Talk:WikiJournal User Group

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussions may also take place at the public mailing list at

Draft of budget grant[edit]

I've now prepared a draft of the grant application for running this project through 2018: Meta:Grants:Project/Rapid/WikiJournal 2018. Feel free to add ideas and comments. On a side not I'd like to inform that WikiJournal is now a registered non-profit organization in Sweden, since October 23. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I've now submitted the grant application. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 06:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal as "publisher"[edit]

Now that the WikiJournal User Group has become an organization of its own, it should now be our formal "publisher", that is, the "institution" or "society" behind each journal. Wikimedia Foundation was previously our "publisher", and is still our financial provider. An immediate use of this change is for the contract sent from ScienceOpen, which is now offering inclusion of WikiJournal of Medicine in their database. It is to be completed on behalf of the publisher, so now we don't need to have the contract formally approved by the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, which would be a much greater hassle than just signing it ourselves. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 01:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that is very sensible, and in line with the user group's bylaws. It also makes sense for unifying as much as possible thing like the preprint submission system, submission form, and the potential draft landing page. Conceivably WMF could be listed as "host" rather than "funder" if some day the majority of our funding comes from some other philanthropic source., however for now I think the wording is clear. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Guideline unification versus individualization[edit]

With changes being made to guidelines of the now multiple WikiJournals, I made an example of a template that allows for improvements to show in all journals: Template:WikiJournal/Peer_reviewers/Criteria. It is now in use for the "Criteria" guideline for all three existing WikiJournals:

Different journal scopes will in some cases mean that some kinds of wording will be more optimal than others in a particular field, but with some modification this template can display entire sentences differently as well. If it seems all right, I suggest we implement this type of template for all journals. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 21:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Notification of Past Due Reporting[edit]

Greetings, This is a notification to bring to your attention that your organization is currently past due on its required annual reporting. User Groups are required to submit an annual activity report covering the entirety of the 12-month agreement period in order to renew their status as a Wikimedia User Group. Reports must be written in English, posted to meta, and linked on the meta Reports page.

As noted on the meta Reports page, your organization’s 2017 annual reporting became past due in July. Please be sure to

  1. Post your 2017 annual Activities reporting to the meta Reports page as soon as possible to return to compliance with your Usergroup agreement.
  2. Check that your group’s page is also up to date with past report links for historical record-keeping, and
  3. Please send an email to Wikimedia-l in order to share with a movement-wide audience.

If you have any questions or need any further guidance, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

Kindest regards -- DNdubane (WMF) (discusscontribs) 19:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello DNdubane,
I'm sorry for having missed to post our reports at that page. I've now added a link there to the following page: Meta:WikiJournal User Group/Activity report May 2016 to Dec 2017. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 10:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 10:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Location of mailing lists[edit]

I am a member of the WikiJournal Council and an active member of the Editorial board of WikiJournal of Medicine (WJM). Till now the members of the editorial board have been collaborating excellently through a private google group, the access of which is restricted to the board members alone. There is another group which is publicly accessible and wherein other enthusiasts are free to participate. Each of the other journals viz. WikiJournal of Science (WJS) and WikiJournal of Humanities (WJH) have email lists/groups in similar manner. On the other hand, the WikiJournal Council has a mailing list with and a defunct google group wherein enthusiasts can freely discuss and collaborate.

Till now WJM has maintained transparency in all the editorial board decisions and I can vouch that how well neutrality has been maintained. I believe that the other boards (WJS and WJH) would do the same. But it needs to be discussed whether we would like to continue to have the editorial discussions privately on Google groups. The reason for the query is that with the expansion of the WikiJournal model to different specialities it is important to set norms with transparency and archival in mind. The fact is in spite of the transparency of the process so far, the private google groups discussions can never be publicly documented (other than pdf print of the email threads from individual capacity) in case need ever arises. On the other hand, till now Wikimedia mailing lists have possibly never needed to be private (I could be wrong). A consensus would therefore be needed about whether to continue with the existing model or whether to shift to Wikimedia mailing lists, possibly with certain administrative modifications, if they are feasible. I would encourage a discussion in this regard. Diptanshu💬 15:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the private editorial board discussions work well in their Google Groups, and likewise for the public email lists, so I don't think we need to shift to Wikimedia mailing lists. On the other hand, I do think we need to bring discussions to an open forum whenever we can. We can for example write "I'm forwarding email conversation to the public email group shortly unless anyone disagrees", and if we want more input we can make a short introduction and a link to the public Google Group here. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 12:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Mikael. I think we need to be mindful of moving conversation off the board emails where possible, but that they serve a useful function (especially now that they should be email-able by anyone). All wikijournal board mailing lists should be searcheable by board members (and audit-able by appropriate regulatory bodies) via the google group webpages (like this one for WJMboard). A public example of how searcheable is the public WikiJMed mailing list. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Editorial board vs Advisory board[edit]

Wiki.J.Med has set a great prototype and now Wiki.J.Sci is following trend. With 16 editorial board members, it now has more active discussions ongoing in the private editorial board mailing list/group. However, the WikiJournal model needs further strategic inputs on which the individual boards can act. The WikiJournal Council could possibly benefit from the inputs of various eminent academicians and journal personalities whom we could invite. Nevertheless, they need not be a good fit the editorial board of any particular discipline and need not play a role in editorial decisions in the context of submissions and publications. We could possibly accommodate them into an Advisory board which may or may not be journal specific. I have posted a topic at Talk:WikiJournal of Science#Editorial board vs Advisory board but the discussion can best proceed here. I would invite inputs from the participants on this issue. Diptanshu💬 16:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm worried that the creation of an Advisory Board would give the impression that people would need to be members or be able to provide credentials in order to give advice. The issue in the section above would remain, about how we can share what's happening in the private board email groups. Now that the requirements for becoming an Associate Editor have been increased, we could possibly create an new role for those who just want to participate without having undergone formal scrutiny of their identities and credentials. I'm not sure "adviser" would be the most needed additional role, perhaps just something like "participant" in order to include a broad scope of ways to participate. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 12:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Very good point Mikael. The main interest of the WikiJournals is that they are Wikipedia-compatible, and also Wikipedia-like to some extent. When it comes to receiving advice, we can function in a Wikipedia-like way, and we need not emulate traditional journals. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 19:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
My instinct is that advisers could best be involved in two ways:
  • incorporated into editorial boards, but with roles limited to strategy, structure, and advice in their fields of expertise (whilst abstaining from editorial decisions such as specific article publication (like Mikael and I currently are on the WikiJHum board)
  • casual contribution via the discussion boards (like we may get wikidata experts to help with)
I'm wary of making too many layers of organisation just yet, so I think that I'd encourage participants to just provide advice and suggestions without signing up as participants. Participant lists typically go out of date pretty fast (e.g. see sign-up participant list versus the auto-generated active participant list). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree. We shouldn't make the journal structure more complicated than necessary. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 17:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Ethics statement[edit]

I've now written a draft of an ethics statement to contain the main topics from the Committee on Publication Ethics: WikiJournal of Medicine/Draft of ethics statement
This was started as a statement for WikiJournal of Medicine, but it seems best to have one common ethics statement for all WikiJournals. Do you agree with this?
Also, additions and corrections are very welcome. In particular, there are some headers of possible topics to add, but with yet no text. I suggest that we remove all headers of empty sections in 2 weeks, so that we can move forward and ratify the ethics statement. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 14:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Great work continuing to update the ethics statement. Something aggregated points discussed by bard members:
  • An Anti-harassment statement and/or a code-of-conduct statement could be added, or written as a separate page
  • Perhaps the ethics statement could be written as WikiJournal-wide, than each journal can link to it if it wishes to abide (if journals eventually really have different ethical requirements, they can add journal-specific amendments underneath their transclusion of the WikiJournal-wide foundation)
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science can be an acceptable source in Wikipedia[edit]

The outcome of a discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WikiJournal of Science is basically that WikiJournal of Science can be an acceptable source in Wikipedia. I've made an update in its guidelines: WikiJournal_of_Science/Editorial_guidelines#Wikipedia_inclusion. I also mentioned it on its Publishing page, because I think this is a major incentive for authors, to potentially reach the sometimes hundreds of thousands of readers every month for the most popular Wikipedia articles.

WikiJSci has actually surpassed WikiJMed in this regard, since Wikipedia inclusion of material in the latter is mainly restricted to images (inclusion guidelines). Still, those underlying discussions took place before there was a requirement for at least 2 independent reviewers for each article, and when participation was much lower. I therefore think the topic can be brought up again in a near future, but I think we should first see the response to the first usages of WikiJSci articles as Wikipedia references. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 15:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Great news! But we should be aware of the consequence: that academics can basically evade the Wikipedia guidelines by being their own authorities. To do this, write a review article that obeys standard academic referencing practices (which differ from Wikipedia's), publish it in a WikiJournal, and then copy it to Wikipedia while citing said review article as the main (or only) reference. In my opinion this would be completely fine, but not everyone agrees. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 20:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but the same can be done without WJS; and is acceptable for WP. I recall several times seeing on Wikipedia talk pages something like this: ...if so, well, first publish your research in an appropriate academic journal, and then be welcome here. Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 21:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we shall have to be very careful of people trying to evade Wikipedia's systems. We will need to ensure that any original research has the same standards of peer review applied as any other reputable journal to act as a reliable source (whether cited in Wikipedia, or anywhere else for that matter). However, that the current consensus is that our bylaws, policies and guidelines hits this mark is a good endorsement of the foundations we've built so far. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)