Talk:WikiJournal User Group

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

2016 naming vote

Discussions may also take place at the
public mailing list

Which posts to boost?[edit]

I have now received the grant money for the budget of 2018. I have paid the Crossref membership, and will pay for the domain names when it's time to do so.

Also, our request for an additional $400 to promote key posts (especially on Facebook) was also granted. Those Facebook pages are located at:

Now, which posts are we interested in boosting? Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd guess the best use of promoting funds would be to boost posts about new content. That would be my first priority. Penny Richards (discusscontribs) 20:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The WikiJournal of Humanities doesn't have a first issue yet, so I think it would make sense to boost a call for papers. The concept is a little difficult to understand at first so I would emphasize how academics can get published for greatly improving Wikipedia. Rachel Helps (BYU) (discusscontribs) 16:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree. This is something we understand, but there are many out there to whom this is something new. Do we have a quick and concise primer to share about writing an article for a Wiki Journal - maybe directed to the unaware, non-wiki folks, or even non-believers? Perhaps that would be something good to share on social media. Jackiekoerner (discusscontribs) 18:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Comparison to and competition with other open-access journals[edit]

I browsed other journals, like Wiley, OMICS International, and Elsevier, whose content is released under various Creative Commons licenses. Moreover, I've downloaded a few PDF documents into Wikimedia Commons. I'm thinking how WikiJournal is different from other journals in several (if not many) ways, like open peer review, having a MediawWiki sotftware, licensing, and so on. How would WikiJournal fare, compared to other open-access journals? Would WJ attract many academics? Would academics go to other journals, especially ones whose licenses are a little bit more strict than CC BY? Can WikiJournal compete against other journals? If you like, I would describe more how WikiJournal is different from other open-access journals. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 09:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I think indeed that would be an interesting page, perhaps as a subpage of meta:WikiJournal User Group. Please let me know if you have a draft ready, and I can then help revising it. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 10:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree. It's an interesting niche. I wrote a bit about some of the emerging ideas for this paper. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts, since I'm giving a talk on the topic to the AOASG in a few weeks. In academia, I think CC-BY is still the most often used of the creative commons licenses. One thing that's been interesting is that publishing material that's previously appeared in Wikipedia forces use of the extremely uncommon CC-BY-SA which joutnals are often reluctant to use. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I created WikiJournal User Group/Comparison to other journals as a rough draft. Please feel free to contribute. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 08:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Good overview! I made some changes at the licensing section. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 14:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment and the changes. :) I also added the lead and some more examples. Maybe I'll add in another table to list more publishers. By the way, if WikiJournal is established as a stand-alone project and becomes more successful, the most affected will be (I predict) OMICS International, PeerJ, and PLOS due to publishing costs, but I'm unsure whether authors would be concerned about peer review transparency. Nonetheless, WikiJournal publishes articles for free, so the three are all I can think about. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 16:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The page that I created is tagged as "draft". I thought about removing the "draft" tag, but the "Transparency" section is very small because I have been unsure why peer reviews should be transparent. I would like some help please before I remove the "draft" tag, but this is not yet a precedent to adding the page as part of the menu header. Thanks. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 20:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Great work, George Ho! I added some at Transparency_of_peer_reviews, removed the "draft" tag, and linked it from the About-pages of each journal. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 03:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Mikael. Can the page be added to the "Resources" menu? --George Ho (discusscontribs) 03:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Update:Removing upper limit of board members[edit]

The boards of all WikiJournals are currently supporting a decision to remove the upper limit of the number of board members (which is currently up 20). We believe this will benefit by a greater participation and increased diversity. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

After a vote at WikiJSci (Talk:WikiJournal_of_Science#Vote:_Editorial_board_size), the board size limit is now removed for this journal. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 15:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Version of record[edit]

Published articles need to have a stable version of record: this is necessary in order to fit in the existing publication system. Which format should this version have, and how to generate it, are less obvious.

Do we need PDFs?[edit]

The easiest way to get a version of record is to have a non-editable clone of the article at the time of publication. Compared to a PDF, a clone is harder to print, but it has the advantage that it requires almost no extra work. So there is no opportunity for introducing errors when doing the conversion, and no proofreading is required. Apparently Scholarpedia does not generate PDFs.

Is there a compelling reason to generate PDFs?

How do we generate PDFs?[edit]

Let me enumerate a few possibilities:

  1. MediaWiki -> Word -> PDF
  2. MediaWiki -(Pandoc)-> Latex -> PDF: I could explore this possibility, maybe not in time for the first issue.
  3. MediaWiki -> PDF as in Wikipedia: looks inadequate, in particular there is no table of contents.

Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 12:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that we probably do need to generate PDFs, since they're still a very common way that academics store papers (at least in biology). and well handled by reference managers. I agree that the "download a PDF" option is currently inadequate due to its handling of templates, figures, and tables. Even some automation of the first steps of PDF production would help, even if ideal image placement and sizing had to be done manually. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC) PS: I've added a couple of links in your flow above
I agree we will need to continue generating PDFs, and some manual work will still be needed even if we find a way to make it more automatic. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I think PDFs will be required - it's just a standard we will be expected to meet. Auto-generation is unlikely to be feasible; agree with Thomas' comments above. Maybe some manual effort can be cut off the process, but I doubt it'll go away entirely. --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 08:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Integration with Wikidata[edit]

WikiJournal is mentioned in the ScienceSource proposal, and now that that has been approved for funding, I'd like to get a discussion going on how we might move this forward. We've also just published an editorial in the PLOS Topic Pages series, wherein we invite suggestions as to how Wikidata could be brought into play there as well. --Daniel Mietchen (discusscontribs) 19:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Daniel Mietchen: I enjoyed the PLOS editorial. I think that academic journals can be a logical route for information to be added to Wikidata. There are a few non-exclusive mechanisms as I see it:
  1. automatic extraction of data from articles via ScienceSource.
  2. manual addition of data by article authors to accompany a prose article (e.g. I've long intended to convert the images in this article to Wikidata).
  3. manual addition of data by article authors with no accompanying prose (basically a peer review of the dataset added)
The second two options benefit from being able to include items that machine reading would miss, or are entirely absent from the prose of an article. However it can be quite a bit of additional work compared to the first option. A key component would be convincing authors of the value of WikiData, which is intrinsically less visible than Wikipedia. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Role of the Council versus the Boards[edit]

As started in the discussion about Thomas as Chair, we also need to specify what are the roles of the WikiJournal Council versus that of the individual boards of each journal. I think of the WikiJournal Council as more of an administrative body, dealing with for example financials, while the boards are more focused on topics related to their particular fields. Individual members of the editorial board need to have more profound knowledge of the subject of the journal, while those of the WikiJournal Council can simply be interested in the overall well-being of the WikiJournal project. Anyone interested in both of these aspects is welcome to apply to both. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia-integration of articles published in WikiJournals[edit]


Some WikiJournal articles radically revise their corresponding Wikipedia articles. They are then formally and independently reviewed, which gives them some standing, but (as yet) no special position as Wikipedia articles. The intention is that the revised text should be used to revise the corresponding Wikipedia articles. This could be done by the WikiJournal authors, if they feel able to do this and are willing to take the time; by WikiJournal board editors; or by any Wikipedia editors who feel minded to make use of the resource. The situations differ:

  • Authors could be considered by Wikipedians to have a (mild) conflict of interest, though this will have been explicitly declared by virtue of WikiJournal publication, and comes with an implicit seal of approval from the Wikijournal concerned. They will often not be experienced Wikipedia editors, and will often not be specially interested in Wikipedia publication (which does not 'count' for academic purposes) once they have achieved their goal of WikiJournal publication. From their point of view, publishing on Wikipedia is a profitless act of public service, whereas WikiJournal publication should be to the benefit of authors, the Wikimedia Foundation, and the public alike.
  • WikiJournal board editors may similarly be considered by Wikipedians to have a (mild) conflict of interest, though again, this will have been explicitly declared by virtue of being listed on the WikiJournal board.
  • Wikipedia editors will usually be conflict-free. If they see fit to mine a WikiJournal for materials, they will use the materials, possibly piecemeal, for any article they choose, at any time (not necessarily promptly), and not necessarily for the article corresponding directly to the WikiJournal article.

I am not sure that there is any big problem with any of these routes. It may be sensible for authors or WikiJournal editors to put (WikiJournal author) or (WikiJournal editor) in an edit comment or on the Wikipedia article's talk page. My tuppence worth. Chiswick Chap (discusscontribs) 07:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

These points are well thought of. I would support a requirement to declare WJ editorship on editor's user pages, and WJ authorship and editorship in publication-related edits to connected articles. Undeclared COI is one of the most consistently problematic areas on WP, and it is very easy to generate bad blood and controversy that way. Let's be proactive here. --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 08:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Interesting points! I think authors should be invited to do the inclusion, since they are most familiar with how to express the information. Still, indeed, this constitutes a potential conflict of interest, so I've added at the "Wikipedia inclusion" section of the Editorial guidelines that they should note this in the edit summary: [1]
Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 14:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree. I think that the key is clear statements in the edit summary. We should probably include a url or wikilink for at least the first edit summary (e.g. "Adding/Updating section XYZ from [[v:WikiJournal_of_Science/Spaces_in_mathematics]]). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree, and I added this example to WikiJournal_User_Group/Editorial_guidelines#Wikipedia_inclusion. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 03:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Technical issues[edit]

Integration of [2] into [3] was done on 11-12 June 2018, with contributions by 3 WJS editors. Initially there was a lack of coordination, which led to some work being lost. (Moving figures before moving the text wholesale.) Beyond copy-paste, the work consisted in:

  1. Deciding which parts of the Wikipedia article to keep, when they were not included in the WJS article (Basically, this section)
  2. Reformatting the code for Figures from the WJS template to Wikipedia syntax
  3. Resizing Figures
  4. Adding the {{Academic peer reviewed}} template in the References
  5. Adding a few Categories at the end
  6. Moving a Figure from Wikiversity to Commons (Having it at Wikiversity caused the Figure not to be displayed)
  7. Removing w: prefixes in links (Tidier, but not strictly necessary)
  8. Replace [[xyz|xyz]] with [[xyz]] (Tidier, but not strictly necessary)

(Please complete the list if something is missing)

Some of these steps could possibly be automated. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 20:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and I added this to the Editorial guidelines (with some generalization to work for all WikiJournals): [4]. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 14:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for codifying this. Steps 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 should be automate-able. I don't have the coding skill to do it, but we could ask somewhere in phabricator to see if a tool could be designed. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be great if we could automate at least some of the steps. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 03:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Two relevant discussions on Wikipedia[edit]

There are a couple of WikiJournal-relevant discussions occurring on Wikipedia. Linking here for the record, but people are free to contribute to the discussions if interested.

  1. A user talk page discussion about the concept of WikiJournals - Several concerns and criticisms discussed about the format
  2. A village pump discussion about expert review - Specifically relating to the BMJ, but relevant to this project.

Eventually we should gather up key discussions that have been held on Wikipedia about WikiJournals so that we have an easy index somewhere. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree: We should gather the discussions for future meditation and contemplation. Discussing the discussions is optional.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 09:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The first discussion shows that the idea of WikiJournals as reliable sources is far from being accepted. In particular there are the points that the editorial board is not made of renowned experts, and that some submissions are handled by non-specialist editors. This is due in part to being new journals and having broad scope; but maybe we should revise how we recruit editors. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 21:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I think you're right that editor recruitment should evolve as the journal matures, especially now that the board now covers most of the key skills and experiences needed to run the journal (key academic fields, editorial/publishing experience, librarianship, wiki experience, OA-projects, soc. media). What're your ideas on how best to focus any further editor recruitment? My thoughts are that we focus on recruiting specialist associate editors that can help when articles are submitted outside of the board's main expertise, but who don't necessarily want to receive all the board emails. We could also try to attract some 'big names' to the editorial board. I think that academic legitimacy will also be much improved once we are indexed in scopus, pubmed and Web of Science. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I think we'll be able to attract more subject expertise if we continue to keep administrative hassle to the WikiJournal Council and this talk page, rather than to individual journal boards, so that the journal boards can focus on their article submissions. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 04:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with both of you: we need editors who are well-known in their fields, so the recruitment should now insist more on this aspect and less on the 'wiki' or 'open' aspects. These editors' workflow should be made as easy as possible, with the help of the wiki-oriented editors. To attract them, I would be tempted to use one-on-one persuasion of people I know, taking advantage of conferences for example. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 07:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment at Wikipedia:[edit]

Based on the discussion being held at a users talk page, a discussion has been started up at the reliable sources noticeboard (a more logical location). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Application as sister project[edit]

Council ping @Diptanshu Das, Mikael Häggström, Felipe Schenone, Guy vandegrift, Part, Taketa, Daniel Mietchen:

The application to be a full sister project was first proposed in 2016. The journals have grown markedly since then. I think it would be good to contact the Sister Projects Committee and ask them to comment on the proposal ( At the very least, it will be good to have some feedback from a WikiMedia perspective. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that's a good idea. In the meantime, I've been in touch with the Meta:Affiliations Committee about becoming a Thematic organization; see subsection. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 05:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Mikael Häggström for summing up the items below and for your contributions in shaping WJM. Thanks T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) for the contributions you have made with respect to WJS and WJH, and for shaping the direction of progress of WikiJournal as a whole. I think we should definitely ask the Sister Projects Committee to evaluate and provide us feedback on how WikiJournal could become a sister project. In case they point to any further requirements, we would be happy to fulfill them before we finally re-apply formally. Diptanshu 💬 11:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Application as thematic organization[edit]

I've now prepared an email for the Meta:Affiliations Committee, responding to their reqirements. Feel free to make and/or suggest changes to it before I email it. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 05:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is a description of how WikiJournal fulfills each of the mentioned criteria:

Legal structure:

Records of activities are archived in its online discussion forums, mainly:

The editorial boards and associate editors have expertise in each area:

Their expertise is shared with the Wikimedia movement, in the form of processing and approving article submissions, whose content can be used to improve articles across Wikimedia projects.

Wikimedia supportive mission: The mission of WikiJournal is to publish scholarly works with no cost for the authors, apply quality checks on submissions by expert peer review, and make accepted works available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity. [5]
This is in alignment with that of Wikimedia. WikJournals is open for everyone to contribute.

Thematic focus: Scholarly journals that apply academic peer review to their content.

Critical mass of active Wikimedia contributor involvement: 50+ total members in the editorial boards, in addition to authors and peer reviewers (see links to editors above)

At least two years of activities: The project has been a User Group since May 31, 2016: Meta:Affiliations Committee/Resolutions/Recognition WikiJournal User Group
Its reports on activity and financials are up to date, see: Meta:WikiJournal User Group/Activity report May 2016 to Dec 2017

Capacity, or planned capacity, to meet the future expectations: We are a dedicated group of volunteers who will continue to welcome newcomers to the projects. There is no absolute limit to the potential capacity of our activities. We understand and will abide the requirements and expectations of thematic organizations.

Best regards,

Mikael Häggström
On behalf of the WikiJournal User Group

Thanks for putting this together Mikael. I agree with its contents. In the Wikimedia supportive mission section we could also mention that material from the project is also commonly integrated into other Wikimedia projects (especially Wikipedia and Commons). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Good idea. I've now sent it in for review, with the addition of "The material is then integrated where appropriate across Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia." Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 21:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

A new type of editors?[edit]

This is a rough proposal for how to deal with editors who are renowned in their fields, but are not necessarily experienced with Wiki projects, assuming we manage to recruit such people.


These editors would be in charge of inviting peer reviewers, recommending changes to authors, and recommending (or even deciding) that articles be accepted: the scientific side of things. They would a priori not be involved in technical issues or in Wikipedia integration. They could in principle do all their work by email.Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 21:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


Someone, typically an editorial board member, convinces a renowned scientist to agree in principle to join the journal. That someone writes an application in order to convince the board (including members from other fields) that the scientist in question is indeed eminent. A vote may take place.Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 21:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps notability would range from a Wikipedia article to a Nobel laureate for example, with renown involving prizes awarded perhaps. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree that engagement of renowned editors would be very valuable - specifically, the contacts and network. The journal group's reputation should build on the articles, transparent peer review, and auditing by independent organisations such as COPE. However, people being people, the reputation of 'prestigious' affiliated editors also acts as an endorsement, and may be important for the reputation in the eyes of some. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 13:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


Cannot be an 'editorial board member' or an 'associate editor': not the same tasks and recruitment procedure. 'Senior editor'? 'Member of the editorial college'? Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 21:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to also rename what are currently "associate editors" to "junior editors" or similar to make the naming more immediately obvious. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
'Distinguished editor' might fit the bill. Chiswick Chap (discusscontribs) 13:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm alright with senior/junior editors, as well as 'distinguished editor'. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 06:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Announcing WikiJournal submission of a Wikipedia article on the Talk Page header[edit]

Here are the two reasons for doing posting an announcement in the WP talk page's header after that article has been submitted to a WikiJournal:

  1. It disseminates knowledge about the existence of WikiJournals to the WP community.
  2. It might help us recruit referees hesitant to click a link to an unknown site.

Personally, if I were being recruited as a referee via email, I would pause to verify that the link to is correct. But the talk page at w:Talk:Surface tension could be verified by going through Wikipedia.

I understand that we need to tread lightly with the WP editors, and also avoid WP:COI's with the them. But a strong selling point in the recruitment of referees is the need to make WP articles more credible. The WikiJournal is in a curious position because many who like WP are suspicious of the elitism of traditional outlets, while the those who favor the traditional journals have issues with the credibility of WP. I believe that we can recruit large numbers of reasonable people from both camps.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 15:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

And a third reason for posting an announcement: implicitly warning that another version of the article exists, which can be edited, and which may one day be copied back to Wikipedia. The hope would be that some editors suspend work on the WP article, or even better work on it at WJS, thereby reducing potential conflicts when merging the two versions. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 19:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
...Which reminds me w:Template:In use. Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 19:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea, either as a talkpage header like this template, or as a comment like this talkpage entry. We might need to also make clear that there is no intention to take ownership of the page, or discourage any other editing. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Not only should we make it clear that we are not taking ownership, we should praise the editors for writing such a good paper on an important topic.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 21:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I support this, but I don't think it needs to be a mandatory step for all submissions. I added to the editorial guidelines that "It is also recommended to mention submission at the talk page of the Wikipedia article of the same topic if such exists already." [6]. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 09:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

A quirk on reviewer anonymity[edit]

In the guidelines' section on anonymity, I wonder if we should add the option for a reviewer to be initially anonymous, and reveal her identity after the article is published.

I have not heard of such a procedure before, though. Can someone see potential problems with suggesting an initially anonymous reviewer to reveal her identity after the review process is complete and nothing bad has happened? Would many people respond positively? Could this incite some reviewers to remain initially anonymous even if they would have been inclined to be non-anonymous?

An option would be to do it without announcing the possibility to reviewers beforehand. (Meaning: write it in the guidelines but not in the invitation email.) Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 21:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The policy of not informing the reviewers that they may later announce their identity is has already been implemented in the Bell's theorem article, where reviewer number 3 released their identity after the paper was accepted. I am uncertain as as to which policy is best, but one advantage to the current system is simplicity. Telling a person that they may later reveal their identity is giving that person one more thing to cope with as they try to perform a complicated task. It is almost universally known that secret identities may later be revealed, and even discussing the possibility of later revealing one's identity may "spook" a potential referee.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 22:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, interesting. Then I would be inclined to abandon the idea. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 18:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
An additional note is that it is always possible for the peer review coordinator to contact a reviewer after publication and ask if they'd consent to having their identity revealed (possibly after an embargo) even if it isn't a specific point described in guidelines and email templates. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 13:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

A DYK liaison[edit]

Would anyone be interested in helping out with writing the occasional DYK for newly-published WikiJournal articles? It'd be good to get some representation on Wikipedia front page when articles get integrated into Wikipedia. I've also asked over at the DYK talk page. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Checking submitters' identities?[edit]

When a submitted article is based on an existing Wikipedia article, shouldn't the submitters have to disclose their Wikipedia aliases? They could allow us to check their Wikipedia identities by posting some standard message on their Wikipedia user pages.

An alternative would be to avoid taking a position on authorship, by having 'submitters' rather than 'authors'. This would prevent us from giving credit to authors. But maybe this should be allowed as an option: there could be cases where authorship is too distributed, or unverifiable (IP edits), etc. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 21:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

So far, we have been checking Wikipedian author identity via the w:Special:EmailUser function, but your idea is particularly useful for users that haven't signed up with a contact email address. If they also claim a particular affiliation, we've so far emailed their faculty email address to confirm. However something should definitely be added to the editorial guidelines. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Meaning-changing edit of published article[edit]

An edit to by the ShK article by this user added new information (above the level of spelling and formatting corrections) and so has been reverted with a explanation in the edit summary and on their talkpage.

This is not a common occurrence, but may become more so as traffic to the journals increase. We could consider getting someone to write a bot to help with monitoring or reverting edits to published pages that change more than spelling or formatting. Alternatively, published works could be locked or semi-locked, but this would prevent users from editing errors (example). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Tricky. I don't think a bot would do a reliable job of distinguishing between formatting and content edits. And as the number of published articles increases, keeping an eye on this will become more and more difficult. - I believe locking published articles would be rather sensible; at that point, all the trivial stuff (formatting, spelling, grammar) should be signed off on, and everything else goes beyond what should be done to a peer-reviewed article post-publication. I suggest correction of factual errors should be done via discussion followed by, if necessary, official errata. --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 09:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Additionally, even with locked articles, there can always be a 'request edit' function if errors are spotted (e.g. as effectively done here). I agree that corrigendum, errata, or full versioning is preferred for larger updates, equivalent to that done in other journals (COPE guidelines). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we offer the submitter a chance to play a role in this -- not as an obligation, but an offer to grant the author long-term control over a wiki. As a submitter to WP articles in the past, I have been on occasion disappointed to see what happened to a section long after I stopped editing it. Wikibooks has a feature that informs me by email if somebody changes a page that I have worked on. Making this an offer but not an obligation to the submitting editor/author might incentivize contributions to the WikiJournals.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 16:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
What we need in order to be considered a journal in the traditional sense is a stable version of record. We already have a stable PDF, and it would be logical to also have a prominent link to the corresponding MediaWiki version. If we have that, I do not see the harm in letting the article evolve, so long it is clear that the modified version is not a 'published version of record'. This would be an interesting experiment in post-publication collaborative editing. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 21:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge all journals into one[edit]

Some time ago I proposed this idea, but it didn't gather consensus. Yet I'm still convinced this is a good idea, and there's many more voices now, so new arguments for and against may arise. I encourage you to read some arguments for and against this proposal, contribute any new ones, and return to this page to leave your vote and opinion. Cheers! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 22:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

answered, on the talk page of the link you've indicated (it seems several individuals answered at the linked page instead of here)--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 00:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
My vote would be on keeping them separate. Diptanshu 💬 06:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Free Journal Network[edit]

WikiJournals look like good candidates to the Free Journal Network. I would be happy to nominate them if this was not done already. Joining the network would involve displaying membership on the journals' homepages. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 21:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd support this idea. It looks like a useful network of OA journals with no APF. I found a blog post about their aims here. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, I nominated the three WikiJournals. If the network is interested they will invite us and we will have to decide whether to join. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 19:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Sylvain Ribault: Greatly appreciated. Diptanshu 💬 06:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Dedicated pages on vital issues?[edit]

I can see at least two issues that are vital for WikiJournals, that have probably not been satisfactorily solved so far, and that could benefit from long-term discussions, where the accumulated experience would be valuable. These issues are:

  1. How do we recruit reviewers? This is vital for any journal, but it is especially difficult for broad scope journals unless the editorial board is very large, and we have the additional particularity of publishing encyclopedic review articles.
  2. Who should be the authors of submissions from Wikipedia? Is it always appropriate to have authors, rather than (say) 'corresponding contributors'? Can a journal be considered an academic journal in the traditional sense if some articles do not have authors?

In both cases, we may eventually need to resort to a range of options that go beyond what is currently allowed by the editorial guidelines.

These issues may deserve more than discussions on this Talk page. We may need to collect suggestions, accounts of experiences with past submissions, links to relevant material, etc. Maybe we could create a dedicated page (with its own Talk page) for each issue of this type? Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 21:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

for #2 point, Id think 'author(s)' is better than corresponding contributor...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 01:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
The current guidelines for authors, at Publishing#Attribution, is that "Content drawn from Wikipedia or its sister projects must list all contributors as co-authors. This is done by naming the main contributors to the article as normal, and including an "et. al." link to the full contributor list, by pointing to a list generated by Xtools." It is possible to make updated to this phrasing there if we have other suggestions for it. There should be someone who is the author of the work, even if only having contributed a small part of the article. The author role still means having responsibility for the overall accuracy of the article, and to make amendments or comments on the peer reviews. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. I fear that the issue is potentially more complicated, and that the existing rules will have to adapt and evolve. What happens if the main authors do not agree between themselves? If two texts based on the same Wikipedia articles are submitted, simultaneously or not? If some authors wish to remain anonymous? Can we have Wikipedia pseudonyms in the list of authors? Which authors are allowed to submit? What if an author wants her name on the paper after it has been published? What are the rules for adding her name, and in which position in the list of authors? Authorship is already a delicate issue in academic journals, and it is even more complicated in WikiJournals. We cannot solve all the potential problems right now, but we need to collect ideas and experience. This is why I propose a dedicated page. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 12:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I think both a 'frequently asked questions' page and an 'open questions' page could be useful. The FAQ page could be linked to from the 'About' page of each journal and be a list of possible questions and responses. The Open Questions (possibly the FAQ talk page) could be ongoing questions and be linked from the editorial guidelines. Being conscious of not increasing workload too much - both pages should work ok even if they are not very actively maintained (and could possibly summarise some of some of the points that come up on this discussion page). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I would be happy with an Open Questions page. But this needs not be the Talk page of anything, as having its own Talk page might be useful. On the other hand, an FAQ page might duplicate information from other pages (such as Editorial guidelines), unless we remove these other pages. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 21:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Peer review forms[edit]

Given the positive reactions for the peer review form (both by editors and reviewrs), I've made it the default for submitting peer reviews. The previous default was to directly add the review to the discussion page which was unpopular with most reviewers, who have no wiki experience.

All form submissions can be viewed by editorial board members (via link in the relevant google group). For each submission, the EiC of each journal is notified by email, and they can then forward it the relevant peer review coordinator to post to the discussion page and notify the author. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Great work, Thomas! Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 11:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Bylaws changes[edit]

Following a vote to remove a board member, I'm proposing the following changes to the Bylaws of each journal:

  • Votes to remove an editorial board member should have a specified duration, allowing time for people to notice the event. Rather arbitrarily, I suggest 5 days. Thus, the addition to the "Removal" section of the bylaws of WikiJournal and each individual journal would for example be "An Official may be removed by a majority of votes among people in an electorate as specified in ARTICLE III, Section 4, counting after at least 5 days of voting."
  • While we are updating the bylaws, I suggest that we rename the "WikiJournal Council" to the "Administrative board" of WikiJournal, to clarify that it focuses on admin tasks such as financials, Internet domain names and technical maintenance of the project, allowing the editorial boards to focus on the subjects of their expertise. I also suggest that we create a separate email list for members of this group. Still, important matters such as the content of the next grant proposal will be posted to editorial boards as well. And of course people can join both the admin and editorial boards.

As per current bylaws, eligible voters are:

  • 1. Current WikiJournal Council Members.
  • 2. Current members of any Editorial Board of WikiJournals
  • 3. Peer reviewers of WikiJournals who have completed at least one peer review.
  • 4. Registered Wikiversity users with at least 30 edits to WikiJournal pages.
  • 5. Not an individual voting for herself/himself.

Votes can be made here, or emailed to the public email list of the journal:
Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 12:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Result: Bylaws updated. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 06:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
thank you for update!--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 10:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Budget proposal[edit]

A draft of a budget proposal for 2019: Meta:Grants:Project/Rapid/WikiJournal_2019

The main new thing is funds for hiring a technical editor for the project, as described at Meta:WikiJournal User Group#Technical editor. I think the most appropriate way to go is to hire a "technical editor" primarily among ourselves (boards and associate editors), but I think we should simultaneously look at MediaWiki-experienced freelancers such as at It will also be much easier to administer the compensation of one person (at least initially) than for multiple editor-in-chiefs and editors. I'm also thinking that person will begin editing with a limited budget, and the result will be evaluated to make a decision of whether to proceed in the same manner. Anyways, we should get the funding before making any decision about which particular person to hire. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 18:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

yes, technical editor may be a good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 14:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)