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(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

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 &lt;jmh649(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;thomas.shafee(a)gmail.com&gt;om>:

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 &lt;thomas.shafee(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;vituzzu.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

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 &lt;jmh649(a)gmail.com&gt; ha scritto:

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 &lt;jmh649(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

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 &lt;jeblad(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;homesec1783(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

Thanks anyone of the interesting replies! Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 17:03 John Erling Blad &lt;jeblad(a)gmail.com&gt; ha scritto: In academia reach -per se- is not a big deal, while impact is. At nowiki we vere approached some years ago by a 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(a)gmail.com&gt; ha scritto: Yup, indexing is definitely needed, though challenging. I'm not sure it would be auspicable to cite "our journal" on Wikipedia, also it may boost COI. That's way interesting, though some mechanism of automatic update would have the drawback of making some papers incoherent. 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(a)gmail.com&gt; ha scritto:

Il giorno mer 5 giu 2019 alle ore 12:00 John Erling Blad &lt;jeblad(a)gmail.com&gt; ha scritto: 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. 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

Nice work. It will take time, but keep it up. On Thu., Jun. 6, 2019, 10:05 p.m. Thomas Shafee, &lt;thomas.shafee(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: