Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masoud Salavati-Niasari: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 16:

*:I propose to proceed with deletion at this time. One retraction is quite weak to imply notability / notoriety of the subject, and references to their [[PubPeer]] record are contestable through [[WP:NOR]].

*:If any significant number of retractions arrives in the future, then we will have a firm reason to restore the page. [[User:Neodiprion demoides|Neodiprion demoides]] ([[User talk:Neodiprion demoides|talk]]) 09:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

*'''Comment'''. I'm seeing a red flag with the citation counts here too and tried to do some poking around on more reliable databases like Scopus or Web of Science. At their peak, they somehow put out over 100 papers in a single year. In Scopus you can remove self-citations by the author and their co-authors, and this often removes about 1000 citations per year. There still appears to be citations that fall outside this category, but it does play a part.

:What's a bigger red flag for me is that they are last/corresponding author on 84% of papers, but first author only on 16% of papers checking Web of Science (apparently never a regular co-author/contributor). Maybe it's an irregular power structure thing at their university, but claiming corresponding editor on that many papers seems to suggest they are getting credit for work they didn't directly do beyond a typical corresponding author situation. At least in this case, I would say the citation metrics part of [[WP:NACADEMIC]] is not reliable standalone for notability, so I'd be inclined to say delete considering everything else I've seen here. [[User:KoA|KoA]] ([[User talk:KoA|talk]]) 18:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)