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. postdlf (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Autism Insights[edit]

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

Article was PRODded with reason "Relatively young journal publishing each year a handful of articles, published by Libertas Academica, which is on Beall's list of predatory OA publishers. Not indexed in any selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." It was de-PRODded by User:Headbomb with reason"plenty of databases", which were added to the article. None of these databases being major and selective, the PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Gale, EBSCO, and ProQuest databases are all selective AFAIK. So yes, that journals meets WP:NJOURNALS, IMO. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To the best of my knowledge, Gale is not very selective. EBSCO and ProQuest are not really "major" databases and although somewhat selective, they're pretty inclusive. I also find it a very bad sign that a journal on this topic is not included in any medical database. --Randykitty (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Gale, EBSCO and Proquest are great databases I use all the time because they are so inclusive, if there is nothing there likely it doesn't exist. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It seems to me that this journal needs to be listed by services that are more selective and less inclusive to merit inclusion. Also, citation rates on Google Scholar do not appear to be impressive [1]. Also, I agree that this journal has not published a lot of papers because it is still very young. Hence, this journal has not had a significant impact in its field.

For futher information, I am posting three articles. One is from a 2012 Los Angeles Times blog that covers predatory OA journals in general, and mentions Libertas Academia by name and behavior, as well as some other publishers with questionable practices [2].

In the second article, nine predatory OA journals are analyzed by Bealle himself in the The Charleston Advisor (actually an academic journal) [3], including "Libertas Academica". On its website The Charleston Advisor states that it "... publishes critical reviews of online resources for libraries. To maintain a high level of accuracy and integrity, all reviews are peer-reviewed by experienced librarians. Our reviewers come from all areas of librarianship and from all types of libraries..." (link for journal).

~~Finally, a third~~ Third, a blog entitled "Jeffrey Beall’s List of Predatory, Open-Access Publishers, 2012 Edition" discusses his or her own experience and research regarding questionable publishers, and also lists "Libertas Academia" (based on Beall's listings) [4]. I guess they're all spreading the word. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another article in the journal Nature that covers the support for Beall's listings, and the controversy surrounding these listings [5]. Apparently it's not a perfect world. Also, to view Beall's critera for selection, open the collapsible box near the end of the article. (Uh-oh, I must be getting into this) --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a more in depth "Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers" by Mr. Beall [6] (2nd edition / December 1, 2012). Also, in the right hand column it appears that he has links to "recent posts" where he provides more in-depth coverage of individual publishers, and links to "archives" if anyone is interested. I think this will do it for me. -- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For reasons above. Bluehotel (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2013 (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.