Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine: Difference between revisions
→Open source journal management and publishing systems: Removed from open tasks |
|||
| Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
==Article invitation== |
==Article invitation== |
||
In addition to attracting submissions by the prize above, we are currently inviting authors and creators of [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Health_and_medicine|featured articles]] and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology|pictures in medicine]]. [[User:Mikael Häggström|Mikael Häggström]] ([[User talk:Mikael Häggström|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mikael Häggström|contribs]]) 06:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC) |
In addition to attracting submissions by the prize above, we are currently inviting authors and creators of [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Health_and_medicine|featured articles]] and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology|pictures in medicine]]. [[User:Mikael Häggström|Mikael Häggström]] ([[User talk:Mikael Häggström|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mikael Häggström|contribs]]) 06:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC) |
||
:there is some editor activity at [[Tourette syndrome]], it may be a good FA to pursue...IMO--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ozzie10aaaa|contribs]]) 12:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 12:59, 18 October 2016
WikiJournal of Medicine
Open access • Publication charge free • Public peer review • Wikipedia-integrated
www.WikiJMed.org
ISSN: 2002-4436
Frequency: Continuous
Since: March 2014
Funding: Wikimedia Foundation
Publisher: WikiJournal User Group
On social media
RSS feed
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Mailing list
 |
 |
 |
 |
2020:
Article in The Signpost
2019:
Presentation at Wikimania 2019
Presentation at American Psychological Association
Article in The Signpost
Article in the Wikimedia UK blog
2018:
Presentation at APO forum
Interview with Wikimedia Foundation
Winners of the best articles submitted in 2017
Gained COPE membership
Presentation at Wikimania 2018
Treasurer and grants
The treasurer position as described in Bylaws#Section 4. Treasurer is still a vacant position. As it seems in board discussions lately, there is no immediate need for the position, as the relatively few expenses could be payed by me, and we're now applying for compensation from Wikimedia's rapid grants. Eventually, I think, however, that the journal will need a treasurer, who gets charge of a certain amount of funds from the Wikimedia Foundation, and makes sure these are allotted to the journal's expenses. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 11:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Meta:Future as a separate project
The journal's future as a separate Wikimedia sister project can now also be discussed at Meta: Meta:Wikijournal. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 18:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- As miraheze.org shows, it can be possible to allow for confidential wiki editing, such as when authors do not want their articles in the open up until publication. Until the project becomes a separate Wikimedia project, we may try to use miraheze.org for confidential works. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Bylaws changes
The Bylaws of the journal are about to be changed to be up to date with the new journal title. Also, board emails will use wjmboard
googlegroups.com (only accepting emails from board members) instead of boardwijoumed.org in order to allow archiving that is accessible for new members as well. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Number of editorial board members
The current bylaws state "The number of Editorial Board Members of WiJouMed should be kept at a minimum of 7 and a maximum of 10.". However, this is an arbitrary number. Scopus guidelines in the matter state that "Ideally many Editorial Boards are between 10‐20 members". I suggest we change the number from "a minimum of 7 and a maximum of 10" to "a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 20". If, in the future, we would become 20 board members, I think further improvement would not be further expansion of the board, but to make sure those 20 members are trustworthy in having access to even confidential work, and be interested in even the small details of the project. Major issues, and when not involving confidential matters, should be discussed publicly, such as here or at the public Google Group of the journal. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Electorate
The following text may also be added:
|
Eligible voters for Editorial Board Member elections are: (a) Current Editorial Board Members. (b) Peer reviewers of Wiki.J.Med. who have completed at least one peer review. (c) Editors with at least 30 edits to Wiki.J.Med. pages. (d) Not an individual voting for herself/himself. |
Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Removal of board members
Also, I'm not satisfied with the current process of removal of board members. I don't think it should involve more people than the board. I try to imagine what I would personally prefer if I was deemed to be unfit for the position, and I would much rather be dismissed by the board rather than being the subject of a "vote on removal of this person" similarly to the name vote, wherein board members publicly list everything they didn't like about me as a board member. It would feel like a public execution. I therefore suggest:
An Official may be removed by fulfillment of the following:
|
Thereby, the greater community still has a chance to speak up. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- This change will not take place this time, however. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Open source journal management and publishing systems
Hi all - here’s some information - a starting point maybe for deciding on a journal management peer review - publishing system. I worked for a small publishing office in Saudi Arabia - we did three journals and had to choose systems, so the experience might be helpful in choosing a system for wikijournal.
A few years ago (mid to late 2000s) when we were deciding on a manuscript management and peer review system, the two big choices for commercial systems then and still are ScholarOne (Manuscript Central, MC) and Editorial Manager (EM). Elsevier mostly uses a system called Elsevier Editorial System (EES) that is derived from EM. Many other journals (CDC’s EID for example) use MC, now called ScholarOne Manuscripts, now owned by Thomson Reuters. Other options for journal management systems like Open Journal Systems (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Open_Journal_Systems) weren’t as well developed 5+ years ago. A system like OJS is clearly more compatible with the open access, open peer review and wikipedia-integrated approach of WikiJournal of Medicine. If you have the technical capability, the OJS system is open source and you could run it yourself. These systems include everything — from the submission system and peer review to the the online publsihing (whereas an MC account for example is only the manuscript management and peer review; if you don’t sign a contract with someone like Elsevier, you have to handle publishing).
From the WP page” "As of mid-2015, OJS was being used by at least 8,000 journals worldwide.” - https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/ojs-usage/ojs-map/
Open Journal Systems.com (http://openjournalsystems.com/) is a company that runs for the OJS system for you (at a price, somewhat comparable the commercial systems like EM and MC, as you might expect - but - includes everything - hosting for online publication, support, training etc.. I wrote to them, here’s the reply:
Open Journal Systems (OJS) is an open source publishing software that was created by PKP. We provide third party support for the software; hosting, installation, training, support, theme customization, workflow customization, programming, plugin design, etc.
Since OJS is an open source software, it requires regular support; For example, it requires regular upgrade that is essential to deal with security vulnerabilities, and to keep Open Journal Systems secure, functioning, and up-to-date with the latest developments and new plugins. That's why many Universities, like FSU college of medicine (theplaidjournal.com), Findlay University ( http://journals.findlay.edu/index.php/gh), University of Connecticut university ( http://journals.lib.uconn.edu/) , Case Western University (https://paijournal.com/index.php/paijournal), and many academic professionals, research institutions, and independent publishers choose us over their own IT dept because we have the experience and knowledge to deal with OJS.
PKP is located in British Columbia, Canada. Our company is located in Phoenix, Arizona.
Best Regards, David Green Co-Founder, CTO OpenJournalSystems.com Phoenix, AZ | USA Phone: 602-527-7080 Email: info@openjournalsystems.com Skype: OpenJournalSystems OpenJournalSystems.com is a leading service provider for publishers using Open Journal Systems (OJS).
Scholastica looks like another option (the book on digital publishing is interesting: https://scholasticahq.com/resources#/all)
A short vid on open access that you might enjoy: https://youtu.be/L5rVH1KGBCY Jtamad (discuss • contribs) 02:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the research into these alternatives! It seems to me that hosting through OJS for $360 per year [1] is the primary choice. Yet, I think the only use for such a system would be for those cases where the author wants to keep their works confidential until publication. Otherwise, authors should add their works directly to the wiki. Even for confidential works, I'd favor using Miraheze where authors can can write confidentially in wiki format. We have a space for the journal there: https://wijoumed.miraheze.org/
- We have not added that alternative yet to the Publishing page since we really need more submissions, and wouldn't want to complicate their process now with extra tasks such as creating accounts on external software. Thus, the only reason I would favor such a journal system right now is if its process would be simpler for the author than just mailing their works to us. I know such a system may allow for a more structured peer review processing, but we can handle that by email as well. Is there any other particular advantage with these systems that motivates using any of them soon? Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- One of the journals I did got about 1200 submissions per year. That's a lot to handle manually the way you are talking about. If the submission rate increased that much (it will if you get into MEDLINE/PubMed), then I think you might want to consider something like the OJS. I suspect there's enough tech expertise around WP to handle it without needing the services of OJS.com unless the funds are not an issue. Jtamad (discuss • contribs) 01:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed it may be considered when we get a high submission rate. For now I think we can keep using the existing wikis. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 13:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- I removed the entry "Set up an external submission portal" from our open tasks, until we have consensus on actually needing one.
- One of the journals I did got about 1200 submissions per year. That's a lot to handle manually the way you are talking about. If the submission rate increased that much (it will if you get into MEDLINE/PubMed), then I think you might want to consider something like the OJS. I suspect there's enough tech expertise around WP to handle it without needing the services of OJS.com unless the funds are not an issue. Jtamad (discuss • contribs) 01:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Update:Grant and prize
The journal was recently granted funds in order to cover past costs. In addition, we were granted money in order to have a prize competition in order to attract more submissions. All article formats are eligible for the prizes and articles will be decided by a panel of external judges. First prize will be $200, second prize will be $100, third prize will be $50 (all in US dollars). Articles will be judged on scientific content, readability and value to the general public. Deadlines:
- 1st September 2017: end of eligibility for submissions
- 1st November 2017: articles must have passed peer review
- 1st December 2017: prizes announced
This will hopefully help us reach the 40 articles necessary for PubMed/MEDLINE inclusion. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 06:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- very good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 12:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Article invitation
In addition to attracting submissions by the prize above, we are currently inviting authors and creators of featured articles and pictures in medicine. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 06:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- there is some editor activity at Tourette syndrome, it may be a good FA to pursue...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 12:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)