Deletion of Advanced Biomedical Research

Comment: back to List of Medknow Publications academic journals as preferred . No need to bother AfD with this
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: As {{u|Randykitty}} pointed out, there are enough difficulties with applying the h-index to individuals, and we've no indication whatsoever that it is helpful when evaluating journals. This journal is not indexed in the selective databases to which we look for gauging journal quality, and it does not appear to be noteworthy in any other way (e.g., having attracted interest for an innovative publishing or review model). Of the three most recent articles, one is about prolotherapy and another is on dry needling, and a little ways down the list we find ozone therapy. They may have a low bar regarding the publication of "alternative" medicine, which means that we should be |''particularly'' careful about making them look more respectable than they are. In other words, we ''really'' need third-party sources that critically evaluate them before we can write an article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)