Hello again,
I have informed the board at WikiJMed that I would prefer to see someone
with more time than me to be the editor-in-chief when my term ends by New
Year, and the Assistant editor-in-chief has expressed a similar attitude to
it. Yet, the only other candidate to the editor-in-chief position has also
expressed reluctance to it. For the long term survival of the journals I
think we need to add a monetary compensation to editor-in-chiefs, and
practically also to add an incentive to apply to this position.
I think an annual compensation of let's say $2000 for each editor-in-chief
and $1000 for each assistant would be a humble start as part of the grant
application for next year, especially considering that average salaries for
editors-in-chief in the US are about $85.000 (link
<https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/editor-in-chief-salary-SRCH_KO0,15.htm>)
and $57.000 for assistants (link)
<https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/assistant-to-the-editor-in-chief-salary-…>.
Also, it is very humble comparing to the generally $100.000+ that many
people make within Wikimedia Foundation (link
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries>), and the
income of $91 million that Wikimedia Foundation received in 2017 (link)
<https://annual.wikimedia.org/2017/financials.html>. Thus, we can
definitely adjust this amount further in the future depending on the
success of this grant application.
Best regards,
Mikael
Hi all,
Good news, our view count in terms of doi code clicks has more than doubled
since the beginning of the year!
Best regards,
Mikael
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <reports(a)crossref.org>
Date: Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 6:02 AM
Subject: Resolution Report for prefix 10.15347 from Aug 9, 2018
To: haggstrom.mikael(a)wikiversityjournal.org
*Report for Publisher: Wikiversity Journal of Medicine*
*Resolutions for last 12 months.*
We continue to filter out known search engine crawlers. This month they
accounted for 137,599,569 resolutions.
Months 2018-07 2018-06 2018-05 2018-04 2018-03 2018-02 2018-01 2017-12
2017-11 2017-10 2017-09 2017-08 2017-07
Resolution Attempts 2,861 1,970 1,554 1,289 1,528 1,312 1,283 1,149 1,512
1,421 1,503 1,686 1,327
Resolution Successes 2,813 1,934 1,499 1,288 1,524 1,308 1,277 1,144 1,511
1,410 1,480 1,672 1,323
------------------------------
Total Attempts for all members 422,747,890 247,013,737 278,309,967
261,952,234 257,283,789 210,059,895 228,482,091 204,714,141 200,175,219
205,511,935 210,801,824 209,212,315 222,241,050
------------------------------
The overall resolution failure rate for all publishers is 2% and your
failure rate is 1%. These failures may result from deposit errors by the
publisher or from linking errors being made by end users. If your rate is
significantly above zero or the overall average please investigate to
determine the cause.
------------------------------
Top 10 DOIs Resolutions to DOI
10.15347/WJM/2014.010 <https://doi.org/10.15347/WJM/2014.010> 1045
10.15347/WJM/2014.008 <https://doi.org/10.15347/WJM/2014.008> 221
10.15347/WJS/2018.001 <https://doi.org/10.15347/WJS/2018.001> 177
10.15347/WJS/2018.007 <https://doi.org/10.15347/WJS/2018.007> 144
10.15347/WJM/2014.005 <https://doi.org/10.15347/WJM/2014.005> 144
10.15347/WJS/2018.006 <https://doi.org/10.15347/WJS/2018.006> 130
10.15347/WJM/2017.002 <https://doi.org/10.15347/WJM/2017.002> 127
10.15347/WJM/2016.001 <https://doi.org/10.15347/WJM/2016.001> 99
10.15347/WJM/2017.003 <https://doi.org/10.15347/WJM/2017.003> 93
10.15347/WJS/2018.004 <https://doi.org/10.15347/WJS/2018.004> 86
------------------------------
Resolutions attempts 2,861
Resolved at Handle 2,813
Handle Failures 48
Resolved at local link server 0
Unique DOIs attempted 46
Unique DOIs resolved at handle 35
Unique DOIs that failed at handle 11
Unique DOIs resolved at local link server 0
------------------------------
Resolution Counts by Publication Title
Publication Title Total Resolutions Unique DOIs
WikiJournal of Medicine 2,132 27
WikiJournal of Science 681 8
CrossRef has created a system to automatically email publishers statistics
on the number of DOI resolutions through the DOI proxy server (
https://doi.org/) on a month-by-month basis. These numbers give an
indication of the use of your DOIs and the traffic coming to your site from
users clicking DOIs. The DOI links are largely from links in other
publishers' journal references to your articles, but they are also from DOI
links in secondary databases, links from libraries using DOIs, and even
DOIs in used in print versions.
When a researcher clicks on a DOI link for one of your articles, that
counts as one DOI resolution. A DOI resolution is when a DOI is "clicked" -
for example, clicking on https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02426 counts as one
resolution to Nature. No information is captured about who the user is or
where they are coming from. The information on DOI resolutions is captured
by the web server logs on https://doi.org/ which is run by CNRI on behalf
of the International DOI Foundation. These numbers are not a precise
measure of traffic to your site - cached articles, search engine crawlers
not following re-direction and traffic that is directed to a locally
appropriate copy through a library link resolver would be included in these
numbers, but would not result in inbound traffic on your website.
Nevertheless, these numbers provide one important measure of the
effectiveness of your participation in CrossRef.
In March 2004, the report on DOI resolutions through the main
https://doi.org/ proxy server was updated. This report now tracks the
number of DOI resolutions based on the owner of a DOI:
- Resolutions : attempted resolutions of DOIs based on the owner of the
DOI.
*Top 10 DOIs* is a list of the most popular DOIs that were successfully
looked up and how many times each was looked up.
*Resolution attempts* is the same at total "Resolutions" above.
*Resolved at handle* is the number of resolutions that successfully looked
up at doi.org.
*Handle failures* is the number of resolutions that failed to look up at
doi.org, either due to a technical problem or because the DOIs did not
exist.
*Resolved at local link server* counts resolutions that were looked up at
local link servers.
*Unique DOIs attempted* is the number of unique DOIs represented in the
total "resolutions attempted" from above.
*Unique DOIs resolved at handle* is the number of unique DOIs represented
in the "resolved at handle" count from above.
*Unique DOIs that failed at handle* is the number of unique DOIs
represented in the "handle failures" count from above.
*Unique DOIs resolved at local link server* is the number of unique DOIs
represented in the "resolved at local link server" count from above.
The attached file, if present, contains all of the DOIs that failed to
resolve followed by the count indicating the number of times that DOI was
attempted.
*"na" - means that data is not available for that month and type. *
If you have problems with this report, contact support(a)crossref.org.
Hello again everyone,
A board member raised concern about posting board emails to the online wiki
discussion. These have since been removed from the current page, and I
think the posting is excusable in this case due to the high concern of the
subject and that we haven't been fully clear about this before. So to
clarify, I've added the following to the "Confidentiality policies" under
the "Join" section of editorial boards (link to this section in WikiJMed
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Editorial_board#Join>
):
"You should generally ask for permission from the sender before posting
non-public board emails to a public location such as in this wiki or
forwarding to this journal's public email lists (wijoumed / wikijsci /
wikijhum @googlegroups.com and WikiJournal-en(a)lists.wikimedia.org)
Best regards,
Mikael
Hello all,
Diptanshu Das has now resigned from his position in the editorial board of
WikiJMed, as well as the WikiJournal Council (link to online votes and
further comments
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Editorial_board>
).
I have several suggestions of updates to WikiJournal guidelines following
those recent incidents:
- Votes to remove an editorial board member should have a specified
duration, allowing time for people to notice the event. Rather arbitrarily,
I suggest 5 days. Thus, the addition to the "Removal" section of the bylaws
of WikiJournal and each individual journal would for example be "An
*Official* may be removed by a majority of votes among people in an
electorate as specified in ARTICLE III, Section 4
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Bylaws#Section_4._E…>,
counting after at least 5 days of voting."
- While we are updating the bylaws, I suggest that we rename the
"WikiJournal Council" to the "Administrative board" of WikiJournal, to
clarify that it focuses on admin tasks such as financials, Internet domain
names and technical maintenance of the project, allowing the editorial
boards to focus on the subjects of their expertise. I also suggest that we
create a separate email list for members of this group. Still, important
matters such as the content of the next grant proposal will be posted to
editorial boards as well. And of course people can join both the admin and
editorial boards.
Best regards,
Mikael
Hi all WikiJournal participants,
Because of an increased burden in the stage of finding and inviting peer
reviewers for submissions, we've been discussing at WikiJMed about
including funds in our next grant application to Wikimedia for hiring a
paid editor to help out in this task. It would be unfair to have it for
only WikiJMed so I take it up with all of us, also since WikiJSci currently
lacks a willing peer review coordinators
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Science/Associate_editors#Co…>
for
the 2 most recent submissions
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Science/Potential_upcoming_a…>.
A paid editor could look up potential peer reviewers and either invite them
directly, or prepare an email list with links to their credentials to board
members.
A paid editor would be able to help in many tedious tasks, including to
(citing Thomas' entry at WikiJMed):
- send followup emails at certain dates
- track submissions
- copyediting (for a wikijournal this could be things like image
formatting, finding who images should be attributed to, checking ref
formatting)
- formatting the final pdf upon acceptance
- managing the doi submission to crossref upon acceptance
- If having bot-experience, program bots for technical tasks such as to
keep the {{article_info}} template synchronised between main page and
subpage and add accepted articles to the relevant issue page
These tasks would not involve direct knowledge of the subject material. The
idea would be to have them handle those elements to free up time for the
medical/academic editors to focus on specialist tasks.
What do you think for WikiJSci and WikiJHum?
Best regards,
Mikael