Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of the European Royal Society (JERSY)


 * 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  11:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Journal of the European Royal Society (JERSY)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article PRODded with reason "New journal, with as yet not a single article published. No independent sources, not indexed anywhere. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals." DePRODded with reason "Added note on projected date of first issue. We used PLoS page as template because it too was originally launched in beta. Also, we believe JERSY is on the same edge as PLoS for unique form of peer review, and therefore relevant for Wiki too." This journal, however, is rather obviously less notable than any PLoS journal. I would like to add that the whole thing smells fishy: "confidential" editor and editorial board, huge subscription rates (despite authors having to pay to get their articles published), a "European Royal Society" that nobody has ever heard of (and whose "publishing branch" is -according to WorldCat- located in Florida), a website in clumsy English with paranoid-sounding references to cabals of reviewers/editors, etc. In any case, whether as a "mainstream" or a non-mainstream journal, there is not a shred of evidence that this is notable, nor that it ever will become notable. Hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia and notability. The journal seems no less notable than Wikipedia (to say the least). And we all know Wikipedia even presents itself as an encyclopedia. If the page is against the rules, let it be deleted by all means. But what are the derogatory statements all about? Were you hoping to leave a permanent trace of your Sherlock Holmes fantasy, and thus harm the journal? Your insinuations and insults speak of you more than they do about the subject matter. For instance, as stated by the journal, anonymity goes only as far as the review, and after that all names are published in the last volume annually, in alphabetical order so they can not be directly related to articles and authors... Not only that, but the Wikipedia rules too are far from being as stringent as you'd like them to be. Tersarius (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC) — Tersarius (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: Please remember to be civil and to assume good faith. &mdash;Al E. (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, hateful accusations and insinuations are a tiny bit worse than lack of civility and good faith, don't you think? Or criticizing someone's English when you go by name "Guillaume"; pardon my French. Thanks for the reminder though! Tersarius (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a hateful insinuation to remark on the fact that a website uses less-than-correct English if it is produced by an outfit calling itself "European Royal Society", especially if the latter is apparently based in Florida. And this is the first time ever that I see a journal that keeps the identity of the editors and editorial board "confidential". All that really seems kind of fishy. As far as the notability of Wikipedia goes, there are, by now, thousands of articles in reliable sources about WP. As far as I can see, this journal, for all its purported royalty, has not a single one. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see that ERS Publishing, not ERS, is located in Florida. If an approach is new then it's all about novelty rather than fishy; unless one wants to be judgmental. Putting 'confidential' in quotation marks is misleading: the journal clearly states that this is intentional and gives its reasoning. You cynicism works against your argument. About Wikipedia: there are thousands of articles to the contrary too, none of which was written by Wikipedia contributors. Yearoundone (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Yearoundone (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fishy indeed, but that makes it more notable not less. However not enough to make up for lack of RS. To clarify further: there are no reliable sources to indicate that the journal exists in any recognizable form. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Delete. The PROD rationale is valid and there is no evidence of notability. In addition, this does not appear to be a legitimate journal, given the failure to disclose editors' names, the unknown "ERS" which is not based in Europe (and which has a web page that simply redirects to the journal), and some suspicious wording on the official website -- e.g."submissions previously rejected by Nature or Science magazines for obviously political reasons (such as going through refereeing process but getting rejected without much of an explanation) are particularly welcome." It could be a hoax. -- 202.124.75.104 (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — 202.124.75.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You are wrong on all points: (1) It's not a "failure to disclose" when the editorial policy is based on not disclosing identity immediately but only after a delay (names published at the end of the year), and the journal clearly states it. (2) I can see that ERS Publishing, not ERS, is located in Florida. (3) If an approach is new then it's called novelty, not a hoax; unless one wants to be judgmental. (4) Deciding whether to delete or leave based on editorial policy (or as you call it "suspicious wording") is politics; Wikipedia never stated any political agenda. Yearoundone (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Yearoundone (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Yearoundone (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: where exactly is ERS located, then? Nevertheless, whatever the story is behind this "journal", it spectacularly fails to satisfy WP:N. -- 202.124.73.10 (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

— 202.124.73.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Easter Island? You are quick to cite WP:N but the journal already satisfies the third criterion of WP:NJournals: it has a historic purpose of setting a new standard in peer review.  Secondly, despite some novelty, there is no precedent: PLoS has done something very similar, and JERSY has just pushed it a notch closer to the literal meaning of (blind) peer-review. All independent sources that ever cited PLoS on the subject matter (of its unique approach to peer-review) apply to JERSY as well, because it's the article's subject that's relevant in assessing journal notability, not the article's topic: "It is possible for a journal to be notable according to this standard and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." (An explanation following the Criterion 3; Note that this specific explanation applies when checking for lack of notability rather, but obviously the principle is the same). JERSY editorial policy suggests that the journal's core subject (purpose-wise, not contents-wise) is the same as that in PLoS for example: giving a truer meaning to the peer-review process. Yearoundone (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC) — Yearoundone (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  — Yearoundone (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The subject of this article is the "Journal of the European Royal Society," which is discussed in no WP:RS at all, and hence fails WP:N. -- 202.124.72.116 (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC) — 202.124.72.116 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * While JERSY is the subject, please note that WP:NJournals takes precedence over WP:N. And since the article satisfies the third criterion of WP:NJournals, the following provision in the second paragraph of WP:NJournals applies: "...if a journal is notable under this guideline, its possible failure to meet other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." Note also that the criteria are on either or basis too, so a journal needs no mention by third-party independent sources whatsoever, meaning they are not a must if it sets a precedent. Yearoundone (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC) — Yearoundone (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment I hope we will soon have an article on that no doubt glorious institution the European Royal Society. I am waiting with thrilled anticipation to find out by which royal houses of Europe it is endorsed. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC).
 * You beat me, I had the same thought... :-) Must be King Nicolas I of Europe, or would that be Queen Angela I? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of King David myself. I guess that Prince Dominique is no longer in the running. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Does the above warning to be civil and to assume good faith apply to everyone in here? Yearoundone (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC) — Yearoundone (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. I don't see how this satisfies WP:NJournals if it hasn't actually published anything yet. As claimed, it may very well set a new precedent in peer-reviewed journals, but I say it's WP:TOOSOON. I suggest the proponents of this article wait until the journal is officially published, is written about in some reliable sources, and then create an article. As a side note, I am disappointed at the incivility on both "sides" here. If I may quote: "No matter how much you're being provoked, resist the temptation to snap back. It never works well; it just makes things worse." &mdash;Al E. (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, please note that WP:NJournals takes precedence over WP:TOOSOON. And since the article satisfies the third criterion of WP:NJournals, the following provision in the second paragraph of WP:NJournals applies: "...if a journal is notable under this guideline, its possible failure to meet other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." Note also that the criteria are on either or basis too, so a journal needs no published articles whatsoever, meaning they are not a must if it sets a precedent.  Your civility quotation is noted. Yearoundone (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC) — Yearoundone (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - the sole online presence of the "European Royal Society" is this unpublished paper (the author of which also has a "full disproof of General Relativity Theory"). It is clear that this society does not exist, and that the subject of this article is not a legitimate journal. In any case, it does not remotely satisfy WP:N and WP:V. Significantly, a search for the ISSN at www.oclc.org finds no record of this "journal." -- 202.124.75.228 (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Who knows who the members are and what the policy on that is, but the society is not the subject of the article, so I suggest you stick to the rules and assume good faith. Libraries and PayPal have obviously verified the journal. The subject is a legitimate journal, properly registered and assigned two ISSN as well as other necessary library identification. The PayPal verification (click on For Authors on the journal's site) tells me that all payments are secure, and that PayPal money back policy applies. You realize that PayPal regulations are as stringent as those of any US bank, and that PayPal is used by thousands of journals? So the users are assured in this case that they can get their money back. Also, note that WP:NJournals takes precedence over any other guidelines in this case and that the article satisfies the third criterion (as it sets a historic precedent in peer-review), so the article doesn't have to satisfy those you cite or the remaining two criteria in WP:NJournals; namely, the second paragraph of WP:NJournals reads: "...if a journal is notable under this guideline, its possible failure to meet other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant."  Yearoundone (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC) — Yearoundone (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment The ISSN exists (that's how I found in WorldCat that the publisher was based in Florida). There's also a website, so the article here is not a hoax in the sense that it describes something non-existing, either (although I agree that the journal's website does not give the impression that this is a serious scholarly journal). In any case, {{WP:NJournals]] certainly does not trump any other guideline, as it is just an essay, not a guideline (and even if it weren't, WP:GNG is the "top" guideline). In any case, JERSY does not meet any single criterion of NJournals. Just saying that its purpose is historic is not enough, independent reliable sources confirming that are needed. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is enough because, as shown above, being historic is one of three equally important criteria for an article on a journal to be included in Wikipedia, namely it sets a historic precedent (on peer-review; similar to PLoS). So the three criteria have equal weight; meeting either of the three criteria suffices. Note also that the following provision in the second paragraph of WP:NJournals applies too: "...if a journal is notable under this guideline, its possible failure to meet other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." Yearoundone (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC) — Yearoundone (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I also saw the WorldCat entry, but a legitimate ISSN should also appear at www.oclc.org. And anybody can set up a website with www.hosting24.com, as this "journal" has done. And the only ERS Publishing on the web is this one. But I think we agree on deletion of this article. -- 202.124.74.135 (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Anybody can do anything. Why www.oclc.org, and not hundreds of other resources for librarians? I never heard of a rule that says a journal must be included in www.oclc.org in addition to another database such as WorldCat? Can we stick to the rules and assume good faith, no? Otherwise your opinion turns into a "guilty until proven innocent" type of attitude, which disqualifies you from this debate. Finally, it's irrelevant whether "you agree on deletion"; what matters is: can you prove that the article meets neither of the three criteria in WP:NJournals, period? So far, no one here has done that. You can call it a technicality if you like, but the article definitely meets Wikipedia guidelines and rules for inclusion, as it clearly does meet the historic criterion of WP:NJournals. Any other discussion is misleading and irrelevant. Yearoundone (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC) — Yearoundone (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I think you misunderstand WP:N and WP:V. The burden of proof is on the supporters of the article to show that those guidelines are satisfied. Currently it seems there are no reliable independent sources at all for (1) JERSY, (2) ERS, or (3) ERS Publishing. That rules out all three WP:NJournals criteria. -- 202.124.75.13 (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand WP:NJournals, which says that it is the only guideline needed if a journal meets at least one of the three criteria listed therein. So a journal needs no references; that is just one criterion of three. Journal's image of value will do it, and this journal seems to add an enormous (historic) value. 69.163.243.64 (talk) — 69.163.243.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Leave. To me as a researcher this seems a properly registered, legit scientific journal with a genuine ISSN. That settled, it also features a new and very important editorial concept, obviously ground-breaking in peer review domain! So I find the above concerted effort by non-researchers to discredit this journal rather bizarre, for far less remarkable journals are listed in Wikipedia and I honestly doubt that all of them have independent references. So this journal does meet Wikipedia standards on scientific journals despite not having outside references, which is unlikely to have as a new journal. But it is already remarkable indeed (historic, as the regulations say) so no outside references are required, as WP:NJournals regulations stipulate. Looking forward to reading JERSY articles. 223.19.105.185 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC).  — 223.19.105.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The blog that I am going to start tomorrow will be historic! I say so on the blog's first page, so that makes it so, right? Please be serious. "Historic" for a journal means something like "has published Einstein's relativity theory" or anything other major enough to be termed "historic". The first one to introduce a blurry peer review concept is not "historic". And once more: although I spent a lot of time formulating WP:NJournals myself, it is unfortunately NOT a guideline or "regulation". Please familiarize you with the real guidelines (such as WP:GNG). And again: even if NJournals were a guideline, JERSY misses every criterion by miles. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I fail to see your point, though your cynicism does get through. WP:NJournals refers to itself as a guideline so it must be a truck. But even if the creators of that guideline meant what you claim they meant, that is not what the guideline says. Undoubtedly, in order to qualify for Wikipedia, a journal must meet either of the three listed criteria. You are now being fussy about attributes. But if Wikipedia were half as serious about attributes as you (only now) propose they are, the attribute historic would have been elaborated as well. However, the way it spells: a historic journal is any proper journal (such as JERSY, see above) that sets a previously unseen and therefore historic standard in scientific publishing. So this article does not fail the guideline, it rather meets it to the letter. It is your interpretation of the guideline which is problematic, not this article! Finally, what I really like about Wikipedia is that it allows for many decisions to be made using common sense, and remarkably enough, they do recommend it in this guideline as well. You who attack this article on trifles are not applying common sense, you are hunting a game for a score. 223.19.105.185 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC).  — 223.19.105.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:NJOURNALS does in fact elaborate "historic": "Journals that have been the focus of historical analysis can be covered under this criterion. An example of a journal that would qualify by criterion 3 alone would be Social Text, for the historical role it played in the Sokal affair." -- 202.124.74.157 (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is just an example. It neither says nor implies that is the only way for a journal to be regarded as historic. 69.163.243.64 (talk)
 * This is an utterly preposterous comparison. Social Text, whatever you think of its academic standards, is a long established academic journal. Journal of the European Royal Society (JERSY) has never even published an issue. All the Wikilawyering in the world is not going to establish its notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Excuse me, but the above post was pointing out that "Social Text" illustrates the high bar for historicity, which the subject of this article does not meet. -- 202.124.75.196 (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. At any rate it seems we are in agreement on deletion. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC).


 * Leave. I checked, the journal is properly registered. The concept sounds great as well, the scientific community has been waiting for this for a long time. I agree that historic is just an attribute, otherwise it would be defined as a standard by Wikipedia, probably in a separate guideline explaining how to assess whether something can be regarded as historic or not. The way it is now however, the above discussion is obviously subject to interpretation. The point is that the article meets at least one criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia which we all love because of its openness. So given that Wikipedia promotes such aspects of life as pornography, I see no harm in leaving this article. I also don't understand all the fuss, and especially why so many attackers. Judging by their stubbornness alone, it seems like they could be competition, the infamous Elsevier perhaps? In any case, admins should ignore them/him as they make no sense, they're just trying a bit too hard to discredit something that inherently means no harm. 69.163.243.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC).  — 69.163.243.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Any publisher who sees this journal as "competition" is in serious trouble already... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion. 69.163.243.64 (talk)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG through lack of "independent reliable sources" (the words in the essay Notability (academic journals)). I do not see how it passes any of the three points in the same essay "1.The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." - hasn't been published so cannot be influential (yet), "2.The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources." - again nothing published so hasn't been cited. "3.The journal has a historic purpose or has a significant history." - once more too early to claim either.  GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand WP:NJournals, which says on purpose that it is the only guideline required if a journal meets at least one of the three criteria listed therein. So it is not a must for a journal to have third-party references; that is just one criterion of three. The third criterion is "historic value", which remains undefined by Wikipedia and therefore must be understood as an attribute only. This criterion is a stand-alone just as other two are, and therefore needs no references. Otherwise the first and the third criterion would not be given separately but would be conditionally related. Finally, we all know that it is mostly the appearance which earns attributes, and this journal does seem to add value in peer-review, where its own editorial policy is the only necessary source for it, obviously. This conclusion concurs also with the spirit of an encyclopedia, which is to promote diversity in education, among other things. 69.163.243.64 (talk)
 * The sentence at the start of the section on criteria is "If a journal meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through independent reliable sources". To claim any one of those criteria, it needs the backing of sources. No sources? then the criterion is not met. I suspect you have confused historic (in the past) with historic (a moment that will be noted in history) and this journal has yet to be proven for either GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete for zero notability and probable lack of current or even future existence. I also note that this is as close to WP:SPAM as makes no difference - an obvious attempt to gain credibility for something by being on Wikipedia. QU TalkQu 07:54, 5 April 2012 (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.