Hi all,

Perhaps this wording in our guidelines would be best then, recommending non-anonymous peer reviewing, but keeping the option to be anonymous, especially when reviewers may otherwise be unable to speak freely:

"It is recommended to have the reviewer's name displayed online with the review in order to build trust in the review process. Still, reviewers may remain anonymous upon request. The identity of anonymous peer reviewers will be available only to a designated peer review coordinator and the editorial board. On the other hand, being non-anonymous allows the peer reviewer to use the contribution directly as an academic merit, while anonymous peer reviewers may still use services such as Publons to receive academic credit for their efforts. Yet, being non-anonymous may possibly prevent the peer reviewer from freely criticizing the target work due to fear of appearing to discredit one or more authors. Therefore, anonymity is also indicated when reviewers feel they can comment more freely on the work in such case."

I've written this at the Peer reviewer guidelines, but feel free to improve:
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers#Anonymous_or_non-anonymous

Also, I agree our efforts should be dedicated to improving the journals, rather than to manipulate the current consensus in the Wikipedia community. Still, I'll personally first need to focus on getting an overdue article (Microlissencephaly) through the peer review process for WikiJMed, but I hope to join in the efforts mentioned in this thread if I get time later.

Best regards,

Mikael



On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Palermo, Edmund Francis <palere@rpi.edu> wrote:
Hi All,

I just wanted to chime in with one other point. Review articles in conventional journals sometimes contain the authors opinion or speculations and some outlook for future work/challenges/opportunities in a cutting edge field. This is not considered "original research" by journal standards, since it has no new data, but would certainly be considered OR by Wikipedia standards. Thus, we do need to be sensitive to the distinction.

Best,
Ed

---
Edmund F. Palermo
Assistant Professor
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Materials Science & Engineering Department
110 8th Street
Troy, NY 12180

Office: MRC 206
Lab: MRC 229
Office phone: (518) 276-6124
Cell phone: (734) 660-1685

________________________________________
From: wjsboard@googlegroups.com [wjsboard@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Ian Alexander [iany@scenarioplus.org.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 4:13 AM
To: pld@chem.ucla.edu
Cc: Sylvain Ribault; WikiJournal participants; wjmboard; WJH board; WJS board
Subject: Re: [WikiJournal-en] WikiJournal as a reference in Wikipedia

Paula,

you are probably correct that reviewers of review articles will be more
willing to drop anonymity.

However, this does not address the issue we face with getting WJ materials
treated as reliable over at Wikipedia, as by their nature review articles
can be fully cited to external sources, and can be copied straight over to
Wikipedia, fully sourced.

The issue is acute with original research articles, which we would also
like to encourage; at the moment, we can only copy over the non-original
parts of those articles, which will typically be the historical background
of existing research in the field, i.e. the introductory section.

We might conclude that WJScience (and perhaps WJMed) should focus on
review articles, which are a natural match for Wikipedia but which will be
more thoroughly and professionally reviewed. In that case, traditional
reviewers' anonymity may be the best option, enabling reviewers to comment
completely freely.

Just a Wikipedian's thoughts.

Ian


> Hi Sylvain,
>
> I guess I wasn't clear about when criticism is important to be kept
> anonymous. I was referring to original articles that publish new data. If
> I
> understand correctly from the link you sent me, that is a review article
> and most reviewer comments are rather about form and presentation. If
> WikiJ
> only intends to publish reviews and not original data then it is likely
> that most reviewers will be fine to reveal their identity.
>
> As for people getting credit for reviewing, there are other options, for
> example publons.com that can collect reviews and send a somewhat official
> summary of one's reviewing activity.
>
> I hope this helps,
> Paula
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Sylvain Ribault <s.g.ribault@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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_mathematics
>>
>> 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 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@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> 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 <+44%207808%20480547>
>>>>
>>>> On 18 Jun 2018, at 17:53, Andrew Leung <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>
>>>> Date: 2018-06-18 12:50 PM (GMT-05:00)
>>>> To: Mikael Häggström <<editor.in.chief@wikijmed.org>
>>>> Cc: "WikiJournal (currently at Wikiversity)" <
>>>> wikijournal-en@lists.wikimedia.org>, wjmboard
>>>> <wjmboard@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> WJH board <wjhboard@googlegroups.com>, WJS board <
>>>> 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_reliabl
>>>> e_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/Edit
>>>> orial_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/Not
>>>> iceboard#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
>>>> 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.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to 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/ms
>>>> gid/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.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to 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/ms
>>>> gid/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.
>>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> *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.
>>> To post to this group, send email to 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/ms
>>> gid/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.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>> To post to this group, send email to 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%2B7LggEx%2BTXiNJKfTBidR4F-A%
>> 40mail.gmail.com
>> <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.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>> To post to this group, send email to 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/7453e1cc-4e4f-0787-0013-c206ab072589%40gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjsboard/7453e1cc-4e4f-0787-0013-c206ab072589%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>> For more options, visit 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.
> To post to this group, send an email to 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/CAONN5pHxvCjTrHYYUkx7z_bik8i_sgGehX%3DQzPhbom217%2B3yCA%40mail.gmail.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>


Book: The English Love Affair with Nature, 2015
http://www.obsessedbynature.com

--
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.
To post to this group, send an email to 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/a985dae629bd1614a090c973721370d7.squirrel%40just115.justhost.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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.
To post to this group, send email to 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/A567753F3417C94E87E0D03574ABFD59F03C211B%40EX14MB6.win.rpi.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.