Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine


 * 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. MuZemike 20:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine

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

This journal, founded in 2008, has absolutely no independent, secondary sources attesting to its notability. Deprodded with some mention of being listed in a government directory. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor should it attempt to imitate a library catalog. As can be seen at the failed attempt to codify notability for journals, WP:Notability (academic journals), there is no consensus to allow people to advertize their product on Wikipedia just because it is an academic journal. Abductive (reasoning) 08:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Journal included in the rather selective PubMed database, showing clear notability. Article is not an advertisement as claimed by nom. --Crusio (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliance on Pub Med is not consensus. What exactly are their criteria for inclusion? Wikipedia's article does not say. Look at the contributions of the article creator, User:OpenAccessforScience; all the articles are promotional, a clear COI and SPA. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliance on PubMed is indeed not consensus. However, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals) shows that there are people that think that the proposed guideline is too permissive, as well as those who feel that it is too exclusive. Consensus therefore does not seem to be possible, at this time. For me, inclusion in PubMed is enough evidence of notability. (The journal selection process is described here, note that only about 20-25% of proposed journals are accepted for inclusion, which seems a rather high standard). As for the article being promotional, yes, they were created by an account that seems to have a COI (but not necessarily, this could be a researcher who feels strongly that OA is the way to go, this is not necessarily the publisher of this journal), but I have extensively re-written the stub and I don't think that any promotional language was left. --Crusio (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep The article is clearly not an advertisement and WP:NOTDIRECTORY doesn't apply here. The article barely passes WP:RS. Deletion, however, is premature. Warrah (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean WP:NOTDIRECTORY in the sense that having articles for every journal that is listed in outside directories like ISI, PubMed or Scopus is an attempt to duplicate those outside directories. As far as I am concerned, if one can't add encyclopedic content to an article, and there are no sources for notability, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By premature, do you mean "it'll be notable someday"? Abductive  (reasoning) 20:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Uncerrtain Unlike Crusio, I do not consider being in PubMed as definitive proof; But the journal is also in Scopus, which is relatively more selective, and that supports notability. The problem here is that it is a very new journal: it is only at v.2, and has published only 33 papers in 2008 & 32 papers in 2009 --and it is too early for there to be a citation record yet, and the publisher is a newly established one, publishing only journals of this general importance. .   Looking at secondary  factors, the editor in chief can be identified in Web of Science--  his is a senior researcher in a good hospital, but not a department head, and he has published 75 papers, with highest counts 38, 36, 32  in good journals, h=14, which in a field like his is probably notable, but not very notable. The Associate ed. in chief, Ayala, is very notable. Theeditorial board seems to be a long list of everybody he knows. About 50 libraries have cataloged it, but most of them are from the same region as his hospital, and it is not quite the same commitment to catalog an online free journal as to actually subscribe to a paid one.  Looking at the articles published, about half are from first-rate universities.    DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The discussions above have prompted me to do a little bit more research on this journal. The Editor-in-Chief seems like has >200 publications from his services in various universities/institutes. The 75 published papers cited above might be those only from his current institute. He also has 9 active NIH grants, 8 R01 and 1 R21 which is extremely reputable under today's ecomomic and funding situation. I did not check his funding history, but I can imagine his track record given his current funding status. More than 50% editorial board members have active NIH research fundings. I also notice that there is an Member of National Academy of Sciences of USA in the Founding Editorial Board of this journal, which may also support the notable status of this journal.OpenAccessforScience (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability does not descend from other topics. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * delete no evidence of notability presented. - Altenmann >t 23:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Crusio and DGG. It's a science journal, it's not crank, could be used as RS, and there is no harm in having it on Wikipedia. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then the fiction fans will say there is a double standard, which will be true. There are a lot of journals, something like 300,000 active ones. None of the keep arguments presented so far rely on anything other than wishful thinking. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:24, 15 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.