Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeuroQuantology


 * 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 no consensus. North America1000 10:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

NeuroQuantology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is promoting a SCAM journal that does not exist as journal with published article content. Instead, all DOI links resolve at a single title page at https://neuroquantology.com/. Archives link from the journal home page goes to https://neuroquantology.com/archives.php and reloads SCAM advertisements luring unsuspecting authors to submit their work for profit. The journal was de-listed from Web of Science because of the 2018 introduction of Article Processing Charge of 2500 GBP and publishing 390 articles in the year from Asian authors on topic that have nothing to do with the aim and scope. In the context that other issues contains at most 10-12 articles, particularly notorious is the monthly issue NeuroQuantology volume(16) issue(6) with 148 articles exclusively with Chinese authors, all of these 148 works can be verified as titles and authors in Scopus. From within Scopus, where the journal is still indexed, one can see how the article numbers varied for different years: 2021 (41), 2020 (126), 2019 (94), 2018 (390), 2017 (69), 2016 (69), 2015 (51), 2014 (52), 2013 (61), 2012 (77). Because the journal has no article contents online, I recommend Deletion from Wikipedia as it serves to promote the SCAM in Asian countries.
 * Fact 1: The Website home page fraudulently advertises Impact Factor and rotates without permission logo of Clarivate. Whoever maintains the site is fully aware that the journal is delisted from Web of Science and no longer has impact factor. This fact, shows intention behind the action.
 * Fact 2: The Website home page fraudulently advertises indexing by PubMed. This fact, also shows intention behind the action.

EleOk6e3ih (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Vote: Delete SCAM. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, while scam is a bit harsh, and items published in the journal have had some media attention (from The Washington Post to The Sun (NSFW)), on searching the internet and perusing the Scopus profile I don't quite see how this passes GNG or WP:NJOURNAL.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 11:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete It doesn't matter if it's a scam or not, a notable scam would still be notable. If anyone can find really good references indicating that this is an example of a scam publication that sets the standard for scamming and is a notable scam, it would deserve its WP article as a scam. But as a journal it doesn't. I can't find it in WoS's list of journals. Scijournal give it a dismal citation index, indicating that few people are referring to it; it therefore fails on criteria of being considered a reliable and influential source in its subject area, and in being frequently cited; it certainly isn't historically important either, which is the 3rd journal criterion. Elemimele (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to re-think my feeling on this, in view of @Headbomb's comments; the article is a fair reflection on the history of a pseudoscience clap-trap journal that does indeed appear to stand out of the crowd. Maybe it does qualify as a notable clap-trap. weak keep Elemimele (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear, Elemimele. Just click on the link inside the article which says Journal archive: I copied it from the article here Do you see the Journal archive - No? This is not a journal, this is a website for scamming researchers who want to submit their work somewhere. Having a Wikipedia entry just helps the scammers. Also, just open the journal homepage and see what animated adds go there  The animated gif starts with SCAM "Clarivate Analytics 2017 Journal Citation Reports Impact Factor 0.453"  and then "Welcome to the Future of Science". The journal has no right to use logo of Clarivate at all, and it is a fraudulent practice to show Impact Factor from 2017 knowing very well that the journal is delisted from Web of Science and will never be listed again. I disagree with the judgement of Headbomb. This Wikipedia entry is not useful to anyone besides the scammers. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you if the article said nice things about the journal, but it doesn't. It describes it very clearly as a journal with a deeply troubled history facing serious accusations of publishing pseudo-science nonsense. I can't see how the WP article could conceivably be seen as helping scammers; it's the very opposite of promotional. I would delete if this were just yet another junk journal, but it does seem to stand out of the crowd and take junkiness to a whole new (notable) level. Elemimele (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are so many junk journals polluting the academic scientific scene at present that for any one of them to have an article to itself it would need to be very prominent. This one isn't.  Athel cb (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's a journal of nonsense, but a notable one being indexed in Scopus (and in the past in Web of Science/JCR), and is relatively well cited for a nonsense journal. Coverage in The Lancet Neurology and others makes this pass WP:GNG handily. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear Headbomb, please see my reply to Elemimele above, and just please click on the above links to see what I am talking about. First, this is not a journal -- it is a fraudulent website with predatory OA clickbait showing invalid Impact factor. Second, who does this Wikipedia article benefit? Certainly not me and you or anyone who comes to learn from Encyclopedia. Having a list of fraudulent sites and notorious scammers is one thing, but having a Wikipedia entry for every predatory OA journal is another. It is quite sad that Jeffrey Beall was forced to shut down his famous list --otherwise the journal would have been classified as predatory and immediately deleted per Wikipedia guidelines. And here is my challenge to you: Give me one example of a journal that has article in Wikipedia, which rotates animated GIF with a fraudulent Impact Factor on its home page. This sole fact says a lot - SCAM and not an academic journal. Whoever runs the website is fully aware of the fact that the journal is delisted from Web of Science, but does not care for those who will submit! Second challenge: give me one example of a journal that has article in Wikipedia, which is not indexed in PubMed, but fraudulently advertises on its home page that it is indexed in PubMed using without any permission the PubMed logo. Give me the examples, by pointing to Wikipedia articles and I will reconsider my vote. p.s. I have revised my rationale for the nomination for deletion explicitly formulating Facts 1 and 2. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "this is not a journal" It is a journal, or at least was one at some point in the past. The impact factor is likewise not "invalid", it is dated. The journal was covered by JCR even if it no longer is. As it being considered predatory or not, we've got plenty of articles about nonsense journals, like Journal of Cosmology or African Journal of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicines. Lastly, concerning "promoting SCAM journals or whatever", this article is far from promotional, and I'd question the sanity of anyone reading this article and concluding that NeuroQuantology is a reputable venue to publish your research in. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per . It's actually a fairly prominent venue for this particular kind of nonsense. (As experience trying to clean this kind of nonsense off of Wikipedia has made clear over the years.) It's better that we document the scam rather than ignore it, and we have the references necessary to do so. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This actually made me pause and reconsider my vote. I'm still undecided, on the one hand this non-journal sounds like Medical Hypotheses if it was published by Deepak Chopra.  On the other hand, Wikipedia has articles on those topics as well.  But this still carries the risk that it might become a magnet for True Believers. Hyperion35 (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's always that risk, but empirically speaking, it seems to have been pretty stable. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. This fringe-science journal is indexed by Scopus, was indexed by the Science Citation Index Expanded (notability is not temporary), and even attracted attention from The Lancet Neurology. We have plenty of articles that are magnets for "True Believers". The solution is not to delete them but put them on your watchlist... As for the PubMed logo, I think that is owned by the US government and in that case is in the public domain. In any case, it's not Wikipedia's task to correct copyright infringements on third party websites. --Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The logo itself may be in the public domain, but the impostor action does not become less fraudulent if the logo is free or not. I have revised the text of Fact 2 to be pedantically correct. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 10:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Actually, if you look at the journal's NLM catalog entry you will see that some of its articles are indexed in PubMed. Not that it means much, this is because PubMed indexes PubMed Central (PMC), which accepts almost all articles published OA if financed by public US money. The important thing here is that the journal is not in MEDLINE, which in contrast to PMC is selective. As for your edit summary about OR: "click on the link" and look for your self is more or less a textbook example of OR. For all we know they have a computer problem and this is a transient error. --Randykitty (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry Randykitty, but I am afraid that you are not in the academic publishing business - therefore, you misunderstand the terms. "Indexing" by a service means that a journal is selected for inclusion after passing a set of inclusion criteria and passing formal evaluation by the agency, in this case PubMed. So, what I wrote is literally exact - NeuroQuantology is NOT indexed by PubMed. If you visit this PubMed official link you will read: "Not currently indexed for MEDLINE." However, it is mandated that articles funded by NIH have to be deposited in PubMed central. So, a couple of authors have reported NIH funding in order to get their articles in PubMed central, thereby circumventing the fact that a given trash journal is not indexed. This is how people can bend the rule and corrupt any evaluation system by finding exploitable loopholes in existing practices. If you do proper Search in PubMed as follows you will see only 3 abstracts appearing in 2011 and 2012. I think that the PubMed has realized the loophole and closed it for this journal. I hope that my explanation helps. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. I see I'll have to address my ignorance about academic publishing to counter your superior knowledge. However, "I think that the PubMed has realized the loophole and closed it for this journal" is pure speculation. A more parsimonious explanation would be that the journal simply did not publish any other articles financed by the US government, instead of being banned by PMC (a rare event; I only know of one publisher who had that happen to them: OMICS Publishing Group, but there may be a few more). Of course, that is pure speculation, too. As long as we don't have a reliable source clarifying what is going on, there's nothing that we can say with confidence. --Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I remember that you have been mistaken by others with a famous person who worked as a librarian in Denver. So, I accept that you are knowledgeable of the publishing business and because of that there is nothing more that I want to add. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Sorry Randykitty, but I am afraid that you are not in the academic publishing business" is a pretty laughable claim to those of us who know Randykitty is. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is interesting, from the standpoint that a bunch of harmful bunk has gained as much prominence and attention as it has. Honestly makes me quite mad due to my personal experience with the harm of stuff like this within my family. Nevertheless, noteworthyness has been well-explained by others here and I agree with them. Noteworthy is noteworthy. I also agree that given the prominence of this nonsense, it is better to have a wikipage on it so a neutral overview of what it actually is can easily be found, and possibly dissuade an uncertain person from falling for pseudoscience. I would hope that in the (near)future this article would be expanded and cleaned up nicely to include critizims the scientific community may have levied on this journal. -- Tautomers (T C) 08:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:FRINGE. I don't see how waiving your hands around saying that this could be improved works. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is neither spam, nor is there anything in WP:FRINGE that prohibits covering fringe topics. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be spam if the people who run NeuroQuantology had written an article about how awesome NeuroQuantology is. This article is not that. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 12:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nomination Ratnahastin(Cont) (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What, precisely, about the nomination makes the case that the journal is not notable? It makes an argument that the journal is not respectable, but that's a completely orthogonal question. And it admits that the journal is indexed in Scopus, which we generally take to be a sign of notability. Frankly, all that deleting this article would accomplish would be to make information showing that NeuroQuantology is not respectable harder to find, thereby assisting what the nomination calls a "SCAM" operation. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Headbomb. Not covered under WP:FRINGE, and predatory journals can still be notable. Suriname0 (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep it is in Scopus and the subject of substantial coverage regarding how bad it is. That plus the need to have neutral coverage to cite in project discussions when people propose it as a source, justifies a keep. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 02:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * what substantial coverage? The coverage in The Lancet Neurology is limited to a single sentence: "January witnessed the launch of NeuroQuantology, an e-journal devoted to quantum neuroscience" (next sentence: "March saw the week-long Quantum Mind conference at the University of Arizona bringing in the crowds.") in "The last word" section (which coveres the fringe phenomena of "Quantum theories of consciousness" at large). Other than that we have skepticaleducator.org, which is a personal website, that devotes more space to this. A journal being indexed in Scopus or other databases, all with a low to non-existent impact factor, is not sufficient as it does not demonstrate impact. This level of sourcing does not demonstrate WP:GNG.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 13:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It does demonstrate impact, actually. And yes, it does meet WP:GNG.&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A single sentence mention in The Lancet Neurology comprehensibly fails significant coverage (GNG), leaving us with skepticaleducator.org which is questionable in terms of reliability and significance. This predatory journal may have gotten non-nil coverage, but it still very close to nil. Basing a GNG claim off of a post on skepticaleducator.org is very weak. I'll flip my !vote if you show actual in-depth coverage.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 05:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per Eostrix, the coverage in Lancet Neurology is hardly significant. Being listed in Scopus or Web of Science is directory-type information. It does not justify notability any more than a listing in the Yellow Pages justifies notability of a company. Sjakkalle (Check!)  20:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: that is not correct. To be listed by Scopus or one of the databases included in the Web of Science means that a journal has undergone an in-depth evaluation. This is therefore significantly more than a "directory-type" listing. Think of it as kind of an award (and in addition, those databases provide an in-depth analysis of citations to and from a listed journal, so it's not just a "directory listing" in that sense either). --Randykitty (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * According to Scopus, they have 23,542 journals in the database, so it is clear they are aiming to be comprehensive and inclusive. It is not an award or an honor list. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  06:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Out of more than an estimated 100,000 academic journals at least, so Scopus is far from comprehensive... --Randykitty (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2021 (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.