Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Sciences, Society and Policy


 * 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines at this time. Davewild (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Life Sciences, Society and Policy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article on an academic journal created by apparent COI editior (user name matches name of a co-editor-in-chief of the journal). De-PRODded by an IP tracing to the co-EICs home institution. Journal was established in 2005 under a different name (although for some unfathomable reason the COI editor insists on claiming that the journal was established only in 2013 - the journal website lists volumes back to 2005). However, neither under the old name, nor under the new one does this seem to be included in any selective database, nor are there any independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  14:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. It has a reputable publisher but it's WP:TOOSOON to have accumulated any independent notability itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Springer says "CURRENTLY NO ARTICLE PROCESSING FEES". Since this is an open access journal, it begs the question of the business model. My best guess is that it is a "special offer for launch", and there will be processing fees later on. That could be indirect proof of non-notability. Tigraan (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * weak Keep. As the article says, it is the continuation of Genomics, society and politics, published since ESRC Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics; Centre for Society and Genomics (Nijmegen, Netherlands) since 2005. That it has been picked up by a commercial published and continues as an OA journal is quite unusual, and might make it significant. I doubt they will keep it without a publication charge indefinitely, but they might as a demonstration. Worldcat shows it in many hundreds of libraries, but many colleges now routinely add everything in DOAJ (Directory of open Access Journals) to their catalog, so that isn't a good criterion. Checking the pre cursor journal, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, & Columbia, all of which list only selectively, have not added it -- I check these, btw, because they're the nearest such libraries and show up on the first few screens of WorldCat when searched from NYC). Most Springer journals are notable. In the absence of an impact factor, one can check individual articles in the journal: a/c Google Scholar, the ones with the highest cites are 45, 41, 29, 21,, 17, which is pretty good for a new journal.  But in this field, I'd hope for at least one article with over 100.  DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * An example of a Springer journal that failed after a few years is Research on Language and Computation. During its short life, that journal was indexed in Scopus, so it meets NJournals, but I think the verdict on Life Sciences, Society and Policy is still out. --Randykitty (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I cannot see how this journal meet the criteria of WP:JOURNALCRIT. I don't think it has been given any sort of citation index, nor has it been cited by any other conventional media as an expert source. Maybe in a few years it will get its own article, but probably not now. — Taq Pol talk contrib 07:30, 18 June 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.