Talk:Psichologija

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 July 2023. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This page was proposed for deletion by Randykitty (talk · contribs) on 5 July 2023.

Notability

Dear Randykitty,

I have carefully read the Wikipedia criteria for assessing the notability of academic journals. I came across three criteria that serve as good examples for evaluating academic outlets. However, I noticed that the remarks on these criteria seem to strongly favor paid service publishers, highlighting databases like Web of Science and Scopus (both of which are behind paywalls and operated by entities listed in stock markets), while undervaluing community-based databases like the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) (which has a rigorous inclusion process and does not automatically include journals). I apologize for the lengthy reflection on the criteria, but as a supporter of diamond open access and community-based criteria for determining the quality of scholarly journals, it is disheartening to read such remarks.

Regarding Psichologija, it is a well-established journal that has been running since 1962 (for 61 years already). Notably, all content from the first issue is available online, which is not always the case for journals listed in commercial databases like Scopus or Clarivate. Psichologija is a diamond open access journal and is recognized by other well-known databases that have their own criteria for inclusion. For instance, the journal is listed in Cabell's directories of Academic Journals, which demonstrates its adherence to high publishing standards. It has been awarded the DOAJ Seal, indicating that it meets the highest criteria for open access. The journal is included in ERIH-PLUS, the Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, and EBSCO, all of which encompass only well-established and internationally significant academic outlets. Additionally, based on citation data from Dimensions, Google Scholar, and Crossref, Psichologija has a citation volume. It is also listed in the important PsycINFO database, which is a crucial resource for journals in the field of psychology.

I would greatly appreciate some attention to this case and urge you not to dismiss Psichologija solely because it is not indexed in Scopus or Web of Science. 78.56.101.175 (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Both Scopus and Clarivate provide access to parts of their journal listings free online. DOAJ is not selective in the sense that they strive to include any and all OA journals, except predatory ones. The same goes for the other services that you mentioned. GScholar even includes predatory journals. As this journal is not included in any selective database ("selective" in the sense that not all journals from a certain field are included but only the better ones), your best hope for showing notability would be to find sources about the journal, so that the article meets WP:GNG. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Randykitty,

Thank you for your response. While I understand the points you raised regarding Scopus and Clarivate, it's essential to note that their selection criteria for journal inclusion are primarily based on internal network interests. They are, after all, private entities dealing in the sale of metrics.

The reliance on these commercial entities for quantitative evaluation of science has raised concerns within the academic community. In fact, the European Council in its May 2023 statement, "Council calls for transparent, equitable, and open access to scholarly publications," explicitly emphasizes the need to veer away from the heavy reliance on these commercial bodies for scientific evaluation.

Your statement that the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is non-selective seems misaligned with the reality of their criteria. Far from being non-selective, the DOAJ applies a comprehensive list of quality criteria that closely parallel those of Scopus and the Web of Science, albeit without the necessity to follow citation trends. You can find these quality criteria here: https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/. This indicates that the DOAJ is, in fact, selective in its inclusion process, with a clear focus on maintaining quality standards and omitting predatory journals.

As for Google Scholar, although it may have its flaws, its inclusivity of all citations is a significant advantage. This inclusivity allows for a more balanced recognition of publications, including those from the so-called 'global south', which might otherwise be overlooked.

As for the metrcis, I cite no Google Scholar, but other reputable sources:

According to the ScienceGate,[4] Psichologija has a h-index of 5. The average citation per month is 0.37, as indicated by the scientific document database Scilit.[5] Based on the ERIH PLUS index, the average citation per article is 0.64.[6]

Thank you for considering these points, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter. 158.129.162.194 (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few things: 1/ Scopus and Clarivate (except ESCI) are highly selective. They sell access to their databases to libraries, but would lose their credibility if they were as permissive as, say, GScholar. 2/ There's a longstanding consensus in the WikiProject Academic Journals that DOAJ is not a "selective" database in the sense of NJournals. Every non-predatory OA journal gets included. 3/ ScienceGate and Scilit are not selective either. ScienceGate proudly proclaims that it covers 94651 journals, less selective is hard to do. Those citation data don't indicate notability either. An h-index of 5 would not even be enough to make a single author notable, let alone a whole journal.

So in all, I'm afraid that I don't see sufficient notability for this journal. --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning. It's just surprising to hear from someone who edits Wikipedia to relis so heavily on commercial databases, which are selectively beneficial to their business model. The owners of these databases are also publishers, so there's a lot of bias, especially towards diamond open access journals like Psichologija because it doesn't fall into the category of being commercially promising. 158.129.162.194 (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about the selective nature of Scopus and Clarivate, and I agree that their credibility is essential for their business. However, it is also important to remember that these databases, being commercial entities, prioritize factors that might not always align with the broader academic community's values, such as inclusivity and accessibility. Thus, they may overlook journals that are not commercially promising yet still hold academic value.

Similarly, DOAJ might be more inclusive than Scopus and Clarivate, but it does not include every non-predatory OA journal. They have a rigorous evaluation process, requiring journals to meet certain standards for transparency and best practice. Being listed in DOAJ demonstrates a journal's commitment to these standards.

Furthermore, while you mentioned that ScienceGate and Scilit are not selective, these databases do provide some quantitative indication of a journal's impact and reach. The h-index of 5 for Psichologija and the citation per month score do demonstrate that the journal is contributing to its field and is being referenced by other scholars, even if it may not be high.

Lastly, I feel it's worth considering the role and impact of Psichologija within its regional and disciplinary context. As a diamond open access journal, it provides a crucial platform for research in a field that is underrepresented in commercial databases.

I hope we can consider these points in our assessment of Psichologija's notability. Its long history, commitment to open access, and continued citation in the academic community are indicators of its value, even if it isn't included in certain commercial databases. 78.56.101.175 (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you have to realize that "worthy" is not the same as notability in the WP sense. And to be brutally honest: in so far as a negative can be proven, an h-index of 5 is so low that it can be taken as proof of lacking notability. --Randykitty (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the information has to be updated in the article as current data in Google Scholar is a bit different:

Reference date: 2023-07-12 18:03:50 +00300

Publication years: 2018-2023

Citation years: 5 (2018-2023)

Papers: 166

Citations: 229

Citations/year: 45.80 (acc1=29, acc2=11, acc5=2, acc10=0, acc20=0)

Citations/paper: 1.38

Authors/paper: 2.37/2.0/2 (mean/median/mode)

Age-weighted citation rate: 73.35 (sqrt=8.56), 32.83/author

Hirsch h-index: 8 (a=3.58, m=1.60, 111 cites=48.5% coverage)

Egghe g-index: 11 (g/h=1.38, 131 cites=57.2% coverage)

Interestingly, that some journals included in Wikipedia has similar or lover metrics:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Journal_of_Psychohistory

Reference date: 2023-07-12 18:07:19 +00300

Publication years: 2018-2023

Citation years: 5 (2018-2023)

Papers: 177

Citations: 172

Citations/year: 34.40 (acc1=28, acc2=4, acc5=0, acc10=0, acc20=0)

Citations/paper: 0.97

Authors/paper: 1.14/1.0/1 (mean/median/mode)

Age-weighted citation rate: 51.55 (sqrt=7.18), 44.07/author

Hirsch h-index: 6 (a=4.78, m=1.20, 57 cites=33.1% coverage)

Egghe g-index: 8 (g/h=1.33, 69 cites=40.1% coverage)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/L%27Ann%C3%A9e_psychologique

Reference date: 2023-07-12 18:15:11 +00300

Publication years: 2018-2023

Citation years: 5 (2018-2023)

Papers: 163

Citations: 492

Citations/year: 98.40 (acc1=38, acc2=21, acc5=6, acc10=1, acc20=1)

Citations/paper: 3.02

Authors/paper: 2.63/3.0/3 (mean/median/mode)

Age-weighted citation rate: 171.63 (sqrt=13.10), 70.47/author

Hirsch h-index: 10 (a=4.92, m=2.00, 359 cites=73.0% coverage)

Egghe g-index: 20 (g/h=2.00, 414 cites=84.1% coverage) 78.56.101.175 (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of that contributes to notability. Concerning other articles, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In addition, the Journal of Psychohistory was indexed in Scopus for many years. It was dropped, but notability is not WP:TEMPORARY. L'Année psychologique is currently indexed in Scopus and the Social Sciences Citation Index (that this is not mentioned in the article is irrelevant). Anyway, the article is now ta AfD, so further discussion should be there (but please don't use walls of text like above, because those will almost certainly be ignored... --Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised such a long-running journal doesn't meet WP:NJOURNALS. Can you find any qualitative evidence of its notability? People writing about it, its history, its editors, etc...? -- asilvering (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that should be the case. I am not from the field of Psychology, so it is not easy for me to find relevant resources. I asked a psychologist, and she recommended quite a good source: Bagdonas, A., Pociūtė, B., Rimkutė, E., & Valickas, G. (2008). The History of Lithuanian Psychology. European Psychologist, 13(3), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.13.3.227

This article, published in a respected journal in the field of psychology, mentions the journal Psychologija and its editor-in-chief, Alfonsas Gučas. Gučas was well-known in international fields during his time. I will add this source to the article. 158.129.162.194 (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I don't think there's enough in there to say that the journal meets WP:GNG, but I think you should write a bit about this at Science and technology in Lithuania, which currently doesn't have anything about psychology there. -- asilvering (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]