Simple, I have provided a list of the respective authorities in two
countries along with the list of recognized journals. We have to do it for
the rest. Next is to look up the criteria they follow. The third step would
be to approach the respective authorities. For South Africa, that
would be Academy
of Science in South Africa (ASSAD). We will have to identify such bodies
and identify the criteria that we do not fulfill (yet). The next is to
determine whether it is plausible to fulfill. If so, to delineate the steps
required for the same (if not, forget that country/list/body). And, bingo,
we are done!
In short, it would require much effort. We would need to be systematic. But
it can be done nevertheless since we are not a predatory journal body.
Regards
Diptanshu
Please do not print this e-mail unless you really need to.
On 19 July 2018 at 20:51, Kai Alexis <kaialexis(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> How do you propose we do this? In a spreadsheet?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Ms. Kai Alexis Smith, MSLIS
> www.kaialexis.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/kaialexissmith
> Knowledge Ally, ALA Knowledge Alliance
> <http://knowledgealliance.org/users/kai-alexis-smith>
> Jamaican Art Research Guide <http://jamaicanartresearch.wordpress.com>
> ORCHID ID: 0000-0002-3241-7930 <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3241-7930>
>
> “Activism is my rent for living on the planet.” Alice Walker
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 8:07 AM Dr. Diptanshu Das <das.diptanshu(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear All
>>
>> It seems that unless publication in WikiJournals is academically
>> recognized, academicians lack the incentive to publish in our journals. For
>> example, Department of Higher Education and Training
>> <http://www.dhet.gov.za/> (DHET) in South Africa, University Grants
>> Commission <https://www.ugc.ac.in/> (UGC) in India recognize journals as
>> on this <https://journals.co.za/content/accreditation/dhet> and this
>> <https://www.ugc.ac.in/journallist/> list respectively. It should be
>> similar for other countries as well.
>>
>> We need to compile the list of criteria they have, and attempt to meet
>> those criteria. Need the cooperation of all of you for the same.
>>
>> Regards
>> Diptanshu
>>
>> Please do not print this e-mail unless you really need to.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "WJH board" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to wjhboard+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to wjhboard(a)googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wjhboard.
>> To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
>> msgid/wjhboard/CADcdAx9Cas2jPoQLuT_JzA3%2BeY1DTFyrVZ9ksy0SNnhJ6P3FZA%
>> 40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjhboard/CADcdAx9Cas2jPoQLuT_JzA3%2BeY1DT…>
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
Dear All
It seems that unless publication in WikiJournals is academically
recognized, academicians lack the incentive to publish in our journals. For
example, Department of Higher Education and Training
<http://www.dhet.gov.za/> (DHET) in South Africa, University Grants
Commission <https://www.ugc.ac.in/> (UGC) in India recognize journals as on
this <https://journals.co.za/content/accreditation/dhet> and this
<https://www.ugc.ac.in/journallist/> list respectively. It should be
similar for other countries as well.
We need to compile the list of criteria they have, and attempt to meet
those criteria. Need the cooperation of all of you for the same.
Regards
Diptanshu
Please do not print this e-mail unless you really need to.
Hi all,
Some good news, we just broke a new record in terms of people reaching the
journal through our doi codes
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier>!
Best regards,
Mikael
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <reports(a)crossref.org>
Date: Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:23 PM
Subject: Resolution Report for prefix 10.15347 from Jul 3, 2018
*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 236,545,112 resolutions.
Months 2018-06 2018-05 2018-04 2018-03 2018-02 2018-01 2017-12 2017-11
2017-10 2017-09 2017-08 2017-07 2017-06
Resolution Attempts 1,970 1,554 1,289 1,528 1,312 1,283 1,149 1,512 1,421
1,503 1,686 1,327 1,156
Resolution Successes 1,934 1,499 1,288 1,524 1,308 1,277 1,144 1,511 1,410
1,480 1,672 1,323 1,140
------------------------------
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> 512
10.15347/WJS/2018.006 <https://doi.org/10.15347/WJS/2018.006> 176
10.15347/WJS/2018.004 <https://doi.org/10.15347/WJS/2018.004> 168
10.15347/WJS/2018.003 <https://doi.org/10.15347/WJS/2018.003> 119
10.15347/WJM/2014.008 <https://doi.org/10.15347/WJM/2014.008> 110
10.15347/WJM/2014.005 <https://doi.org/10.15347/WJM/2014.005> 103
10.15347/WJS/2018.002 <https://doi.org/10.15347/WJS/2018.002> 102
10.15347/WJM/2017.002 <https://doi.org/10.15347/WJM/2017.002> 77
10.15347/WJM/2016.001 <https://doi.org/10.15347/WJM/2016.001> 75
10.15347/WJS/2018.001 <https://doi.org/10.15347/WJS/2018.001> 53
------------------------------
Resolutions attempts 1,970
Resolved at Handle 1,934
Handle Failures 36
Resolved at local link server 0
Unique DOIs attempted 40
Unique DOIs resolved at handle 33
Unique DOIs that failed at handle 7
Unique DOIs resolved at local link server 0
------------------------------
Resolution Counts by Publication Title
Publication Title Total Resolutions Unique DOIs
WikiJournal of Humanities 22 1
WikiJournal of Medicine 1,223 25
WikiJournal of Science 689 7
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.
I definitely mentioned the WikiJournal of Humanities when I was at the Leadership Bootcamp last weekend-people were interested! It also may take some time before a professor can use the journal on their tenure application. One of the other participants at the conference mentioned that since predatory journals are becoming more popular, tenure committees are more wary of new journals. Getting ISSN/DOI are good steps to improving our images a legitimate.
-Rachel
From: WikiJournal-en <wikijournal-en-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org> On Behalf Of Andrew Leung
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 5:53 AM
To: pld(a)chem.ucla.edu; Thomas Shafee <thomas.shafee(a)gmail.com>
Cc: WJH board <wjhboard(a)googlegroups.com>; Roger Watson <R.Watson(a)hull.ac.uk>; WJS board <wjsboard(a)googlegroups.com>; WikiJournal participants <wikijournal-en(a)lists.wikimedia.org>; wjmboard <wjmboard(a)googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiJournal-en] WikiJournal as a reference in Wikipedia
In light of that recent discussion, I think we should ramp up the promotional messages like blogpost, Twitter, mailing list announcement and maybe even a Wikipedia Signpost interview to make the wider community be aware of our existence.
Andrew
Sent from my smartphone. Apologies for any typos.
-------- Original message --------
From: Paula Diaconescu <pld(a)chem.ucla.edu<mailto:pld@chem.ucla.edu>>
Date: 2018-06-18 9:58 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Thomas Shafee <thomas.shafee(a)gmail.com<mailto:thomas.shafee@gmail.com>>
Cc: Roger Watson <R.Watson(a)hull.ac.uk<mailto:R.Watson@hull.ac.uk>>, Andrew Leung <andrewcleung(a)hotmail.com<mailto:andrewcleung@hotmail.com>>, WikiJournal participants <wikijournal-en(a)lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikijournal-en@lists.wikimedia.org>>, Mikael Häggström <editor.in.chief(a)wikijmed.org<mailto:editor.in.chief@wikijmed.org>>, wjmboard <wjmboard(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjmboard@googlegroups.com>>, WJH board <wjhboard(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjhboard@googlegroups.com>>, WJS board <wjsboard(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjsboard@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [WikiJournal-en] WikiJournal as a reference in Wikipedia
Hi everybody,
I understand that WikiJournal is broad, but, in my experience, what increases the reputation of a journal is a rigorous peer review system. The process does have a bit of catch-22 built in it because good reviewers don't want to take on articles from new journals, but that's where the editors need to step in and persuade reputable reviewers to take on the task. I personally am not a big fan of open identity reviewers. I think that, although one shouldn't take the scientific process personally, it is still difficult to accept criticism and it is a lot easier to make enemies if the criticisms are strong. Very few authors/reviewers are capable to not take it personally and those that unmask their identity tend not to have too many criticisms (a fact that, in itself, could question the quality of the review).
I agree that once WikiJournals are audited and certified by COPE<https://publicationethics.org/membership>, AOSPA<https://oaspa.org/membership/membership-criteria/>, Scopus, Pubmed, and Web of Science things will improve.
Paula
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:20 PM, Thomas Shafee <thomas.shafee(a)gmail.com<mailto:thomas.shafee@gmail.com>> wrote:
Good points. My position on this:
To clarify, WikiJournal material can still be integrated into Wikipedia as previously, the only thing is that it shouldn't currently be used as the sole support for a statement (particularly for articles going through internal good article or featured article review). Wikipedia can often have strict standards on what is a sufficiently reliable source, so I suspect that almost any journal with only 1 issue published would face the same scepticism at Wikipedia Reliable sources Noticeboard<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliab…>.
If the position is that WikiJournals don't have enough reputation yet, then that doesn't change our plans particularly to continue building a reputation. I've had a similar response when approaching some authors of "I think I'll wait until the reputation is built". Many academics (especially in person, as opposed to by email) have been enthusiastic, so it's a case of proving ourselves over the coming years.
If the position is that WikiJournals fundamentally can never have a good enough reputation then I think that's based on flawed assumptions (like we don't check reviewer identities) and can be countered. It will also be countered as WikiJournals are audited and certified by COPE<https://publicationethics.org/membership>, AOSPA<https://oaspa.org/membership/membership-criteria/>, Scopus, Pubmed, and Web of Science.
WikiJMed is currently being considered by COPE, so I propose that WikiJSci similarly apply once we have feedback from WikiJMed's experience. We can also encourage more peer reviewers to have their identities open. Our current reviewer confirmation email template<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Science/Editorial_guidelines…> uses the phrase: "Both anonymous and non-anonymous reviews are permitted (approx 60% of our reviewers choose to have their identity open)..."
We could word to make more positive, and stating a preference for open identities like: "We believe that having reviewer identities open builds trust in the review process, however you may remain anonymous upon request"
Overall, I think that it's a useful litmus test of some Wikipedian views, but the already-intended reputation building plans should address them.
Thomas
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 at 05:32 Roger Watson <R.Watson(a)hull.ac.uk<mailto:R.Watson@hull.ac.uk>> wrote:
My only contribution to this - apart from astonishment at Wikipedia not considering a peer reviewed journal within its own stable as a reliable source - is that in trying to create and edit Wikipedia pages and watching mine develop as others try to add to it, is a great deal of inconsistency across pages. I note for example one colleagues page has his books listed; someone did the same for mine and this was deleted in the basis of being a 'shopping list' and replaced by a very unhelpful list of my three most cited papers. I see same editor did this to another page that I happen to be working on. On the other hand I look at the page belonging to my cousin - a Dame - and it seems if your really elevated that anything goes in terms of what can be listed.
Roger
Sent from my iPhone
Twitter: @rwatson1955
Skype: roger.watson3
Mobile: +447808480547<tel:+44%207808%20480547>
On 18 Jun 2018, at 17:53, Andrew Leung <andrewcleung(a)hotmail.com<mailto:andrewcleung@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Or use the ultimate trump card: IAR (ignore all rules if it prevents you from improving Wikipedia)
Andrew
Sent from my smartphone. Apologies for any typos.
-------- Original message --------
From: Ian Alexander <iany(a)scenarioplus.org.uk<mailto:iany@scenarioplus.org.uk>>
Date: 2018-06-18 12:50 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Mikael Häggström <<editor.in.chief(a)wikijmed.org<mailto:editor.in.chief@wikijmed.org>>
Cc: "WikiJournal (currently at Wikiversity)" <wikijournal-en(a)lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikijournal-en@lists.wikimedia.org>>, wjmboard <wjmboard(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjmboard@googlegroups.com>>, WJH board <wjhboard(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjhboard@googlegroups.com>>, WJS board <wjsboard(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjsboard@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [WikiJournal-en] WikiJournal as a reference in Wikipedia
Mikael, colleagues
The discussion seems clearly against accepting WJ as a 'reliable source'
at the moment. It is unclear to me whether joining the discussion to argue
about reviewers' anonymity and the academic status of the board would
improve matters.
I have 3 observations:
1) We may hope that in a few years' time, WJ has enough reputation that
Wikipedia will be willing to treat it as a reliable journal.
2) We are free to cut-and-paste to Wikipedia any WJ material which is
sufficiently well cited to reliable sources, which would include
peer-reviewed papers already published elsewhere by WJ authors. I note
that mathematics articles seem to require fewer citations both on
Wikipedia and in WJScience.
3) We could, I think, use material on WJ that isn't covered by citations
in the same way as material on a known scientist's blog: Wikipedia allows
'blog' postings to be cited provided it can be shown that the person
posting it is a recognised authority.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#User-g…
"Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an
established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by
reliable third-party publications.") Mikael might or might not wish to try
to confirm that on the discussion group.
Ian
> Hi all,
>
> WikiJournal content can be used in Wikipedia as per
Editorial_guidelines#Wikipedia_inclusion
> <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Editorial_guidelines…>,
> such as reviews based on other reliable sources.
>
> There is currently an online discussion whether content from WikiJournal of
> Science can be a reliable source in Wikipedia, which would allow original
> research from WikiJournal to be added to Wikipedia as well. I'd appreciate
> additional input to this:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliab…
>
> If the consensus is to deny this usage in Wikipedia, we could either settle
> for adding only content such as material from reviews, as well as images.
> Alternatively, we could make a better case by not allowing peer reviewers
> to process articles anonymously, and thereby base reliability on their
> credentials, in addition to the judgement of the boards. But first we'll
> see how this discussion goes.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mikael
>
_______________________________________________
WikiJournal-en mailing list
WikiJournal-en(a)lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:WikiJournal-en@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikijournal-en
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WJM board" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wjmboard+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjmboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to wjmboard(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjmboard@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wjmboard.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjmboard/YQBPR0101MB156991ADC78D0E83FCA5C…<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjmboard/YQBPR0101MB156991ADC78D0E83FCA5C…>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WJH board" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wjhboard+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjhboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to wjhboard(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjhboard@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wjhboard.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjhboard/96101525-33C2-40FC-82DF-E6626BA9…<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjhboard/96101525-33C2-40FC-82DF-E6626BA9…>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
AgriBio & La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science | Postdoctoral research fellow
Profiles at ResearchGate<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Shafee> | LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/in/T-Shafee> | GScholar<http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=m6Qd3zIAAAAJ> | AltMetric<https://www.altmetric.com/explorer/report/9048e6b2-9f82-49b4-b786-2d5674080…> | Wikipedia<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evolution_and_evolvability>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WJS board" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wjsboard+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjsboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to wjsboard(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:wjsboard@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wjsboard.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjsboard/CAFikvs3n5hHbyTA9GMMNO80sFS54NR6…<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjsboard/CAFikvs3n5hHbyTA9GMMNO80sFS54NR6…>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Hello Camelia,
I apologize as well, for the long time it took to reach back to you. Here
is a description of how WikiJournal fulfills each of the mentioned criteria:
*Legal structure*:
- The project is governed by the WikiJournal Council
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group#WikiJournal_Council>
- It has adopted its own Bylaws <http://WikiJournal_User_Group/Bylaws>.
- It is a registered non-profit organization (in Sweden, Organization#:
802511-9275
<https://www.hitta.se/f%C3%B6retagsinformation/wikijournal/8025119275?gp=58.…>
).
Records of activities are archived in its online discussion forums, mainly:
- Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group>
- Talk:WikiJournal_of_Medicine
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_of_Medicine>
- Talk:WikiJournal_of_Science
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_of_Science>
- Talk:WikiJournal_of_Humanities
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_of_Humanities>
The editorial boards and associate editors have expertise in each area:
- WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Editors
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Editors>
- WikiJournal_of_Science/Editors
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Science/Editors>
- WikiJournal_of_Humanities/Editors
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Humanities/Editors>
Their expertise is shared with the Wikimedia movement, in the form of
processing and approving article submissions, whose content can be used to
improve articles across Wikimedia projects.
*Wikimedia supportive mission: *The *mission* of WikiJournal is to publish
scholarly works with no cost for the authors, apply quality checks on
submissions by expert peer review, and make accepted works available on the
Internet free of charge, in perpetuity. The material is then integrated
where appropriate across Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia. WikJournals
is open for everyone to contribute. All this is in alignment with that of
Wikimedia.
*Thematic focus: *Scholarly journals that apply academic peer review
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Peer_review> to their content.
*Critical mass of active Wikimedia contributor involvement: *50+
total members in the editorial boards, in addition to authors and peer
reviewers (see links to editors above)
*At least two years of activities: *The project has been a User Group since
May 31, 2016: Affiliations Committee/Resolutions/Recognition WikiJournal
User Group
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Recognit…>
Its reports on activity and financials are up to date, see:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Activity_report_May_
2016_to_Dec_2017
*Capacity, or planned capacity, to meet the future expectations: *We are a
dedicated group of volunteers who will continue to welcome newcomers to the
projects. There is no absolute limit to the potential capacity of our
activities. We understand and will abide the requirements and expectations
of thematic organizations
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_thematic_organizations/Requiremen…>
.
Best regards,
Mikael Häggström
On behalf of the WikiJournal User Group
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 11:23 PM, camelia boban <camelia.boban(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello Mikael.
>
> I appologize for my previous answer, a misunderstanding about the fact you
> are already a user group.
> In order to become a thematical organization (like chapters
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_chapters>, they
> are required *to have a legal structure*, maintain detailed records on
> activities, maintain an expertise in their focal area, and share that
> expertise with the Wikimedia movement), these are the
> eligibility requirements
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_thematic_organizations>:
>
> 1. *Wikimedia supportive mission*
> The mission of the organization must be in line with the mission
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Mission> and vision
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Vision> of the
> Wikimedia Foundation, as well as the guiding principles of the
> Wikimedia Foundation
> <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guidin…>
> and principles of movement affiliates
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_affiliation_mo…>
> .
> 2. *Thematic focus*
> The thematic organization has a clear cultural, linguistic, or
> otherwise thematic focus. Thematic organizations need a clearly defined and
> unique scope, when setting up a thematic organization questions of
> language, geographic area of operation, and membership criteria need to be
> determined. While there can be multiple user groups serving a similar or
> single focus area, there can only be one thematic organization covering
> their designated thematic focus area.
> 3. *Legal structure*
> The thematic organization must have a legal structure/corporation that
> is legally independent from the Wikimedia Foundation.
> 4. *Critical mass of active Wikimedia contributor involvement*
> The thematic organization must involve at least ten, preferably at
> least twenty, active contributors to the Wikimedia projects. An active
> contributor is defined as a members with 300 or more contributions to a
> Wikimedia project on a registered account that has existed for more than 6
> months in good community standing (meaning they are not currently suspended
> or otherwise prevented from participating).
> 5. *At least two years of activities*
> Groups must have two years of demonstrable programmatic results prior
> to applying for thematic organization recognition. These activities, and
> their results, must be documented on-wiki, ideally on the group's Meta-Wiki
> page. Activities should be a mixture of online and offline activities
> designed to encourage participation on the Wikimedia projects
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_projects>.
> The group must be up to date on its activity and financial reports prior to
> being considered for recognition.
> 6. *Capacity, or planned capacity, to meet the future expectations*
> Something that makes thematic organizations and chapters unique from
> user groups are the increased expectations. Does your group have the
> capacity to meet the expectations of thematic organization once you receive
> recognition? This will be something both the Affiliations Committee and
> Board of Trustees will consider in reviewing your application. If your
> group does not have a track record of activities which indicate that you
> will successfully be able to meet these expectations, that can cause your
> application to be denied. Consideration will be given for the financial
> circumstances of the group, realistic demands in your group's focus area,
> and plans to secure future funding to meet these expectations.
>
>
> Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.
>
> Kind regards,
> Camelia on behalf of AffCom
>
>
> ᐧ
>
>
>
> --
> *Camelia Boban*
> *Affiliations Committee Member - **Wikimedia *Foundation
> Developer | WikiDonne co-founder
> T. +39 0669362474 | M. +39 3383385545
> camelia.boban(a)gmail.com
> *Wikipedia <https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban> | *Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/cameliaboban> *|* *Google Plu
> <https://plus.google.com/+CameliaBoban/>s
> <https://plus.google.com/+CameliaBoban/>*
> *WikiDonne <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne>* *| **LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122> **|* *Aissa
> Technologies* <http://aissatechnologies.eu/>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2018-04-02 21:47 GMT+02:00 camelia boban <camelia.boban(a)gmail.com>:
>
>> Hello Mikael and thank you for contacting us.
>>
>> As to apply for a thematic organization, your group must have a thematic
>> focus, a legal structure, but most of all at least two years of activity
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_thematic_organizations/Requiremen…>,
>> I suggest you to apply first for a user group. The eligibility requirements
>> are (1) a group of a*t least 3 members with 300 or more contributions to
>> a Wikimedia project *and (2) *accept **the Wikimedia user group
>> agreement and code of conduct
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups/Agreement_and_code_of…>.*
>>
>> On this page you can find the way to apply for the recognition
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups> and this is a creation
>> guide
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups/Creation_guide>.
>> After completing this 4 steps:
>> *Step 1*: Gather the people
>>
>> At least three people are required for the establishment of a user group;
>> but we recommend gathering at least 10 in your group.
>>
>> We highly encourage you to feel empowered to engage in activities and
>> planning even prior to beginning the approval process.
>>
>>
>> *Step 2*: Develop your goals and scope
>>
>> - What do you want to accomplish as a group? What is your scope? For
>> example, do you want to have a monthly meetup on a particular topic, do you
>> want to reach out to schools, to museums? How does your mission aim to
>> improve Wikimedia projects?
>> - What kind of activities do you want to engage in (e.g. outreach,
>> fundraising, public relations, publishing, meetups)?
>>
>>
>> *Step 3*: Select your user group name
>>
>> Generally, creative and descriptive names are encouraged; however, here
>> are a few examples that might help your thinking:
>>
>> A user group's name and logo should support more independent activity and
>> discourage confusion with other Wikimedia organizations.
>>
>>
>> - Wikimedia Community User Group _____ : An independent club of
>> Wikimedia volunteers
>> - Wikimedians of _____ User Group : an independent group of
>> volunteer Wikimedians
>> - Wikipedians of _____ User Group : an independent group of
>> volunteer Wikimedians
>> - MediaWiki Group _____ : an independent group of volunteer
>> Wikimedians
>> - Wikipedia Editors for _____ : an independent group of volunteer
>> Wikimedians
>> - Any name that does not involve a Wikimedia trademark, such as
>> "Wiki User Group _____"
>>
>>
>> *Step 4*: Set up a wiki page for your group
>>
>> Once you have a group of interested people, it's time to document who you
>> are and to set up some means of communications. For the external world, you
>> need to designate two contact people who can be identified to the Wikimedia
>> Foundation; within the group, think about setting up a wiki page where
>> people can join; perhaps set up a mailing list or talk page or other forum
>> to discuss your projects.
>>
>> at *Step 5*: You can Apply for recognition filling this form
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contact/affcomusergroup>.
>>
>> Please feel free to contact us if you have other questions.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Camelia on behalf of AffCom
>>
>>
>> ᐧ
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Camelia Boban*
>> *Affiliations Committee Member - **Wikimedia *Foundation
>> Developer | WikiDonne co-founder
>> T. +39 0669362474 | M. +39 3383385545
>> camelia.boban(a)gmail.com
>> *Wikipedia <https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban> | *
>> Twitter <https://twitter.com/cameliaboban> *|* *Google Plu
>> <https://plus.google.com/+CameliaBoban/>s
>> <https://plus.google.com/+CameliaBoban/>*
>> *WikiDonne <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne>* *| **LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122> **|* *Aissa
>> Technologies* <http://aissatechnologies.eu/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2018-04-02 19:44 GMT+02:00 Mikael Häggström <editor.in.chief(a)wikijmed.org
>> >:
>>
>>> Dear Affiliations Committee,
>>>
>>> I want to apply to have WikiJournal
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group> become a thematic
>>> organization
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_thematic_organizations>.
>>> Please let me know what information you will need in order to make a
>>> decision.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Mikael Häggström
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mikael_H%C3%A4ggstr%C3%B6m>
>>> editor.in.chief(a)wikijmed.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Affiliations Committee mailing list
>>> AffCom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affcom
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Hi all,
WikiJournal content can be used in Wikipedia as per
Editorial_guidelines#Wikipedia_inclusion
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Editorial_guidelines…>,
such as reviews based on other reliable sources.
There is currently an online discussion whether content from WikiJournal of
Science can be a reliable source in Wikipedia, which would allow original
research from WikiJournal to be added to Wikipedia as well. I'd appreciate
additional input to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliab…
If the consensus is to deny this usage in Wikipedia, we could either settle
for adding only content such as material from reviews, as well as images.
Alternatively, we could make a better case by not allowing peer reviewers
to process articles anonymously, and thereby base reliability on their
credentials, in addition to the judgement of the boards. But first we'll
see how this discussion goes.
Best regards,
Mikael
Hi all WikiJournal participants,
I asked the Affiliations Committee about how to proceed in making
WikiJournal a thematic organization
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_thematic_organizations>. After
we've reached that step, I'll check with the legal department again about
having WikiJournal trademarked.
Best regards,
Mikael
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mikael Häggström <editor.in.chief(a)wikijmed.org>
Date: Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 7:44 PM
Subject: WikiJournal as a thematic organization
To: affcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Dear Affiliations Committee,
I want to apply to have WikiJournal
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group> become a thematic
organization
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_thematic_organizations>. Please
let me know what information you will need in order to make a decision.
Best regards,
Mikael Häggström
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mikael_H%C3%A4ggstr%C3%B6m>
editor.in.chief(a)wikijmed.org
Hello all WikiJournal participants,
There's been an interesting conversation in the editorial board of
WikiJournal of Science of a case where an article had previously been
submitted to another journal, received peer reviews, gotten declined, and
now submitted to WikiJournal. Points raised include that the reputability
of that other journal can be taken into account in accepting their peer
reviews, and it seems unethical to omit important comments previously
raised. Yet, we cannot ignore our peer reviewer criteria
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers>. It
seems we need to know the identity of the peer reviewers in order to make
this judgement. I think this is further necessitated by the fact that we
may want to complement the peer review, and we'd risk asking the same
reviewer a second time if we don't know the identity of the reviewer.
I've made a section at Editorial_guidelines#Importing_reviews
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Editorial_guidelines…>
(template
currently adapted for WikiJournal of Medicine but which should be up for
the other journals as well in a near future) with the text:
"In case a work has already undergone a peer review by another journal or
reviewing service, that peer review can be accepted by WikiJournal of
Medicine if the peer reviewer criteria
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Peer_reviewers#Crit…>
are
met. This requires that the editorial board gets to know the identity of
the peer reviewer, and that the reviewer agrees to have it published under
creative commons license (CC BY-SA
<https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>). External peer reviews
that do not fulfill these criteria should still be uploaded if possible,
but do not count to the minimum of 2 independent peer reviews for each
article."
Feel free to suggest further edits to this.
I suggest we continue discussions in wiki:
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Importing_peer_…
Best regards,
Mikael