Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupational Health Science (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Occupational Health Science
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The last AfD resulted in a "no consensus", but the debate was marred by canvassing and non-policy-based "keep" !votes. The delete rationale was "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Nothing has changed since then and the delete rationale still stands. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Keep. Weak delete
 * JOURNALCRIT asks if any of the following are satisfied:
 * Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
 * Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.
 * Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area.
 * I do not see evidence for #3.
 * Regarding #1, Journalcrit C1.b says the most typical way of satisfying C1 is to show that the journal is included in selective citation indices, indexing services, and bibliographic databases. Examples of such services are Science Citation Index etc… I went ahead and checked, it is indeed listed in Science Citation Index: https://mjl.clarivate.com/search-results. It is only in Emerging SCI, not the main SCI, and Journalcrit doesn’t list Emerging SCI. I do not have access to check C1.c in CJR or Scopus, but if somebody does, that would provide a quick in the alternative answer under Journalcrit.
 * Regarding #2, I did a search based on the citation abbreviation for the publication, rather than just the publication name as published, due to the publications somewhat unfortunate name for searching, since it’s both the title and a whole topic area. This search (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C21&q=%E2%80%9COccup.+Health+Sci.%E2%80%9C&btnG=) turns up 426 hits to this journal. I also got 34 results in Wikipedia Library. Some of them are obviously the journal itself, but I do see this journal being cited. What I don’t really see is a ton of cites by RS.
 * Since C1.b of Journalcrit is met by listing in Science Citation Index, I’m saying keep.
 * Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. You are mistaken. The journal is not in the Science Citation Index, but in the Emerging Sources Citation Index, which is much less selective and does not satisfy JOURNALCRIT#1. Neither is it in Scopus. 426 citations would not be enough (by far...) to make a single person notable, let alone a whole journal. --Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. You are right, it’s in ESCI not SCI. As a result, I’m now weak delete.
 * ECSI is still selective, just far less selective, do we have a policy cite that it doesn’t satisfy C1.b? I see there’s discussion of it in the talk page, but I don’t see firm policy in Journalcrit. I’d like to have something to lean on for that beyond “it’s not selective enough” without the reader knowing where the line is on selectivity.
 * Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify a tad, as I’m not satisfied I put that clearly enough…
 * I don’t necessarily think ESCI should satisfy Journalcrit C1b, but since I didn’t personally see a clear policy on ESCI, only talk page comments, I’m asking if anybody knows of clear policy guidance regarding ESCI we can cite here, in case somebody asks for proof it is not selective enough. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Shortly after (then) Thomson-Reuters started ESCI, it was found that it included even some rather shady (read "predatory") journals. To the best of my knowledge, inclusion in ESCI has never been taken as indicating notability. It's so ingrained, that I'd be hard put to find the discussion about that. In any case, nobody has ever challenged this (with the possible exclusion of some COI editors). Perhaps remembers where this was discussed. --Randykitty (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide a couple of examples of Thomson-Reuters's ESCI, which only started in 2015, including predatory journals. I am curious to know that because most of us want to avoid using such journals. If T-R did include predatory journals, I suspect it is a correctable mistake made by a start-up indexer.Iss246 (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, their criteria do appear to be extremely permissive, and if they have a history of including questionable journals, that knocks them down another level of being usable. (I took a lengthy break from editing and um…ESCI didn’t even exist the last period I was active, so I wouldn’t have seen those conversations, sadly.) Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. 2 reasons. A)per discussion above and B) lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Cinadon36 19:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ESCI is for Emerging sources, which is basically of interest to Librarians to tell them 'Hey, this publication might be going somewhere' according to various growth metrics etc. But it still falls well below what inclusion in SCI proper would involve. This is the difference between a professional sports player, and someone that's mentioned in a recruiter's notebook as a potential recruit for 2028. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It could alternatively be merged at Society for Occupational Health Psychology if someone wants to do the work. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I vote against deletion. Here is my perspective. Occupational Health Science is a peer-reviewed journal. The editorial board publishes research on psychological, social, and behavioral factors that bear on relationship of work to health. The journal publishes empirical papers, meta-analyses, review articles, and qualitative research on workplace health and safety. Contributors come from a variety of disciplines, including psychology, public health, and medicine, which I believe is a strength.
 * You can check and find out that I initiated Wikipedia entries for several journals that publish on papers on the subject of work and health. These include the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, Work & Stress, the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Social Science & Medicine, and the Journal of Health and Social Behavior. I have published in some of them and have read papers in all of them. I can say that I know them well. As an insider I can say that Occupational Health Science, a journal in which I have not published, belongs in the company of those other journals. OHS is a relatively new journal that perhaps makes editors question its notability. The journal publishes high-quality research and is associated with the Society for Occupational Health Psychology, which although it has the word "psychology" in its title is also crosses disciplinary boundaries. Iss246 (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * All you said here is that OHS is a peer-reviewed journal and does the things a peer-reviewed journal does, then argue that because other peer-reviewed journals are notable, this one should be notable too. But you fail to make a case for why this peer-reviewed journal is notable. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The journal has done good work during the COVID pandemic as you can read from this link in PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7266131/ Iss246 (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * OHS is indexed in Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, Emerging Sources Citation Index, and PubMed. It is worth keeping in Wikipedia. Iss246 (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Citations for those? Because OHS (if you looked for OHES, that's a different journal) is only indexed in ESCI as far as I can tell, and is not in SCI, SSCI, nor AHCI. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep OHS because it meets criteria 1 and 2 but not 3 (too new). Iss246 (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ambox warning pn.svg — Duplicate vote: Iss246 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What's your evidence for this? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The journal OHS is indexed in a variety of databases, including Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, and Emerging Sources Citation Index. An OHS article I found by way of PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32838031/) indicates that it is focused the serious problems related to the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., occupational health of medical personnel, anti-Asia bias, work-family stress). OHS is a journal worthy of maintaining in the encyclopedia. Iss246 (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the second time that you say this. However, this journal is not indexed in any of those databases, except for ESCI. An article published in this journal itself does not contribute to notability at all. And "worthy" is not a criterium for notability either. --Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I accidentally omitted that OHS is also indexed in PsycINFO. Iss246 (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As is mentioned in the article. And, no, PsycINFO is not selective enough to satisfy NJOURNALS. --Randykitty (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Randykitty, with all due respect, you are wrong about PsycINFO. First of all, it does not include predatory journals. Second, the editors are discerning. The editors take their time in selecting journals for inclusion. They are concerned about a new journal's track record. Owing to their selectivity, the editors of PsycINFO reviewed five years of OSH publications before deciding to include the journal in the database. Iss246 (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * KEEP IT. Criteria 1 and 2 are satisfied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4652:443C:0:C43B:298F:387F:E93F (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)  — 2001:4652:443C:0:C43B:298F:387F:E93F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Does not meet either WP:JOURNALCRIT or WP:GNG. PianoDan (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Suitskvarts (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:JOURNALCRIT. Popo Dameron  ⁠ talk  18:30, 28 March 2023 (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.