Lodewijk, Sydney, Hilda, I think I'm going to need lots of support to pull
this off. BMJ are not publishing the reviewed version - we are, by pointing
to the relevant diff in the article's history. I'd like us to offer the
reader a much nicer presentation of the reviewed article than that, which
means Wikimedia hosting a "fair copy" (like normal articles published on
publishers' websites).
I'd also like us to point the reader to a diff between the reviewed version
and the current version that doesn't have all the wiki markup - basically a
diff that the average reader will easily parse.
This will only happen if we can demonstrate solid support from the
Wikipedia med community.
I intend outlining this at the conference, if I get a slot in the Sunday
afternoon unconference. I don't suppose you guys might be able to drop
everything and turn up at the inaugural Wikipedia Science Conference in
London on 2-3 September, is there? :o)
On 15 Aug 2015 1:05 am, "Anthony Cole" <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I've just come out of the second teleconference
with fellow WPMEDF board
member Jake Orlowitz, and Fiona Godlee and Peter Ashman of BMJ.
BMJ has offered to provide expert peer-review of up to 10 of our medical
articles. We can choose the articles and can submit them at our own pace.
I'll post the details at English Wikipedia's Wikiproject Medicine talk page
on Monday or Tuesday - I'm very busy the next 48 hours. Have a great
weekend everyone.
--
Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole>