Hi All,

I would like to take the opposing viewpoint. That is, the purpose of our peer review process is to ensure that the articles are indeed a reliable source of information. If the articles we publish are not reliable, they why are we publishing them at all?

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 Andrew Leung [andrewcleung@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 12:53 PM To: WikiJournal participants; Mikael Häggström Cc: wjmboard; WJH board; WJS board Subject: Re: [WikiJournal-en] WikiJournal as a reference in Wikipedia

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. (<UrlBlockedError.aspx>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#User-ge... "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, 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#Reliabi...

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 "WJS board" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wjsboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.commailto:wjsboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to wjsboard@googlegroups.commailto: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/YQBPR0101MB156991ADC78D0E83FCA5CE...https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjsboard/YQBPR0101MB156991ADC78D0E83FCA5CE9BD2710%40YQBPR0101MB1569.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

On 18 Jun 2018, at 17:53, Andrew Leung <andrewcleung@hotmail.commailto: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.ukmailto:iany@scenarioplus.org.uk> Date: 2018-06-18 12:50 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Mikael Häggström <<editor.in.chief@wikijmed.orgmailto:editor.in.chief@wikijmed.org> Cc: "WikiJournal (currently at Wikiversity)" <wikijournal-en@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikijournal-en@lists.wikimedia.org>, wjmboard <wjmboard@googlegroups.commailto:wjmboard@googlegroups.com>, WJH board <wjhboard@googlegroups.commailto:wjhboard@googlegroups.com>, WJS board <wjsboard@googlegroups.commailto: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-ge... "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, 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#Reliabi...

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.orgmailto: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.commailto:wjmboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to wjmboard@googlegroups.commailto: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/YQBPR0101MB156991ADC78D0E83FCA5CE...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.

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_ 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>,

...

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

...

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/ msgid/wjmboard/YQBPR0101MB156991ADC78D0E83FCA 5CE9BD2710%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/ 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.

--

*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/ 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.

*My priority suggestions:*

*Priority 1: Articles* The best way to build a reputation for quality content is to generate quality content by Inviting high-quality articles from authors in our networks, and ensuring peer review progresses rigorously and efficiently.

*Priority 2: Editors* For better or worse, journals are also judged by the prestige of the names attached to the editorial team. We should establish a system to engage additional 'renowned/big-name/prestigious' editors who *aren't *involved in board discussions, wiki-integration and technical aspects, but *would *be useful for helping to invite articles, organise peer reviews, and comment on articles. It is also a way to gain useful endorsement (see discussion here https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#A_new_type_of_editors? ).

*Priority 3: Social media* I agree that now is the time for WikiJSci to start reputation-building with media outreach (primarily to WikiMedians and pro-Wikipedia academics). Andrew, would you mind contacting the Signpost (prev signpost article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-09-06/Special_report)? I'll contact the WMF blog (prev blog article https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/10/29/wikipedia-medical-content/).

Larger outreach to general public media (like radio/newspapers etc) can be a later wave once we've built the portfolio further.

Kelee, Jack and Melanie have got a set of social media posts lined up and ready to launch over the coming weeks. Feel free to suggest posts:

- WikiJSci - General social media planning and image suggestions https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e1oNKzxusiYQ0h5ENBvjThJmblIgnbwRFtMlqcCRHs4/edit# - WikiJSci - Social media message text queue for posting https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zrQseidhOZxK_tlu_kDbYxwC2wGsmDO8vbCmT9ftwJQ/edit?zx=6t6rifiwgeq#gid=0

Exciting times! Thomas

On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 at 21:53 Andrew Leung andrewcleung@hotmail.com wrote:

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@chem.ucla.edu Date: 2018-06-18 9:58 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Thomas Shafee thomas.shafee@gmail.com Cc: Roger Watson R.Watson@hull.ac.uk, Andrew Leung < andrewcleung@hotmail.com>, WikiJournal participants < wikijournal-en@lists.wikimedia.org>, Mikael Häggström < editor.in.chief@wikijmed.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

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_reliable_sources#User-ge... "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#Reliabi...

...

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/msgid/wjmboard/YQBPR0101MB156991ADC78D0E83FCA5CE... 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/msgid/wjhboard/96101525-33C2-40FC-82DF-E6626BA93... 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/msgid/wjsboard/CAFikvs3n5hHbyTA9GMMNO80sFS54NR6T... 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.

--

*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 <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

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.

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_sgGe.... For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

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 https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Editors#Editorial_board_members. 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 https://publons.com/ 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#Anonym...

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) https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Potential_upcoming_articles 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.