Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immunome 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.  Sandstein  12:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Immunome Research

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Journal of no consequence published by a no-name publisher. No impact factor, etc. Currently published by OMICS Publishing Group, which is listed as a probable predatory open-access publishing group by Jeffrey Beall. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  23:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This publisher is definitely fishy. The journal is indexed in Scopus, perhaps a remnant from when it was BMC published. I have been arguing for a while that we should not use Scopus indexation as evidence for notability of a journal, given their lax inclusion policy. Rather than concluding that this journal is notable because it is Scopus indexed, I'd rather argue that this inclusion supports my assertion about Scopus. However, given that it is accepted use in journal AfDs to accept Scopus coverage as evidence for notability, I am refraining from casting a !vote at this point, so that the larger community can give their opinion about this issue. --Randykitty (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. For the record, WP:NJournals says that having an impact factor (which this journal does not have) is "always evidence of notability".  It does not make the same statement about Scopus, it merely lists it as an example of one of the indexing services one might consider.  The only indexing services that include this journal (Chemical Abstracts Service, EBSCO Information Services and Scopus) are very non-selective and should not be taken as an indicator of quality or notability. They are likely holdovers from back when this journal was published by BMC. The journal is not indexed in any biological service, which is odd because it is primarily a biology journal. From their website, it can also be seen that they published only 14 articles in 2014 (yes, that's 14 ~articles~, not 14 ~issues~) and they published zero(!) articles in 2013 and three(!) articles in 2012. Junk publisher; junk journal. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. When I remarked on Scopus being taken as indicating notability, I was referring to the AfD practice of the last several years, not NJournals. Scopus should have delisted this journal a while ago. As I said, Scopus is rapidly losing credibility in my eyes, but I don't think other people editing in this area would agree with that. perhaps it is time to revisit this. I'm pinging to see what he thinks about this issue. --Randykitty (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I suspect the Scopus indexing was primarily due to the BMC affiliation. I however think that Scopus indexing does constitute a weak indication of notability--it is not true they have no standards, as is proven by the fact that they index none or almost none of the other journals from the current publisher. Looking at other factors, until the most recent two years they published almost no articles; more recently, most of their articles have been invited reviews and editorials, which indicate effort to become more significant. I think the overall impression is "not yet notable".    (Incidentally, some Omics journals -- not this one -- lay claim to an impact factor, but say in footnotes that it issn unofficial impact factor, based on google Scholar. When we say an impact factor proves notability, we mean an official SCI or SSCI  impact factor, not these.)  DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The nom and Randykitty make a good case against the current Scopus indexing as contributing to notability--there could be some inertia on Scopus' part in delisting. But we need to be careful not to engage in recentism. The journal has fallen on hard times, but the question is, was it notable in the 2005-2011 BMC/Springer era? For the first several years there was only one issue a year, with <10 articles per issue. To me it looks like it was a serious journal that was having trouble gaining traction. The Scopus listing contributes to notability, but I wonder if the listing was because of the importance of the journal or the importance of BMC. This case seems a judgement call, but lack of articles, lack of impact factor and uncertain motivation for the Scopus listing even in the BMC era, suggests to me a marginal delete, with no prejudice to recreation if the journal takes off and regains credibility, impact factors, etc. The basic facts of the journal are verifiable, however, so I don't see any problem with a mention in, e.g., a list of BMC journals. --Mark viking (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. My impression is that this was once a relatively high-impact but very low-output journal.  I don't think it maintained its high-impact status long enough (or published enough articles) to be notable, as suggested by the fact that it has never had an impact factor, even during its "glory days" with BMC. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that Scopus indexing is poor evidence for notability. HOWEVER, I think that this article could be expanded to include notes on the journal's predatory practices, the journal's acquisition by OMICS group, etc. Notable is not synonymous with "good for science." right? I think this journal is notable BECAUSE of its predatory practices, and the articles written about those practices. They establish that the journal has received outside notice and impact, since it was REMOVED from pubmed for being predatory. That's an interesting and notable fact that deserves a mention on Wiki. --Shibbolethink (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The problems that caused the delisting of this journal are not unique to this journal; they apply to all OMICS-published journals, and they are covered on that page. Surely the hundreds of questionable journals published by OMICS do not each deserve their own page just because they share a predatory publisher.  This argument doesn't make sense. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. As far as I know there are absolutely no sources discussing this particular journal, nor its change to OMICS, not its current state. As I didn't !vote earlier: Delete, per DGG. --Randykitty (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2015 (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.