think Scopus got swindled by crap, or that the journal got hijacked after inclusion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And Wikipedia is about NPOV. This article is a mashup of at least two different journals, and it is impossible to find out what belongs where because there are zero independent secondary sources. Simple test for you: reviewing the indexes, who publishes the journal? The ISSN on the linked homepage brings up records to a similarly titled journal published by a different company on a different continent. How does being in SCOPUS help us to fix that? Guy (Help!) 14:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no POV problems in the article. The publisher is Allied Academies as can be verified by the journal's website. Scientific Publishers of India is likely the original publisher, and then something happened afterwards, like the journal or imprint got sold. The issue is that WP:V is compromised in a lot of other places, and that WP:N is not established. It's quite likely Scopus inclusion comes from before whenever Allied Academies got involved, and it's just never been reviewed since. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What you just did is textbook WP:OR. SCOPUS is a reliable source, it says the journal is published by Scientific Publishers of India. We have two primary sources, SCOPUS and the website, and SCOPUS, taken at face value, is talking about a completely different journal - any inference to the contrary is entirely our own conjecture. it might be a hijack or the journal might have been sold, we don't know. In fact we can't say the journal is in SCOPUS because the only source we have for that is the website, which also gives an impact factor that does not check out. This is precisely why Wikipedia policy has always been to use reliable independent secondary sources. What the article says about the journal, comes solely from its own website (WP:SPS). What the one independent directory source says, conflicts in important ways. We cannot say what is true because there are no independent sources to guide us. It's a supposedly notable journal and we can't verify the most basic facts. The ISSN tracks to a completely different publisher and website in the directories. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:OR? Please. I haven't written anything in the article based on any conjecture. Databases can be outdated. The current publisher is Allied Academies. It used to be Scientific Publishers. Worldcat (that is your where your ISSN information takes you) is a notoriously bad database when it comes to keeping up to date. I don't know when the journal changed publisher, but I'd guess it's fairly recent (see below). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "The part I can not verify is Scientific Publishers of India ever having published it. The website of the apparently relevant firm,, shows it as a publisher and distributor and book dealer of books,  mainly textbooks, which also distributes but not publishes journals. The journals part of their catalog contains most of the well known Indian journals, published by a number of different publishers, most of which are long established and reputable. They do not currently distribute this journal--nor would they have any reason to, for it is an entirely web-based Open access journal, and they handle paid titles.  If Scopus lists them as a publisher  of this journal, they are referring to issues prior to v 9, 1991, and may have mistaken the distributor from the publisher. It's not an obvious case of hijacking, there are not two titles,  and the information in the article appears valid. (On examining the Allied website, this is one of the more respectable of their journals. Looking at the journal, I've seen much worse. The material is minor, but not ridiculous.). I continue to say keep.   DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Allied Academies guidelines here mention Scientific Publishers of India. Which makes me believe this is some type of imprint, or a rebranding of division of Scientific Publishers of India that happened as some point after 2014. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And yet, that is the publisher, according to several indexes. And of course we have no idea because there are no independent secondary sources other than Beall. Incidentally, what is your view of the likely merit of a medical journal that's not PubMed indexed? Guy (Help!) 19:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It also seems Allied Academies are owned by the same guy that owns OMICS. That's explain a lot about the current lack of reliability of anything surrounding this journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Its Scimago listing uses a slightly different spelling . They confirm its bottom-rank citations and also list the publisher as being Scientific Publishers of India. But this case shows why I'm skeptical of "it's listed in an index" as a notability standard; beyond the fact of their listing, what can you actually say about them? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Date of establishment, editor(s) in chief, publisher(s), who indexes it, what field it covers, frequency of publications, where the journal stands as far as impact goes, and so on. WP:JWG has more, although in many cases the answer is 'well, it kept the same name, so there's no name change history to detail'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Scimago does not have those details. It lists as its source http://pediatricresearch.info/ - that website does not exist. About the only thing we can say with confidence is that it exists and has a certain ISSN. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Scimago doesn't need to have those details. That's why we draw from several sources. http://pediatricresearch.info/ was the old domain, it was moved to http://www.currentpediatrics.com/ at some point, which was redirected to http://www.alliedacademies.org/current-pediatrics/ at some point. This last move is fairly recent, as currentpediatrics.com was still up in July. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, textbook WP:OR. Show me a source that says this. Show me a source for change of ownership. Guy (Help!) 14:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is zero WP:OR, only demonstrable facts as demonstrated above. CPR was published by SPI now it's published by AA. There is no need to find a source covering specifically the transfer of ownership, unless we want to make specific claims about the transition. Since we don't have any such sources, we make no such claims. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Is anybody willing to hop off the fence?
 * Delete The closest thing to reliable evidence about this journal is a chain of HTTP 302 messages, which is not a solid foundation for an encyclopedia article. (Searching alliedacademies.org for the string "Scientific Publishers of India" finds lots of documents with that branding. My guess is that SPI and AA are cups in the OMICS shell game.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Undecided Not in pubmed. Which raises concerns about notability.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Allied Academies as the journal's 'publisher'. PriceDL (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't think a redirect to the 'publisher' article is suitable, since that article also probably could be deleted per WP:Notability --Treetear (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 14:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Treetear, the publisher article also can be deleted per WP:Notability Glycomics123 (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2018 (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.