This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology
This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists
This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil
This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism
Latest comment: 23 days ago8 comments3 people in discussion
I would appreciate a second opinion specifically under WP:NPROF Criterion 1. The guideline states that significant research impact may be demonstrated through citation metrics, and that a typical route is authorship of several highly cited works or a substantial number of works with significant citation rates, with differences among fields taken into account.
WP:NPROF is expressly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline, and states that failure to meet GNG or another subject-specific guideline is irrelevant if an academic is notable under NPROF. The relevant question here is therefore whether the research-impact evidence satisfies Criterion 1.
The subject’s 2021 first-author systematic review in Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism is currently listed by OpenAlex with 69 citing works, an FWCI of 4.6649, and a normalized citation percentile of 0.9594 (top 10%); the journal publisher separately reports 58 citations. Three related reviews on which she is second author are also classified by OpenAlex in the top 10% by normalized citation percentile: the 2022 Nutrition Reviews review (77 citing works; FWCI 4.1611), the 2021 Clinical Nutrition ESPEN review (50 citing works; FWCI 3.6519), and the 2020 Archives de Pédiatrie review (41 citing works; FWCI 3.6519).
OpenAlex defines FWCI as citations received divided by expected citations for works of the same type, publication year, and subfield, so these figures provide field- and publication-age-relative context rather than relying only on raw citation totals.
I also examined Scopus. The subject’s publications appear to be divided between two Scopus author profiles: Quezia Jones (Author ID 57215209404) and Quezia Damaris Jones Severino Vasconcelos (Author ID 58927577700). This is relevant to the previously cited Scopus h-index of 4, because an author-level metric drawn from a split profile may not reflect the complete publication record. In addition, Elsevier’s ScienceDirect pages report 53 citations for the 2021 Clinical Nutrition ESPEN review and 39 for the 2020 Archives de Pédiatrie review, with the citing records linked to Scopus.
The OpenAlex normalized metrics therefore provide field-relative context alongside, rather than instead of, Scopus-linked citation evidence. Taken together, this provides substantive evidence of significant scholarly impact and presents a concrete Criterion 1 question based on the subject’s paper-level citation record rather than on the h-index alone. CedarAtlasNotes (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
