Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algorithms (journal)

Algorithms (journal)

[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)

There are really no independent sources on this journal; plus, the company that publishes it, MDPI, has come under fire as a publisher of predatory journals (see this). Thus, the information about being "peer-reviewed" is almost certainly false, and demonstrates the unreliability of this article. Because of this, it should be deleted under our general notability criteria and our verifiability policy. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 02:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think our unsubstantiated opinions about the quality of review at this journal are worth much as a reason for deletion. (In my own case, I know nothing about its standards for peer review, but I am troubled by the fact that, although it occasionally publishes work by reputable researchers, the vast majority of the papers published in this journal are not on what I recognize as the design and analysis of algorithms.) But as the only real notability guideline for journal notability is WP:GNG (WP:NJournals is suggestive but not definitive), and no in-depth independently published sources are evident, we have no basis for keeping the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 04:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 04:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 04:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As our article on MDPI documents, it was indeed listed by Beall as a predatory publisher, but then removed from his list (long before he was forced to close that down). In addition, the journal is listed in Scopus, which we generally accept as evidence of notability in these discussions. As that's the only claim to fame, however, I only !vote "weak keep". --Randykitty (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As http://www.mdpi.com/search?q=&journal=algorithms&sort=article_citedby&page_count=50 shows, quite a number of widely cited papers have appeared in this journal. Therefore quite a number of readers might be interested to look up what kind of journal this is. -- Nsda (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsda: But they can just go to the journal's website. Also, how can we say what kind of journal it is when we don't have independent verification? RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 17:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, indexed in Scopus and both zbMATH and MathSciNet, and it's reasonably cited so that passes WP:NJOURNALS. MDPI is certainly a questionable publisher, but they're no OMICS Publishing Group. All in all, we're better off with this article than without. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. scope_creep (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with the other keeps, Algorithms is adequately cited, meets WP:NJournals and meets WP:GNG (even if not with flying colors). JC7V-constructive zone 21:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JC7V7DC5768: How does it meet GNG? I can't find any significant coverage, a requirement of it. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 22:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RileyBugz:}, From reading the WP:GNG and the other discussions I realized that it is a keep because of the indexing in Scopus (which meets 1B in WP:NJournals) and because of MathsciNet indexing plus searching in Google Scholar made me realize the article belongs here.JC7V-constructive zone 01:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JC7V7DC5768: Are you arguing from policy (or guidelines)? Because NJOURNALS isn't policy, and since this doesn't meet GNG, which is a guideline, it thus violates WP:V. We can verify that it exists, but that doesn't matter; we need more than that to make it remotely useful as an encyclopedia article. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 01:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RileyBugz:}, well guidelines are there for a reason, to guide us to the correct decision which it did for me and a few of the other supports above. As for independant coverage, I found this, which seems to show that the Algorithms Journal's reliablity problems has had a signficant effect on the academic world. Some pseudo science journals can also have articles if they get enough significant coverage (per WP:NJournal). This kind of reliablity issues for this journal seems like it has and will continue to get that kind of coverage.Also see this So if you combine it all it passes. JC7V-constructive zone 02:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]