Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupational Health Science (journal)


 * 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. Once I discard a number of !votes which are policy-inferior, if not policy-deficient altogether, this debate is closer than it may appear on the face of it. Deliberately closing as 'no consensus' as this can be renominated in the near future, with this outcome not being prejudicial to that occurring. Daniel (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Occupational Health Science (journal)

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

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 creation likely WP:TOOSOON." Article de-PRODded because article creator object (on article talk page). However, none of the arguments given are policy-based and PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The journal Occupational Health Science (OHES) should not be deleted. This peer-reviewed journal has been in existence for five years. Recently administrators at the American Psychological Association's PsycInfo indexing group decided to include in this preeminent psychology index articles the journal publishes. It took a couple of years for the journal to be recognized by APA's PsycInfo, and now it is. OHES has become an important outlet for papers associated with the field of occupational health psychology (OHP). The other main OHP outlets are Work & Stress and the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. OHES covers work-related physical and mental health, particularly in relation to psychosocial working conditions. OHES also covers job stress, workplace safety, and accidents. From the editor-in-chief through to the associate edtors and the editorial board, the figures who shape the journal are researchers with expertise in working conditions, job stress, safety, burnout, work-related, financial strain, etc.
 * Here some examples of articles that were recently accepted for publication: Musculoskeletal Health and Perceived Work Ability in a Manufacturing Workforce; Effects of Social and Occupational Stress, and Physical Strain on Suicidal Ideation Among Law Enforcement Officers; Job Insecurity during an Economic Crisis: the Psychological Consequences of Widespread Corporate Cost-Cutting Announcements. Respected researchers are the authors. The journal has become too notable to be threatened with deletion. Iss246 (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I disagree that it is non-notable. It is published by a major academic journal publisher that lists where it is abstracted/indexed, and it is a long list.See here. Included are EBSCO, Google Scholar, ProQuest and PsycInfo among many others. A check of Google Scholar shows that its articles are being cited, and authors are prominent academics. This is not a predatory journal or a journal that publishes papers no one reads. I think an article about it is appropriate. Psyc12 (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC) Note that this editor was canvassed on their talk page.
 * Keep It is a legitimate (published by Springer) but relatively new journal.Germsteel (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. While it's still only an essay, the Academic Journals Wikiproject page WP:NJOURNALS seems to be a good attempt at establishing rules in this area. That it is published by Springer is not enough in itself to establish notability. However, a search on google scholar shows that articles in it are cited a lot, meeting criteria 2. OsFish (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Society for Occupational Health Psychology, fails all criteria of WP:NJOURNALS and WP:N. Very likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. The Google Scholar link above shows an h-index of roughly 10-12, which wouldn't be enough for individuals to pass WP:NPROF. Being reliable (e.g. published by Springer) doesn't mean being notable. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Eyeballing citation numbers in google scholar, it appears to fulfill criteria 2 of WP:NJOURNALS in that there are a lot of articles getting cited in double figures. h-index is for authors, not for journals. I can't find an impact factor rating for the journal, which is what we'd really need.OsFish (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The creation of a page dedicated to the journal Occupational Health Science is important. The journal is now well-indexed (e.g., in PsycINFO). The publisher is a highly recognized scientific publisher. The Editor-in-Chief is a remarkable occupational health researcher. Many great figures of occupational health science have already published articles there. The journal applies high standards for research quality, which is a key concern for OHP researchers and practitioners. Ohpres (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC) Note that this editor was canvassed on their talk page.
 * Comment There should be a defacto rule for all major scientific journals to be included in the articlespace, as I believe there is one. I don't see any issues with this subject being included in the articlespace. Multi7001 (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: AS a close will probably be done soon, a few final remarks. To start with, this debate suffered from significant canvassing. However, that can be safely ignored, because the "keep" !votes of these editors were not policy-based but obvious WP:ILIKEIT. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so whether or not authors/editors/publishers are notable is moot. Also irrelevant is our personal evaluation of the quality of the journal. To conclude that it is high quality, we need independent sources and PsycINFO is not the kind of selective database that NJournals requires. In addition, has clearly shown that a single researcher with the citation record of this whole journal would not be judged to meet WP:ACADEMIC. Finally,  seems to argue that we should throw away all notions of notability "for all major scientific journals", where apparently it is left to editor discretion to judge what is "major" or not. In short, the only policy-based arguments come from Headbomb, who proposes merging to the article on the society, which I think is an acceptable solution. --Randykitty (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Randykitty, there actually is a defacto rule for very few types of subjects deemed as authority figures based on common knowledge, such as academic and scientific entities. In this regard, the academic journal is published by Springer and may fall under similar regard; as for example with these two journals: Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology and Child Psychiatry & Human Development. In my opinion, the subject should have its own page in the articlespace and not per any conflicts with notability. Multi7001 (talk) 00:49, 3 December 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.