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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content Factor

[edit]
Content Factor (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)

The "content factor" is a proposed "new" metric to measure performance of academic journals. It is, in fact, identical to the "total cites" metric that ISI has reported in its Journal Citation Reports for many years (with as trivial modification that the number of citations is divided by 1000). The concept has been introduced in an article in PLoS ONE that was published just a few days ago and has yet to be cited elsewhere. In summary: no independent sources, no indication that this "new" metric will gain any acceptance, no indication that this meets WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG Topher385 (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

content factor is total cites but presented in a format (units comparable to impact factor)that make it immediately comprehensible; moreover, it was shown to correlate with perceived importance of journals. Author above, for reasons unclear, believes that an entity must not only clear peer review but now be cited. That cycle may take years; this paper is a week old. The question is: is what is presented valid, true and interesting (to maybe just a few readers, but some)? Wikipedia is, after all, a reference source--not a collection of best ideas, favored ideas or pet ideas. I cannot see how the cause of knowledge is advanced by deletion. "the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence" said justice brandeis. If the author above feels so strongly about this, perhaps adding "more speech", in the form of "Some may criticize content factor as identical to the "total cites" metric that ISI has reported in its Journal Citation Reports for many years (with the modification that the number of citations is divided by 1000)". And others, perhaps I, would add, "yet, it has also been suggested, that this modification might makes it immediately comprehensible to those who traffic in impact factor".

But to propose deletion? Shameful. 4081xsn (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)— 4081xsn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think this article is short and to the point with something valid to say. Guillaume2303 is voicing objections that sound more like what a peer reviewer would write if he were asked to review the original article describing content factor. (Maybe he was a reviewer, and he was overruled; hence the vehemence). In any case, we should have a measure of respect for the peer review process. This entry seems to describe well and succinctly a concept that is now part of the peer review literature. It belongs here. (And as a side point, complaining that a concept is "yet to be cited elsewhere" is fatuous, owing to the fact (as Guillaume2303 must know) most papers are cited like zero times, ever. What is his standard? That a concept must not only be in a peer reviewed paper but cited 2 times? Or maybe cited one time, as long as he likes the journal but three if not??) DorothyWolf (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)— DorothyWolf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

new-guilty as charged. but i have been reading and writing for more than 60 of my 70 years and one thing I remember reading many years ago was Hamlet, Act III, scene II, calling to mind Guillaume2303's "protesting too much". If he is right and this factor is really old goods in a new box then he can't complain that there are no references to it--by his logic, all reference to "total citations" would by transitive association point to this too. So maybe the remedy is to add a line to that effect? I see no entry in wikipedia for "journal metric: total citations" or anything like it. If content factor is really total citations, and total citations is so notable to unseat the novelty of this concept, then this applies. if the factor is NOT total citations, then it is new--but as G2303 says, the idea behind it is old (and wikipedia worthy on that).

DorothyWolf (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then that means we could use an article on the idea behind Content Factor, but in which Content Factor itself is not mentioned. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my 2 cents: plosone counts as a reliable source independent of the subject Pierre11691 (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)— Pierre11691 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

PLoS ONE is the subject's publisher, therefore in this case it is not independent of the subject. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would appreciate if you could tell us exactly what can be merged. The criticism of the IF is already covered much better in the IF article. And adding a non-notable new name for "total cites" to the IF article hardly seems appropriate. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2012/08/03/ranking_the_scientific_journals_106341.html is a secondary source 4081xsn (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

good point Guilaume2303 (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC) — Guilaume2303 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.
More