Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences


 * 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  07:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by anonymous IP with reason: "False and untrue proposal for deletion". Article creator since added several databases. Unfortunately, none of these are selective in the sense of WP:NJournals. Some (like Citefactor) are known bogus "indexing" services". At the moment that I am writing this, the article has 21 "references". These vary from links to library catalogs (only confirming that the journal exists, which is not in doubt anyway), to results from search engines, to press releases and links to the journal's own website or that of its publisher. The article claims that the is "present" in over 500 libraries worldwide. This is an online open access journal and many libraries add a link to such a journal (which does not cost anything) and include it in their "holdings". This is obviously not the same as paying for a subscription to a journal and basically rather meaningless. The article also claims that the journal is "much quoted reference literature". This is substantiated by a link to "Journal Scholar Metrics", which puts the journal in the third quantile of included sociology journals. According to their information, they tried to include as many journals as possible (so inclusion here is not selective) and among all the more than 66000 journals included by them, this one scores in the third quantile, showing that it does not stand out as a highly-cited journal. A Google Scholar search confirms this. In short, the PROD reason still stands. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There is 942 entries at the Google Scholar for the Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences and 234 entries in the Google Books for the same. Therefore this is notable publication. talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * JAPSS is the journal listed and indexed by number of university listings/indexes including those of national character (like British SunCat or Slovenian Cobiss etc.) and by those specialised in the journals indexing (see the article). Number of databases is listed to show the fact that the Journal is real one noted by many. The expression "much quoted" has been removed and CiteFactor link has been removed (one can assume that remark about "hoax" site is true). Reasons why over 500 libraries in WorldCat acquired the Journal is ones personal assumption, but the fact stands that the Journal is present throughout the globe in hundreds of specialised libraries. "Journal Scholar Metrics" puts (!, therefore catalogued) the journal in the third quantile of included sociology journals - this fact can be explained (possibly) by the fact that it is published first in 2008 and to the nature of the Journal. All members of the editorial board and authors published are faculty of some tertiary level scholar institution around the globe. This is awarded institution. One cannot put notability in question. There is one on all accounts. Expressions used in the text of the article can be discussed but not deletion itself. talk)   —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Dear, I see that you are new here and creating a new article on WP can be a daunting experience. In order for a subject to be covered in WP, it needs to be "notable". This word has a very special meaning here, it has nothing to do with good/bad and is not a quality judgement. It is purely used in the sense of "being noted". In order to show "notability", we need in-depth coverage in so-called "reliable sources. For academic journals, we often take a shortcut and accept inclusion in a very selective database as evidence of notability (see WP:NJournals). Number of hits on any part of Google is not an indication of notability. Most of the "hits" ion GScholar are articles published by the journal itself. In GBooks I get only 185 results, but that difference doesn't matter much. None of these hits are about the journal, these are citations of an article or another in the journal. A lot of them are false positives (I see for example a book on foot binding in China that was published in 2000, years before this journal started and therefore unlikely to say anything about this journal). The WorldCat count doesn't say much either. As you state: "Reasons why over 500 libraries in WorldCat acquired the Journal is ones personal assumption". Exactly! Perhaps it is like I said. Perhaps they include it because they all think that this is the most important sociology journal ever. The important thing here is that we have no idea what it is, so it does not provide any solid evidence for notability. Perhaps you are correct and is the dearth of citations (and hence the non-inclusion in large selective databases) simply because the journal is too young. In that case, creating an article on it is too soon, because we cannot predict the future.
 * In the preceding paragraph I have linked a number of essays, guidelines, and policies. Please have a look at them as it will make it much easier for you to navigate WP and to understand how things are being done here. --Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. not in any selective indexes.Furthermore, the article is very highly promotional, intended to overstate the importance of this very unimportant journal.  DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I just checked its usage in similar web, there are 5,000 visitors are accessing this journal site every month . I am sorry, we may not depend completely on commercial indexing sites like Scopus, ISI web of knowledge, EBSCO etc. We should go based on usage and notability. Jessie1979 (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * [Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 21:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]
 * Comment: Usage figures nowhere in any of our guidelines (WP:N, WP:GNG). Please base your !vote on policy. Also, please note that "notability" is used on WP in a very particular sense, namely "has been noted", as verified by coverage in reliable sources. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: I do agree with Randykitty regarding wiki guidelines. But I didn't have expertise on journals reliable sources. Jessie1979 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * [Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 21:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]
 * Comment: Wikipedia policy and guideline about notability is not absolut clear (just checked), it much depends what one assume, know or understand, and it allows discussion about what is notabale, verified and reliable source. By my understanding this article provided a lonog number of third party reliable sources (not connected or part of the journal), and therefore notable and verified.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fajjtus (talk • contribs) 16:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: To conclude, if you insist on agenda to delete the article, delete it. I just dont see the facts for such decision. Just ones or prevailing understanding of the "guidelines" and "notability" concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fajjtus (talk • contribs) 16:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Selection Criteria: We consider the following for including a publication into our database:
 * Delete - does not meet WP:NJournals. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The Journal in the Academic Journals Database http://journaldatabase.info/journal/issn1944-1088. Academic Journals Database indexes about 5800 internationally respected journals.

The publication must exercise peer-review or editorial quality control by qualified specialists to be included. The publication should report primary results of research or overviews of research results to a scholarly community. The publication is of a scholarly content; all scientific and scholarly subjects are covered by the database. The publication exhibits excellence in content. The target group should be primarily researchers. The publication is not commercial in nature. A substantive part of the publication should consist of research papers. All content or most of it should be available in full text. All languages are eligible. The publication should have an ISSN. Second one: http://road.issn.org/issn/1944-1096-journal-of-alternative-perspectives-in-the-social-sciences#.V69bRRKdd_5 Those are not third party reliable cerification sources? Of course they are. The publication should appear at regular intervals, generally more frequently than annually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fajjtus (talk • contribs) 17:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for posting the inclusion criteria of these databases. The journaldatabase clearly accepts anything that resembles an academic journal. Their criteria are even fulfilled by most "predatory" journals. The same goes for the ROAD database. Neither of these two is selective, because they clearly attempt to include every academic journal. --Randykitty (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: British SUNCAT provide us information that this journal is available in the Academic Search Complete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Search, and that is another selective database. Both in printed and electronic form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fajjtus (talk • contribs) 19:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment:COPAC (catalogue of UK and Ireland university, special and national libraries) provide information that both printed (!) and online journal is available throughout Uk http://copac.jisc.ac.uk/search?&title=journal+of+alternative+perspectives+in+the+social+sciences( Fajjtus (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC) )
 * I don't think there's any dispute that the journal exists, . You don't need to prove that. The issue is the journal's notability, or lack of it. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am pretty much assured that there's any dispute that the journal exists . Previous comment was that the journal is not represented in the selective database, as that is seen by some as proof of notability (or not). Obviously is now that this particular journal is represented in both selective formal scholar/researcher databases (not in all, but still) and those without rigid criteria. ( Fajjtus (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC) )
 * Not particularly selective or reputable ones, though, so it remains a delete for me. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Terms "reputable" and "selective" through this discussion turns to be a fog or domain of mystical for me :) Something far beyond from being solid enough to libel this publication as not "notable" and deletion. Absolutely Strong Keep. ( Fajjtus (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC) )
 * To give you an idea, an index such as the Thomson Reuters Social Sciences Citation Index is reputable and sufficiently selective. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. We shouldn't rely too much on indexing services for journals in the humanities, social sciences, law or other non-scientific/technical/medical fields, but this journal seems too new, its title and a number of other things seem suspicious, and there is no evidence of notability. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * When looking a little further into this journal, it appears to have many of the characteristics of a low-quality predatory journal, although I'm not quite sure if it's technically predatory. Among other things, it lists a hotmail e-mail address as its submissions address and the website of the journal invites people to apply to become "Academician of Social Sciences" which is described as "the highest honor bestowed by the International Academy of Social Sciences and by the Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences." One can also apply to become a "Senior Fellow" of the "academy" and thus obtain the right "to publish opinion papers in the Journal." Its founder/owner/etc uses several noble "titles" which appear to be self-assumed; in a self-published book he manages to refer to himself as "the Hereditary Baron" half a dozen times on a single page. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: The following discussion on the organisation that publishes this journal, which was created on the same day, may also be of interest to readers of this discussion: Articles for deletion/International Academy of Social Sciences. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Yes, I have created two articles. On for the journal one for the IASS. No particular secret and not particularly revealing information. As matter in fact, only thing what is correct and right is merging of articles and perhaps change of concept but not deletion.( Fajjtus (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC) )
 * delete I think Bjerrebæk's statement says it all "it lists a hotmail e-mail address as its submissions address". As a former research student I don't see how one can take this as a credible and respected journal when submissions are made via Hotmail address to obviously someone that is not endorsed by a major research institution, university or government agency. LibStar (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2016 (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.