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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Communications in Development and Assembling of Textile Products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Article PRODed with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.". Article dePRODed by SPA who added a few sources, none of which is both independent and in-depth. A link to GScholar shows a smattering of citations, but nothing out of the ordinary. The journal was established recently (2020) so at best this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The DOAJ is a selective database. Web of Science indexing is only possible after min. two years of publishing, thus can be expected in June / July with the next publication of newly introduced journals.

  CDATP is one of the very few (only 2) diamond open access journals in the textile area and thus one of only two journals enabling free reading and free publication of their own results for researchers from low-income countries. Working myself in the textile area, I know that this is highly important for many colleagues.

  Pixiworld (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: DOAJ is only selective in the sense that they (try to) exclude predatory journals. Apart from that, it strives to include all OA journals. WoS indexing does not necessarily take 2 years. I know of journals that were included after 9 months. Whether or not this journal will be included remains to be seen, unfortunately my crystal ball is currently out of order. I appreciate your comment about the importance of this journal for your field, but unfortunately the opinions of WP editors are irrelevant for determining notability. What is needed are reliable sources that are independent of the journal and are more than just passing mentions. --Randykitty (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This comment is from my point of view biased, probably based on experience in science with larger scientific communities.

  Comment 1. "DOAJ it strives to include all OA journals" is not true. Any in-deep and independent source for this statement is missing. The DOAJ Procedure is clearly defined and not simple https://doaj.org/apply/guide/

  Comment 2. "WoS evaluation process duraction" - it can take up to 9 months, but one journal has to provide stable production at least with 3 issues, and this means, it has to exists at least 2 years before application. Check source https://clarivate.com/products/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-workflow-solutions/web-of-science/core-collection/editorial-selection-process/editorial-selection-process/

  Comment 3. "To nothing out of the ordinary". From the point of view of bibliometrics, the subject of this journal is a narrow area, in some countries, these are named "small/narrow" subjects. It is not correct to compare publication activity and citation rates of journals from "narrow areas" with areas with larger scientific community (linguistics, informatics, chemistry). Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.20936

  It might be interesting for you to make a training in evaluation of scientific production by Scival.com for instance.

  But the "out of ordinarity" of this journal is that, contrary to the 95% of the other diamond open access journals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_open_access) it is NOT comming from Latin-America, it is based in high salary country (Germany) and supports resarchers over the world with the compelete voluntary work of editors, reviewers and production team; providing peer-review quality. If this is not notable or recognizable by Wikipedia, then there is no worth to use Wikipedia at all. Hense Keep PikoBelo (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NJOURNALS, and DOAJ is certainly not selective in the sense of WP:NJOURNALS#C1 (see note 1b in particular). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:

• The journal is listed in an assestment of CODRIA Project about quality journals under Diamond Open Access, independent source added https://doi.org/10.4119/unibi/2965484

  Removed Google, reference of the journal itself, and sentence without reference

  Added 3 conferences, one of these traditional, main event in the area (14-th joint int. conference Clotech), which publish selected papers of the contributors in the journal if they pass the peer review process.

  Using only Scopus and Web of Science as critera leads to biased results for several "non standard" subjects DOI:10.3897/ese.2020.e51987. PikoBelo (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm sorry, but none of this contributes to notability under NJournals or GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, simply being listed in a list of open access journals it not significant coverage. This simply says the journal exists and is in some databases, like DOAJ. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not agree, but I do not see any sense to discuss this topic more at the current time.

  Proposal: move to "Draft" until the WoS or Scopus result gets published. Then the "easy criteria" will be satisfied. PikoBelo (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2023 (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.