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