Hello Wikipedians,
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006) - From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia ( example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2018.001) - Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report )
*Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal*
From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured
article review, but bridging the gap with external experts https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers, implementing established scholarly practices https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement, and generating citable, doi-linked publications https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! All the best, Thomas Shafee
ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing wikimedia community, so feel free to share with others.
Thomas
Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
Thrapostibongles
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee thomas.shafee@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Wikipedians,
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback
(example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006)
- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (
example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2018.001)
- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example
< https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestin...
)
*Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal*
From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers, implementing established scholarly practices https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement, and generating citable, doi-linked publications https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! All the best, Thomas Shafee
ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing wikimedia community, so feel free to share with others. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
James
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
Thomas
Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
Thrapostibongles
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee thomas.shafee@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Wikipedians,
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group has been
building
and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
feedback
(example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006)
- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia
(
example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2018.001)
- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
(example
<
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestin...
)
*Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal*
From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
Featured
article review, but bridging the gap with external experts https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers, implementing established scholarly practices <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement , and generating citable, doi-linked publications https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! All the best, Thomas Shafee
ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing wikimedia community, so feel free to share with others. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
James
It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
Unfortunately Plan-S requires rather more than a conformant licence. It also imposes strict conditions on business models and editorial practices, not all of which have yet been completely finalised: see https://www.coalition-s.org/rationale-for-the-revisions/ for example.
The best the WikiJournals project can realistically do right now to is announce an intention to conform. So my question remains: does the project intend to become and remain Plan-S compliant? It seems odd that this is not considered to be, and publicised as, a major goal of the project, as non-conformance will be a major setback.
Thrapostibongles
What is the objection in principle to ND licencing? If you publish a paper detailing your experiments on apricot kernels as a cure for cancer with a conclusion that they are completely worthless, and give it a BY licence, I can now "remix" it, that is publish exactly the same material, except with a new conclusion that apricot kernels are a complete cure for cancer, provided that I attribute it to you. Is that what you want, in any sense at all?
The Turnip
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 19:55, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
James
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
Thomas
Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
Thrapostibongles
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee thomas.shafee@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Wikipedians,
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group has been
building
and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
feedback
(example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006)
- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
Wikipedia
(
example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2018.001)
- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
(example
<
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestin...
)
*Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal*
From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
Featured
article review, but bridging the gap with external experts <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
,
implementing established scholarly practices <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
, and generating citable, doi-linked publications https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! All the best, Thomas Shafee
ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
wikimedia
community, so feel free to share with others. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link* https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria ).
Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g. JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being said, things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to implement anyway for machine readability.
Thomas
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
James
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
Thomas
Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
Thrapostibongles
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee thomas.shafee@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Wikipedians,
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group has been
building
and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
feedback
(example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006)
- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
Wikipedia
(
example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2018.001)
- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
(example
<
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestin...
)
*Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal*
From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
Featured
article review, but bridging the gap with external experts <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
,
implementing established scholarly practices <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
, and generating citable, doi-linked publications https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! All the best, Thomas Shafee
ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
wikimedia
community, so feel free to share with others. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
How do you handle lock down of articles? That is only listed authors should write a given article, so you can't allow random user edit access as it is today.
Jeblad
man. 3. jun. 2019, 04.16 skrev Thomas Shafee thomas.shafee@gmail.com:
Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link* < https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_...
).
Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g. JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being said, things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to implement anyway for machine readability.
Thomas
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
James
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
Thomas
Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
Thrapostibongles
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee thomas.shafee@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Wikipedians,
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group has been
building
and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
feedback
(example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006)
- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
Wikipedia
(
example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2018.001)
- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
(example
<
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestin...
)
*Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal*
From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
Featured
article review, but bridging the gap with external experts <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
,
implementing established scholarly practices <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
, and generating citable, doi-linked publications https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! All the best, Thomas Shafee
ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
wikimedia
community, so feel free to share with others. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
So at the moment, there is no locking of any sort. However, but it's noted that once an article is assigned a doi, that meaning-changing edits would be re-reviewed and an updated doi minted by from crossref's crossmark service https://www.crossref.org/services/crossmark/ along the lines of this article https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.13060.1. Copyedits and formatting are always fine though. So far, the vast majority of editing has occurred before the doi assignment, and articles integrated into Wikipedia have a note in the top right to let people know that they can more logically be edited there (example https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Science/RIG-I_like_receptors ).
Thomas
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 14:18, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
How do you handle lock down of articles? That is only listed authors should write a given article, so you can't allow random user edit access as it is today.
Jeblad
man. 3. jun. 2019, 04.16 skrev Thomas Shafee thomas.shafee@gmail.com:
Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link* <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_...
).
Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g. JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
said,
things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to implement anyway for machine readability.
Thomas
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
James
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
Thomas
Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
Thrapostibongles
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
thomas.shafee@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello Wikipedians,
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group has been
building
and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
feedback
(example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006)
- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
Wikipedia
(
example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2018.001)
- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
(example
<
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestin...
)
*Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal*
From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
Featured
article review, but bridging the gap with external experts <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
,
implementing established scholarly practices <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
, and generating citable, doi-linked publications <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing
.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! All the best, Thomas Shafee
ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
wikimedia
community, so feel free to share with others. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Ok. Works might not be accepted if people outside a well-defined group contributes to the work.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 3:50 PM Thomas Shafee thomas.shafee@gmail.com wrote:
So at the moment, there is no locking of any sort. However, but it's noted that once an article is assigned a doi, that meaning-changing edits would be re-reviewed and an updated doi minted by from crossref's crossmark service https://www.crossref.org/services/crossmark/ along the lines of this article https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.13060.1. Copyedits and formatting are always fine though. So far, the vast majority of editing has occurred before the doi assignment, and articles integrated into Wikipedia have a note in the top right to let people know that they can more logically be edited there (example https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Science/RIG-I_like_receptors ).
Thomas
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 14:18, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
How do you handle lock down of articles? That is only listed authors should write a given article, so you can't allow random user edit access as it is today.
Jeblad
man. 3. jun. 2019, 04.16 skrev Thomas Shafee thomas.shafee@gmail.com:
Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link* <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_...
).
Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g. JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
said,
things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to implement anyway for machine readability.
Thomas
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
James
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
Thomas
Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
Thrapostibongles
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
thomas.shafee@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello Wikipedians,
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group has been
building
and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
feedback
(example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006)
- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
Wikipedia
(
example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2018.001)
- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
(example
<
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestin...
> )
*Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal*
From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
Featured
article review, but bridging the gap with external experts <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
,
implementing established scholarly practices <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
, and generating citable, doi-linked publications <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing
.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! All the best, Thomas Shafee
ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
wikimedia
community, so feel free to share with others. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects which were eventually defeated by the "no original research" principle. Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion, paranormal and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind of gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious" research group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals or classical PR journals?
Vito
Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee < thomas.shafee@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link* < https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_...
).
Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g. JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being said, things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to implement anyway for machine readability.
Thomas
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
James
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
Thomas
Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
Thrapostibongles
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee thomas.shafee@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Wikipedians,
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group has been
building
and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
feedback
(example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006)
- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
Wikipedia
(
example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2018.001)
- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
(example
<
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestin...
)
*Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal*
From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
Featured
article review, but bridging the gap with external experts <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
,
implementing established scholarly practices <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
, and generating citable, doi-linked publications https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! All the best, Thomas Shafee
ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
wikimedia
community, so feel free to share with others. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The peer review process and the editors of the journals in question. This is the same mechanism that prevents gibberish from getting into all peer reviewed literature.
J
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:30 AM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects which were eventually defeated by the "no original research" principle. Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion, paranormal and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind of gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious" research group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals or classical PR journals?
Vito
Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee < thomas.shafee@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link* <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_...
).
Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g. JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
said,
things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to implement anyway for machine readability.
Thomas
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
James
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
Thomas
Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
Thrapostibongles
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
thomas.shafee@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello Wikipedians,
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group has been
building
and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
feedback
(example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006)
- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
Wikipedia
(
example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2018.001)
- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
(example
<
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestin...
)
*Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal*
From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
Featured
article review, but bridging the gap with external experts <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
,
implementing established scholarly practices <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
, and generating citable, doi-linked publications <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing
.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! All the best, Thomas Shafee
ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
wikimedia
community, so feel free to share with others. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Do editing in a non-indexed draft space and then move the articles into an indexed mainspace after passing peer review.
I guess a "WikiJournal" should be CC-ND by default. Authors should be able to relax the license. If others are allowed to edit then the license should be forced to CC-by-SA.
Authors should be explicitly listed, and if authors allow other to edit, then they must explicitly say so. A "front matter" like in Jekyll should be sufficient for declaring the authors.
There must also be a process for verifying the identity for authors. That can be really fun! And btw, Mediawiki has a field for real names, but lacks methods for verifying those names.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 4:36 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
The peer review process and the editors of the journals in question. This is the same mechanism that prevents gibberish from getting into all peer reviewed literature.
J
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:30 AM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects which were eventually defeated by the "no original research" principle. Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion, paranormal and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind of gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious" research group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals or classical PR journals?
Vito
Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee < thomas.shafee@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link* <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_...
).
Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g. JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
said,
things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to implement anyway for machine readability.
Thomas
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
James
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
Thomas
Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
Thrapostibongles
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
thomas.shafee@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello Wikipedians,
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group has been
building
and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
feedback
(example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006)
- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
Wikipedia
(
example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2018.001)
- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
(example
<
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestin...
> )
*Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal*
From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
Featured
article review, but bridging the gap with external experts <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
,
implementing established scholarly practices <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
, and generating citable, doi-linked publications <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing
.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! All the best, Thomas Shafee
ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
wikimedia
community, so feel free to share with others. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
En.wikiversity user I'm dealing with was a custodian (in other words a well established user within the community).
Keeping it short my main concern is: we are a naturally democratic community, while the science cannot be. Also, we've been attracting low quality "research" for years.
Vito
Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 16:36 James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com ha scritto:
The peer review process and the editors of the journals in question. This is the same mechanism that prevents gibberish from getting into all peer reviewed literature.
J
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:30 AM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects which were eventually defeated by the "no original research" principle. Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion, paranormal and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind of gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious" research group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals or classical PR journals?
Vito
Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee < thomas.shafee@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link* <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_...
).
Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g. JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced
stringency
and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
said,
things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable
to
implement anyway for machine readability.
Thomas
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
James
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
Thomas
Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
Thrapostibongles
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
thomas.shafee@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello Wikipedians,
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group has
been
building
and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a
mediawiki
platform. The main types of articles are:
- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review
and
feedback
(example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006)
- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
Wikipedia
(
example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2018.001)
- Original research articles that are not imported to
Wikipedia
(example
<
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestin...
> )
*Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal*
From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system
to
Featured
article review, but bridging the gap with external experts <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
,
implementing established scholarly practices <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
, and generating citable, doi-linked publications <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing
.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! All the best, Thomas Shafee
ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
wikimedia
community, so feel free to share with others. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as that would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I disagree with Plan S's move to allow ND.
James
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:08 AM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
En.wikiversity user I'm dealing with was a custodian (in other words a well established user within the community).
Keeping it short my main concern is: we are a naturally democratic community, while the science cannot be. Also, we've been attracting low quality "research" for years.
Vito
Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 16:36 James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com ha scritto:
The peer review process and the editors of the journals in question. This is the same mechanism that prevents gibberish from getting into all peer reviewed literature.
J
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:30 AM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects which were eventually defeated by the "no original research"
principle.
Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion,
paranormal
and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind of gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious"
research
group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals
or
classical PR journals?
Vito
Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee < thomas.shafee@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link* <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_...
).
Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved
(e.g.
JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced
stringency
and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
said,
things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be
valuable
to
implement anyway for machine readability.
Thomas
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
James
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
Thomas
Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
Thrapostibongles
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
thomas.shafee@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello Wikipedians, > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group has
been
building > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a
mediawiki
> platform. The main types of articles are: > > - Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review
and
feedback > (example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006) > - From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
Wikipedia
( > example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2018.001) > - Original research articles that are not imported to
Wikipedia
(example > < >
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestin...
> > > ) > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal* > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system
to
Featured > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts > <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
, > implementing established scholarly practices > <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
>, > and generating citable, doi-linked publications > <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing
.
> > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! > All the best, > Thomas Shafee > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
wikimedia
> community, so feel free to share with others. > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
But to clarify, the intent is to be Plan-S compliant from what I understand.
James
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:46 AM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as that would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I disagree with Plan S's move to allow ND.
James
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:08 AM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
En.wikiversity user I'm dealing with was a custodian (in other words a well established user within the community).
Keeping it short my main concern is: we are a naturally democratic community, while the science cannot be. Also, we've been attracting low quality "research" for years.
Vito
Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 16:36 James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com ha scritto:
The peer review process and the editors of the journals in question.
This
is the same mechanism that prevents gibberish from getting into all peer reviewed literature.
J
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:30 AM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects which were eventually defeated by the "no original research"
principle.
Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion,
paranormal
and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind
of
gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious"
research
group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals
or
classical PR journals?
Vito
Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee < thomas.shafee@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link* <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_...
).
Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved
(e.g.
JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced
stringency
and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
said,
things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be
valuable
to
implement anyway for machine readability.
Thomas
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
James
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thomas > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant? > > Thrapostibongles > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
thomas.shafee@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > Hello Wikipedians, > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group > > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group has
been
> building > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a
mediawiki
> > platform. The main types of articles are: > > > > - Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review
and
> feedback > > (example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006) > > - From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia > ( > > example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2018.001) > > - Original research articles that are not imported to
Wikipedia
> (example > > < > > >
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestin...
> > > > > ) > > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal* > > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary
system
to
> Featured > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts > > <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
>, > > implementing established scholarly practices > > <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> >, > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications > > <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing
.
> > > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! > > All the best, > > Thomas Shafee > > > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing wikimedia > > community, so feel free to share with others. > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
How often do you expect a scientific article to be translated?
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 7:46 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as that would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I disagree with Plan S's move to allow ND.
James
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:08 AM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
En.wikiversity user I'm dealing with was a custodian (in other words a well established user within the community).
Keeping it short my main concern is: we are a naturally democratic community, while the science cannot be. Also, we've been attracting low quality "research" for years.
Vito
Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 16:36 James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com ha scritto:
The peer review process and the editors of the journals in question. This is the same mechanism that prevents gibberish from getting into all peer reviewed literature.
J
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:30 AM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects which were eventually defeated by the "no original research"
principle.
Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion,
paranormal
and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind of gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious"
research
group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals
or
classical PR journals?
Vito
Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee < thomas.shafee@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link* <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_...
).
Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved
(e.g.
JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced
stringency
and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
said,
things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be
valuable
to
implement anyway for machine readability.
Thomas
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
James
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thomas > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant? > > Thrapostibongles > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
thomas.shafee@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > Hello Wikipedians, > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group > > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group has
been
> building > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a
mediawiki
> > platform. The main types of articles are: > > > > - Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review
and
> feedback > > (example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006) > > - From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia > ( > > example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2018.001) > > - Original research articles that are not imported to
Wikipedia
> (example > > < > > >
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestin...
> > > > > ) > > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal* > > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system
to
> Featured > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts > > <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
>, > > implementing established scholarly practices > > <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> >, > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications > > <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing
.
> > > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! > > All the best, > > Thomas Shafee > > > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing wikimedia > > community, so feel free to share with others. > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
In response to a few of the earlier questions (apologies for the delays):
*Quality control* There are a few mechanisms in place for quality control:
- Standard academic processes of external peer reviews which for wikijournals are all public (journals such as PLOS are moving in the same direction) - Accountability to the academic community - indexing by cope https://publicationethics.org/misconduct, doaj https://doaj.org, pubmed https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/, scopus https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic, web of science https://clarivate.com/products/web-of-science/, free journal network https://freejournals.org etc all require *extensive *external auditing of processes. Each journal has to apply for these individually and they are challenging to gain and retain. - Accountability and transparency to the wider community - unlike other academic publishing houses, we try to get feedback on ideas, votes and governance (which could be much greater with more exposure to the academic community)
*Why would an academic choose a WikiJournal*
1. Most OA journals charge $2000-3000 per publication. 2. Idealistic academics may value it for its adherence to the ideals of the wikimedia movement (public focussed, more democratic than most journals) 3. Cynical academics may be drawn by the likely high impact that the journal will likely get form publishing a lot of broad review articles and the exposure of those through wikipedia 4. Multiple 'unique selling points' from being integrated with wikimedia to give further impact: - Obviously, broad review articles are also integrated into Wikipedia so vastly wider read than typical journal reviews - Image-based article can have their figures added to commons (e.g.*10.15347/wjm/2017.008 https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2017.008*) - It could be a way to peer review parts of wikidata (e.g. whether the Drug interactions (P769) property set is up to date, and what references should support any additions) - possible integration of some articles into wikiversity taught courses (e.g. this teaching case study *10.15347/wjm/2017.006 https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2017.006*) 5. Indirectly, I also hope it can act as a gateway drug to get more experts wanting to engage in the other projects. Because it accepts submissions straight out of wikipedia, it might also increase the incentive for an academic to contribute to wp if they can later submitting it to wj.
*Democracy* So far the only inherently undemocratic part of the project has been the strict requirements on the peer reviewers. Conversely, authors have included professors, students, and people completely unaffiliated with any university. Editorial board composition ranges from the academics you'd expect to see, but also science communicators, science librarians and experienced wikimedians which are uncommon in other journals. The indexed draft areas (currently called WikiJournal Preprints https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_Preprints) will be a free-for-all. Currently we have no exclusion criteria other than the standard Wikimedia copyvio/slander/etc. If there become problems we might need editors to keep an eye on them like ArXiv does, but I hope to keep it light-touch.
*Plan S* The journals definitely intend to be Plan_S compliant. I'll raise the idea of putting out some statement of intention over at the project. Plan_S will likely have a large direct impact in Europe and the US, and likely far wider-reaching indirect ripple effects across all of academic publishing.
*Translation* So far there has been little translation of articles. This is possibly because the project started in English, which is especially dominant as a lingua franca in scholarly publishing. However, there have been a few proposals for translation that have been raised:
- Translation of whole articles if they are thought by the community to be particularly useful (e.g. *Teladorsagia circumcincta *is one of the most important agricultural parasites*10.15347/wjs/2019.004 https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2019.004* yet is almost completely absent from wikimedia https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7695599) - Translation of many/all abstracts into multiple languages
Thank you for the the really interesting discussions, ideas and feedback so far! Thomas
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 04:07, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
How often do you expect a scientific article to be translated?
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 7:46 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as that would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I disagree
with
Plan S's move to allow ND.
James
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:08 AM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
En.wikiversity user I'm dealing with was a custodian (in other words a
well
established user within the community).
Keeping it short my main concern is: we are a naturally democratic community, while the science cannot be. Also, we've been attracting low quality "research" for years.
Vito
Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 16:36 James Heilman <
jmh649@gmail.com>
ha scritto:
The peer review process and the editors of the journals in question.
This
is the same mechanism that prevents gibberish from getting into all
peer
reviewed literature.
J
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:30 AM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our
projects
which were eventually defeated by the "no original research"
principle.
Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion,
paranormal
and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this
kind of
gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order
to
define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious"
research
group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA
journals
or
classical PR journals?
Vito
Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee < thomas.shafee@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link* <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_...
> ).
Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved
(e.g.
JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced
stringency
and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That
being
said,
things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be
valuable
to
implement anyway for machine readability.
Thomas
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
> It already is Plan-S compliant :-) > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights > > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content. > > James > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thomas > > > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant? > > > > Thrapostibongles > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
thomas.shafee@gmail.com>
> > wrote: > > > > > Hello Wikipedians, > > > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group > > > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group
has
been
> > building > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a
mediawiki
> > > platform. The main types of articles are: > > > > > > - Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external
review
and
> > feedback > > > (example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006) > > > - From-scratch articles that, after review, are
imported to
> Wikipedia > > ( > > > example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2018.001) > > > - Original research articles that are not imported to
Wikipedia
> > (example > > > < > > > > > >
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestin...
> > > > > > > ) > > > > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal* > > > > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary
system
to
> > Featured > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts > > > <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
> >, > > > implementing established scholarly practices > > > < >
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > >, > > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications > > > <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing
. > > > > > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! > > > All the best, > > > Thomas Shafee > > > > > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the
existing
> wikimedia > > > community, so feel free to share with others. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > -- > James Heilman > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 18:46, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as that would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I disagree with Plan S's move to allow ND.
So part of the offer is that an author's article may be translated into other languages without the original author having any say in the process? Surely you would not permit your own articles to be republished in another language with your name still on them and your having no control over what the translation says in your name?
The Turnip
When we publish CC BY SA on Wikipedia, we allow translation into other languages without having any control over the translations (but we require our name to be attached in some fashion). So right now we do all the time. Most of my academic publications are CC BY which is even more permissive.
James
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:27 PM Thomas Townsend homesec1783@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 18:46, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as that would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I disagree
with
Plan S's move to allow ND.
So part of the offer is that an author's article may be translated into other languages without the original author having any say in the process? Surely you would not permit your own articles to be republished in another language with your name still on them and your having no control over what the translation says in your name?
The Turnip _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Such translation of CC content is pretty much unpreventable and can be a benefit or a drawback depending on the author's own opinion.
From the point of view of an official 'version of record' (i.e. what the
doi points to) the authors would be named along with attribution of all contributors. If there are translations, they'd likely be marked as somethign like "adapted by translators XYZ from article XYZ by original authors XYZ under a CC-BY license", though details would need to be decided if it came up. See this 2008 article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2268932/ for some ideas floated previously floated. I'll admit I've limited knowledge of translation practices though, so the project would need advice!
For some existing Wikipedia-based examples:
- PLOS article https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002803 and uk.wp page https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%94%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F - PLOS article https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004095 and es.wp page https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infiriendo_transferencia_gen%C3%A9tica_horizontal
Thomas
On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 12:48, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
When we publish CC BY SA on Wikipedia, we allow translation into other languages without having any control over the translations (but we require our name to be attached in some fashion). So right now we do all the time. Most of my academic publications are CC BY which is even more permissive.
James
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:27 PM Thomas Townsend homesec1783@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 18:46, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as that would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I disagree
with
Plan S's move to allow ND.
So part of the offer is that an author's article may be translated into other languages without the original author having any say in the
process?
Surely you would not permit your own articles to be republished in
another
language with your name still on them and your having no control over
what
the translation says in your name?
The Turnip _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks anyone of the interesting replies!
Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 17:03 John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com ha scritto:
One reason; reach.
In academia reach -per se- is not a big deal, while impact is.
At nowiki we vere approached some years ago by a
university about publishing cutting edge research in fish farming. We could not publish their work because some claimed it to be "original research". Sure it was, and it was darn good original research too. I don't think that was a single occurence, other communities has probably had similar questions.
On Wikipedia you have no means to tell what is a good research, anyway.
Il giorno mar 4 giu 2019 alle ore 03:20 Thomas Shafee < thomas.shafee@gmail.com> ha scritto:
- Accountability to the academic community - indexing by cope
https://publicationethics.org/misconduct, doaj https://doaj.org, pubmed https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/, scopus https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic, web of science https://clarivate.com/products/web-of-science/, free journal network https://freejournals.org etc all require *extensive *external auditing of processes. Each journal has to apply for these individually and they are challenging to gain and retain.
Yup, indexing is definitely needed, though challenging.
- Cynical academics may be drawn by the likely high impact that the
journal will likely get form publishing a lot of broad review articles and the exposure of those through wikipedia
I'm not sure it would be auspicable to cite "our journal" on Wikipedia, also it may boost COI.
- It could be a way to peer review parts of wikidata (e.g. whether the Drug interactions (P769) property set is up to date, and what references should support any additions)
That's way interesting, though some mechanism of automatic update would have the drawback of making some papers incoherent.
*Democracy* So far the only inherently undemocratic part of the project has been the strict requirements on the peer reviewers.
Our inner "gerarchy" is somehow based upon committment/process knowledge rather than competence in specific fields. While academia is (well, should be) exactly the opposite, both systems works where they are supposed to work, I hope they'll work the same if mixed up!
Translation is a complex issue. Using English as the lingua franca for science deeply boosted internationalisation of research, but also added an extra requirement for researchers. Translation also adds a non negligible delay in information spread. I, for one, don't judge scientific article worth translation, but I wouldn't oppose it.
I think the ND in plan-S is meant to address the plagiarism (also self-plagiarism) problem/fears.
Vito
Il giorno mer 5 giu 2019 alle ore 07:27 Thomas Shafee < thomas.shafee@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Such translation of CC content is pretty much unpreventable and can be a benefit or a drawback depending on the author's own opinion.
From the point of view of an official 'version of record' (i.e. what the doi points to) the authors would be named along with attribution of all contributors. If there are translations, they'd likely be marked as somethign like "adapted by translators XYZ from article XYZ by original authors XYZ under a CC-BY license", though details would need to be decided if it came up. See this 2008 article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2268932/ for some ideas floated previously floated. I'll admit I've limited knowledge of translation practices though, so the project would need advice!
For some existing Wikipedia-based examples:
- PLOS article
< https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.10028...
and uk.wp page < https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%...
- PLOS article
< https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.10040...
and es.wp page< https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infiriendo_transferencia_gen%C3%A9tica_horizon...
Thomas
On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 12:48, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
When we publish CC BY SA on Wikipedia, we allow translation into other languages without having any control over the translations (but we
require
our name to be attached in some fashion). So right now we do all the
time.
Most of my academic publications are CC BY which is even more permissive.
James
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:27 PM Thomas Townsend homesec1783@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 18:46, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as
that
would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I
disagree
with
Plan S's move to allow ND.
So part of the offer is that an author's article may be translated into other languages without the original author having any say in the
process?
Surely you would not permit your own articles to be republished in
another
language with your name still on them and your having no control over
what
the translation says in your name?
The Turnip _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
One reason; reach.
In academia reach -per se- is not a big deal, while impact is.
Reach leads to impact. You can't get impact without reach, but reach in non-scientific communities does not necessarily turn into reach in scientific communities.
At nowiki we vere approached some years ago by a
university about publishing cutting edge research in fish farming. We could not publish their work because some claimed it to be "original research". Sure it was, and it was darn good original research too. I don't think that was a single occurence, other communities has probably had similar questions.
On Wikipedia you have no means to tell what is a good research, anyway.
There are nothing that blocks Wikipedia from doing peer review. (It has implicit peer review.) What you propose for WikiJournal is to make peer review a policy. That does not in itself turn articles into good research.
You can turn your statement around and say if you can not write good reasearch on Wikipedia, then you can not write good reasearch on WikiJournal. The tools are basically the same, the only real differences are in the policies.
Actually, some of the example articles at WikiJournal are nothing more than FA, but that is another discussion.
Intent is the major difference on what WikiJournal could be compared to Wikipedia.
Il giorno mer 5 giu 2019 alle ore 12:00 John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com ha scritto:
One reason; reach.
In academia reach -per se- is not a big deal, while impact is.
Reach leads to impact. You can't get impact without reach, but reach in non-scientific communities does not necessarily turn into reach in scientific communities.
Apart from the hype I wouldn't releate reach and scientific impact. Most of research community is forced to seek for impact, bibliometric indicators and abiding by the publish or perish principle.
There are nothing that blocks Wikipedia from doing peer review. (It has implicit peer review.) What you propose for WikiJournal is to make peer review a policy. That does not in itself turn articles into good research.
I disagree with this, Wikipedia doesn't make original research by definition. I concur we have something similar to peer review, though ours is less "autorithy-centered".
Vito
Some more notes, responses and thoughts on the topics raised above!
*Impact and reach* I fully agree that impact factor is of primary importance to many researchers. However, many grants that fund research also have started looking for evidence that researchers are making genuine efforts in public outreach. Example: A researcher spends 30 years on one of the most important livestock parasites, publishing review articles read by 100-1000 people, yet the Wikipedia page is only 2 sentences long https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teladorsagia_circumcincta&oldid=860605498. Their grant reviewers, potential students, farmers, politicians, and journalists read the WP page which gives a false impression of obscurity to the topic. Then they publish a review article with a WikiJournal which is dual-published as a citable version for their cv and copied into WP to show they they are trying hard to keep the general public informed (*10.15347/wjs/2019.004 https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2019.004*).
*Citing WikiJournals in Wikipedia* I see the COI point of view. On the other hand, the best cure for coi is transparency and I think the publishing of peer reviews that go along with papers. Overall, I think WP use of WikiJournals articles as sources (e.g. *10.15347/wjm/2017.005 https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2017.005*) would remain independent and a matter for WP:RS discussion once the journals are accredited. However, one perennial problem in WP has notable topics lacking citable sources (e.g. first nations history / neglected tropical diseases / women historical figures). If a wikipedian were able to do the research into an aspect of that topic to a level that it meets rigorous scholarly standards and passes external peer review, then that may a be a reasonable way of minting a valuable new citable source. Again, that'd be up for the community to decide as the project progresses.
*Indexing* We have started the practice of drafting indexing applications publicly https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_of_Medicine#SCOPUS_reapplication for greater transparency (unique as far as I know).
*Comparison to peer review within Wikipedia* WP essentially does post-publication editorial review (rather than peer review). External peer review by WikiJournals and internal PR/GA/FA review by wp editors perform complementary (not competing) roles. Many FA articles are definitely up to academic standards - and indeed their performance through peer review proves just that as an additional quality-assurance mechanism. That is not universally true (e.g. the review of GA article Surface tension https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_Preprints/Surface_tension includes "in some instances the ideas are incorrect ... It will confuse rather then enlighten readers new to the field"). FA has unique aspects that external academic peer review lacks (e.g. a sharper focus on readability, and formatting, spot-chacking of references).
All the best, Thomas
On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 23:37, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Il giorno mer 5 giu 2019 alle ore 12:00 John Erling Blad <jeblad@gmail.com
ha scritto:
One reason; reach.
In academia reach -per se- is not a big deal, while impact is.
Reach leads to impact. You can't get impact without reach, but reach in non-scientific communities does not necessarily turn into reach in scientific communities.
Apart from the hype I wouldn't releate reach and scientific impact. Most of research community is forced to seek for impact, bibliometric indicators and abiding by the publish or perish principle.
There are nothing that blocks Wikipedia from doing peer review. (It has implicit peer review.) What you propose for WikiJournal is to make peer review a policy. That does not in itself turn articles into good research.
I disagree with this, Wikipedia doesn't make original research by definition. I concur we have something similar to peer review, though ours is less "autorithy-centered".
Vito _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Nice work. It will take time, but keep it up.
On Thu., Jun. 6, 2019, 10:05 p.m. Thomas Shafee, thomas.shafee@gmail.com wrote:
Some more notes, responses and thoughts on the topics raised above!
*Impact and reach* I fully agree that impact factor is of primary importance to many researchers. However, many grants that fund research also have started looking for evidence that researchers are making genuine efforts in public outreach. Example: A researcher spends 30 years on one of the most important livestock parasites, publishing review articles read by 100-1000 people, yet the Wikipedia page is only 2 sentences long < https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teladorsagia_circumcincta&old...
.
Their grant reviewers, potential students, farmers, politicians, and journalists read the WP page which gives a false impression of obscurity to the topic. Then they publish a review article with a WikiJournal which is dual-published as a citable version for their cv and copied into WP to show they they are trying hard to keep the general public informed (*10.15347/wjs/2019.004 https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2019.004*).
*Citing WikiJournals in Wikipedia* I see the COI point of view. On the other hand, the best cure for coi is transparency and I think the publishing of peer reviews that go along with papers. Overall, I think WP use of WikiJournals articles as sources (e.g. *10.15347/wjm/2017.005 https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2017.005*) would remain independent and a matter for WP:RS discussion once the journals are accredited. However, one perennial problem in WP has notable topics lacking citable sources (e.g. first nations history / neglected tropical diseases / women historical figures). If a wikipedian were able to do the research into an aspect of that topic to a level that it meets rigorous scholarly standards and passes external peer review, then that may a be a reasonable way of minting a valuable new citable source. Again, that'd be up for the community to decide as the project progresses.
*Indexing* We have started the practice of drafting indexing applications publicly < https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_of_Medicine#SCOPUS_reapplic...
for greater transparency (unique as far as I know).
*Comparison to peer review within Wikipedia* WP essentially does post-publication editorial review (rather than peer review). External peer review by WikiJournals and internal PR/GA/FA review by wp editors perform complementary (not competing) roles. Many FA articles are definitely up to academic standards - and indeed their performance through peer review proves just that as an additional quality-assurance mechanism. That is not universally true (e.g. the review of GA article Surface tension < https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_Preprints/Surface_tension
includes "in some instances the ideas are incorrect ... It will confuse rather then enlighten readers new to the field"). FA has unique aspects that external academic peer review lacks (e.g. a sharper focus on readability, and formatting, spot-chacking of references).
All the best, Thomas
On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 23:37, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Il giorno mer 5 giu 2019 alle ore 12:00 John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com
ha scritto:
One reason; reach.
In academia reach -per se- is not a big deal, while impact is.
Reach leads to impact. You can't get impact without reach, but reach in non-scientific communities does not necessarily turn into reach in scientific communities.
Apart from the hype I wouldn't releate reach and scientific impact. Most
of
research community is forced to seek for impact, bibliometric indicators and abiding by the publish or perish principle.
There are nothing that blocks Wikipedia from doing peer review. (It has implicit peer review.) What you propose for WikiJournal is to make peer review a policy. That does not in itself turn articles into good research.
I disagree with this, Wikipedia doesn't make original research by definition. I concur we have something similar to peer review, though ours is less "autorithy-centered".
Vito _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
One reason; reach. At nowiki we vere approached some years ago by a university about publishing cutting edge research in fish farming. We could not publish their work because some claimed it to be "original research". Sure it was, and it was darn good original research too. I don't think that was a single occurence, other communities has probably had similar questions.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:29 PM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects which were eventually defeated by the "no original research" principle. Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion, paranormal and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind of gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious" research group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals or classical PR journals?
Vito
Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee < thomas.shafee@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link* < https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_...
).
Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g. JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being said, things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to implement anyway for machine readability.
Thomas
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
James
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
Thomas
Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
Thrapostibongles
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee thomas.shafee@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Wikipedians,
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group has been
building
and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
feedback
(example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006)
- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
Wikipedia
(
example https://doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2018.001)
- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
(example
<
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestin...
)
*Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal*
From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
Featured
article review, but bridging the gap with external experts <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
,
implementing established scholarly practices <
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
, and generating citable, doi-linked publications https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! All the best, Thomas Shafee
ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
wikimedia
community, so feel free to share with others. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org