Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (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 keep. Absent any opposition to Jpbowen and North America's assertions, closing as Keep... (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning

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

Article with no independent sources establishing significance, so fails WP:GNG. Impact factor is under 1.3, so importance is not established in the real world either. Publisher is dismissed by Beall as junk, but not on the predatory list because it's not open access. Guy (Help!) 20:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking coverage in independent sources. Note that Beall uses a term much stronger than 'junk' for journals such as this. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The journal is not in any Thomson Reuters database (except the rather worthless Emerging Sources Citation Index), so it does not have an impact factor. (If it did, then 1.3 would actually be pretty high in this particular field). However, the journal is indexed in Scopus (just checked to be sure). Although in my estimation Scopus is becoming less and less selective, inclusion in it is usually taken as meeting WP:NJournals. BTW, Beall did not say this publisher was "junk", just that the journals it publishes in his field are not top-tier. --Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are still no sources other than directories though - this is pretty much WP:ITEXISTS territory. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Databases like Scopus are something more than just directories. There are things like DOAJ, which include everything in their area (in their case, OA journals). Scopus is more selective. Candidates for inclusion are vetted by a committee of specialists, before being included. This is why inclusion in the Science Citation Index or Scopus is taken as indicative of notability. See WP:NJournals (and WP:JWG) for some more background on this. --Randykitty (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reverse is true, in fact. DOAJ just kicked about a thousand journals out and Scopus continues use the high number it includes as an advertising feature. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, DOAJ kicked out a bunch of blatantly predatory journals, but apart from that, they are not selective as they strive to cover every OA academic journal (they just have tightened their definition of "academic journal"). In contrast, Scopus (despite their advertising), will evaluate a journal more in depth and look at, e.g., whether articles in it are cited by other journals, whether the editorial board extends beyond one institution, whether the journal is influential in its field, etc. Despite their advertising, many journals that make it into DOAJ do not make it into Scopus. However, I do agree that Scopus is becoming less selective (which is not the same as non-selective) and I have recently found several journals indexed by it that are on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory publishers. --Randykitty (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Being indexed in Scopus is an indicator of notability. Meets criteria #1 of WP:JOURNALCRIT. Perhaps Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) should become a guideline someday. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — indexed by leading journal indexing services like Scopus, as per North America above. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2016 (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.