Hello Paula, hello all,
Do you have any experience / story / data about the downsides of publishing reviewer identities? PeerJ's old blog post on the matter https://peerj.com/blog/post/100580518238/whos-afraid-of-open-peer-review/ is not very specific, beyond giving a generally positive impression of their experience.
In our case, publishing reviewer identities would help build the journals' reputation, and also, as we are told, help with acceptability as a reliable source for Wikipedia.
I think that we should systematically ask the reviewers whether we may reveal their identities (if they do not do it themselves), and point out that this is a priori good for the reviewer (who can get recognition for her work), the reviewed article, and the journal itself. We should still allow anonymity, because it is sometimes justified, and because reviewers may be reluctant to adopt a non-standard practice. We could probably get most reviewers to reveal their identities by making it the default option.
This policy could be revised in light of our future experience. Our past experience is very limited, but please compare the first and third reviews (non-anonymous) of Spaces in Mathematics, with the anonymous second review.
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_of_Science/Spaces_in_mathem...
Best,
Sylvain
On 19/06/2018 03:58, Paula Diaconescu wrote:
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 byCOPE 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@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#Reliability_of_WikiJournal_of_Science>. 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/Message_templates#Confirming_a_reviewer> 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@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@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@scenarioplus.org.uk <mailto:iany@scenarioplus.org.uk>> Date: 2018-06-18 12:50 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Mikael Häggström <<editor.in.chief@wikijmed.org <mailto:editor.in.chief@wikijmed.org>> Cc: "WikiJournal (currently at Wikiversity)" <wikijournal-en@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikijournal-en@lists.wikimedia.org>>, wjmboard <wjmboard@googlegroups.com <mailto:wjmboard@googlegroups.com>>, WJH board <wjhboard@googlegroups.com <mailto:wjhboard@googlegroups.com>>, WJS board <wjsboard@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-generated_content <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#User-generated_content> "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#Wikipedia_inclusion <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Editorial_guidelines#Wikipedia_inclusion>>, > 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#Reliability_of_WikiJournal_of_Science <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_WikiJournal_of_Science> > > 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@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:WikiJournal-en@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikijournal-en <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@googlegroups.com <mailto:wjmboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to wjmboard@googlegroups.com <mailto:wjmboard@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wjmboard <https://groups.google.com/group/wjmboard>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjmboard/YQBPR0101MB156991ADC78D0E83FCA5CE9BD2710%40YQBPR0101MB1569.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjmboard/YQBPR0101MB156991ADC78D0E83FCA5CE9BD2710%40YQBPR0101MB1569.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout <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@googlegroups.com <mailto:wjhboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to wjhboard@googlegroups.com <mailto:wjhboard@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wjhboard <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-E6626BA931BF%40hull.ac.uk <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjhboard/96101525-33C2-40FC-82DF-E6626BA931BF%40hull.ac.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout <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-b786-2d56740804e3> | 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@googlegroups.com <mailto:wjsboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to wjsboard@googlegroups.com <mailto:wjsboard@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wjsboard <https://groups.google.com/group/wjsboard>. To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjsboard/CAFikvs3n5hHbyTA9GMMNO80sFS54NR6Trn5K_xGPr9KPcjdKJA%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjsboard/CAFikvs3n5hHbyTA9GMMNO80sFS54NR6Trn5K_xGPr9KPcjdKJA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.-- 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@googlegroups.com mailto:wjsboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to wjsboard@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/CAONN5pHG8EyCoLthMGd%3DGM1-pH%2B7... https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjsboard/CAONN5pHG8EyCoLthMGd%3DGM1-pH%2B7LggEx%2BTXiNJKfTBidR4F-A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.