Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Social & Psychological Sciences

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. No policy-based evidence of notability was presented. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Social & Psychological Sciences

[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)

Article dePRODded by anonymous IP who added a (somewhat promotional) section on "content" and a list of abstracting/indexing services, none of which is even remotely selective. No independent sources. Note that the publisher is rather obscure and is not related to Oxford University Press. In addition, the journal appears to be moribund, it's homepage prominently displaying a call for submissions for the second issue of 2015 (!). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article was actually created before the journal was launched, all the way back in 2007 (promising that the first issue was "due to be launched in January 2008"). It looks to have been promotional all along, and the journal apparently never became notable. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find independent RS or evidence of selective indexing needed to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNAL. I could find no reasonable merge or redirect target, either. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Oxford Mosaic Publication is not, and it has never claimed to be associated to Oxford University Press. Notebility of a Journal more often than ever reflect the amount of money a publisher has invested in marketing in order to make it a commercial success. The journal has been in existence for the past 10 years and it is up-to-date. Please thoroughly search databases where it is indexed. mahaprabhu (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything conclusive, but I strong suspect this is a scam journal and this article part of the attempt to make it appear legitimate. Regardless, it's a long way from satisfying WP:NJOURNAL or the WP:GNG. It isn't indexed anywhere. It doesn't even have a proper website. – Joe (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~ Journal of Social & Psychological Sciences is not a scam journal. Although it belongs to a small publisher, Oxford Mosaic Publications is one of the few publishers who do not charge their authors exorbitant amounts of money to publish an article. This has been one of the publisher's ethos from its conception and they have this as their strict policy. Almost all publishers rely on their reputation to charge very large sums of money for printing articles which sometimes are not worthy of publication on a journal. It was perhaps the very first journal to overtly attempt to bridge the gap between Psychology and Sociology even thought this was still a hotly debated area in which very few Journals were prepared to explore. The JSPS counts with the contributions of even local academics from the University of Oxford. All of them can be contacted to verify the authenticity of this periodical. It appears that the journal is indexed and available to subscribers only. Any decisions to delete the JSPS WP page should be based on rigorous evidence and not simply a coordinated attempt to inadvertently discredit a periodical with 10 years of existence. Copies of the this serial can be found at World Catalogue and British Library. One must also note that popularity of a journal is not always synonym of quality, as this is a very superficial judgement. Journal popularity may sometimes reflect the Publisher's reputation and large marketing budget. Well established publishers may often sacrifice quality in favour of commercial success. WP Policy should be fair, objective, unbiased and reliant on facts as opposed to personal opinions grounded on personal agendas. mahaprabhu (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have already !voted above, mahaprabhu, so I have struck your second. Wikipedia's policy for inclusion is based on the objective criteria detailed at notability and (in this particular case) the notability guideline for journals. All you have to do to stop this article being deleted is provide us with some reliable sources that talk about the journal or some selective indexes that include it.

Also, just as a point of fact, major academic publishers generally don't charge authors any fees at all. I'm curious as to how you know so much about this journal's fee policy, given that I can't find it publicised anywhere. Do you have a conflict of interest here? – Joe (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems likely, as mahaprabhu originally created this page in 2007. Every morning (there's a halo...) 14:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as original PRODder (a PROD which I might add was endorsed by the nominator of this AFD). This fails WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG more spectacularly than any journal page I have probably ever seen on Wikipedia in over four years of editing such pages. Specifically, this journal fails these guidelines since it has no impact factor, no indexing in selective databases, virtually nothing on the journal website, really, and no reliable source coverage either. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:14, 6 June 2018 (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.