Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing

Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing

Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is a low-impact crank journal run by people like Dean Radin and specialising in promotion of alternatives-to-medicine; it's widely mocked for its publication of outrageous nonsense but not, as far as I can tell, actually discussed in any meaningful way by reliable independent sources. I looked long and hard for any reality-based commentary and found only blogs. Oh, and RationalWiki, which is scathing of course. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep: Satisfies WP:JOURNALCRIT criterion C1 by having a JCI impact factor, which I assume it does as one is listed in the article. The content might be of little value, I don't deny, but the inclusion criteria for a WP article are clear on journals with impact factors. It is unfortunate that we are unable to include the view of such journals when it is well known within the academic community that they are publishers of nonsense and a home for cranks, but only as common knowledge and not as the sort of RS we'd need to comment in the article. EdChem (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

But simply having an impact factor does not remove the need for reliable independent sources. That's the problem with subject-specific guidelines, they are great for creating a directory, but Wikipedia is not a directory, of journals or anything else. I cannot substantiate anything beyond mere existence from reliable independent sources. That's unlikely to change given that this journal does not publish anything that is useful in developing new insights. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Not having secondary sources discussing journals is often the case, as the guideline notes. As I understand it, the accepted practice has been an IF is sufficient. Changing that practice is a different discussion, but I anticipate the standard approach will be applied here. I'm not saying the practice is a good one, nor that the journal is worth the electrons inconvenienced to display its website, I'm just saying that it is standard and applied dispassionately that means keep is the appropriate outcome. EdChem (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. It's not just an IF. The journal is also in Scopus. And it is not just in PubMed (in and of itself nothing special), but included in MEDLINE. It's even in the prestigious subset Index medicus, so apparently the people at the United States National Library of Medicine take this journal serious. So it clearly meets our inclusion criteria. If there are reliable sources that the journal is "widely mocked" and publishes "outrageous nonsense", that is definitely information that should be added to our article. --Randykitty (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:JOURNALCRIT Atlantic306 (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)