Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Biomedical Research

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 redirect to List of Medknow Publications academic journals. Feel free to fix or ping me if that is the wrong redirect. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Biomedical Research

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journal, fails WP:NJOURNALS.

Used to be a redirect to list of Medknow Publications academic journals, and that's all it should be for now, until it becomes notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Virtually unknown journal. For some reason Web of Science doesn't find any papers before 2021, and I can't figure out why not -- maybe it's only just been added to their list of recognized journals. Anyway, the ten papers of 2021 have a grand total of 0 citations. That's not a long enough period for total citations to mean much, but, for comparison, the ten most recent papers in the Journal of Biological Chemistry have been cited six times. Athel cb (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I change my Delete to Keep on the basis of X2PLod's comments below. Athel cb (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The journal has an h-index of 39, which is acceptable for a journal that was established less than ten years ago[1]. Moreover, it has an i-10 index of 470. This index shows about half of the articles of this journal is cited more than 10 times which is acceptable for a journal based on a country like Iran X2Plod (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2021 (IRDT)

This is a biomedical journal that's not even indexed in Medline. Google Scholar-based h-index calculations will also include all sorts of awful sources, from predatory journals to preprints citations. Putting this into Microsoft Academic gives an h-index of 25. This might be a decent journal, but maybe being decent isn't enough. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: h-index is problematic when applied to a single researcher, but completely inappropriate to evaluate journals. This journal is not included in any selective database (ESCI even includes some predatory journals and being OA, inclusion in PMC is automatic). WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notability, the journal can be in indexed in scopus or medline, Science Citation Index or specific notability. I haven't seen journals included with only Emerging Sources Citation Index or h-index/i-10 index. Applus2021 (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to List of Medknow Publications academic journals as preferred WP:ATD. No need to bother AfD with this. ~Kvng (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is Emerging Sources Citation Index of Clarivate is recognised indexing for wiki journal inclusion? Applus2021 (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. ESCI is not very selective and even has been known to include some predatory journals. --Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As Randykitty pointed out, there are enough difficulties with applying the h-index to individuals, and we've no indication whatsoever that it is helpful when evaluating journals. This journal is not indexed in the selective databases to which we look for gauging journal quality, and it does not appear to be noteworthy in any other way (e.g., having attracted interest for an innovative publishing or review model). Of the three most recent articles, one is about prolotherapy and another is on dry needling, and a little ways down the list we find ozone therapy. They may have a low bar regarding the publication of "alternative" medicine, which means that we should be particularly careful about making them look more respectable than they are. In other words, we really need third-party sources that critically evaluate them before we can write an article. XOR'easter (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. This is a directory entry, as it stands. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.