Talk:WikiJournal User Group/Archive 2019

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

Budget update

As an update, the grant committee responded that the total sum we can request has to be below $2,000 even including our $400 remaining from last year, so I had to propose it again with only $1,000 for a technical editor. Still, we can submit another rapid grants request if we find we need more funds for that purpose. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 21:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

XML generation

So far only a handful of articles have their XML header data posted (example). This is largely because it's an additional non-intuitive manual step upon generating the doi via the crossref webdeposit form.

I've now managed to implement a template that will automatically create the XML data straight from the info already listed in the article page. The right hand side of any article that does not yet have XML data deposited, will now include a "Deposit" link that generates the XML header when clicked. (For those interested in the workings, this is by substitution of the new {{subst:Article_XML}} template).

Eventually, I would like to have the entire text of each article also presented in a full JATS-compliant XML format (examples), but currently I can't see how to achieve that. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 15:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo). This was long needed. Keep up good work. Diptanshu 💬 16:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


Plan S RfC

The Plan S open-access initiative is requesting feedback about itself on questions that may be of interest to people here:

  1. Is there anything unclear or are there any issues that have not been addressed by the [Plan S] guidance document?
  2. Are there other mechanisms or requirements funders should consider to foster full and immediate Open Access of research outputs?

Feedback is open until the 8th of February.

The plan launched in September and has a large proportion of European research funders and a couple of US ones onside; if you are affiliated with a research funder, they might want to look into it. The best comment on Plan S I've heard so far comes from Elsevier (which doesn't really like the financial transparency provisions, for starters). An Elsevier spokesman said "If you think that information should be free of charge, go to Wikipedia" ("Als je vindt dat informatie gratis moet zijn: ga naar Wikipedia"). I'm not sure if he knew about the journals here.

Is there a good place to point academics who want to ga-naar-Wikipedia? I'm thinking of a how-to for people unfamiliar with wiki authoring who want to collaboratively edit a paper here (whether they eventually publish it here or elsewhere). Or on starting an open lab notebook here, or posting a post-print to Wikisource. Our metadata could make that last very findable, if properly formatted with Template:Article info (which, oddly, does not seem to exist on WikiSource). If there is no such resource, where would be a good place to put it? HLHJ (discusscontribs) 22:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks HLHJ - that's very interesting. I'd heard about Plan S, but not that they were inviting feedback. I'll start a communal draft below to be posted on 7 Feb 2019. The comment from this article is pretty telling as to their view of both open access and of Wikipedia. I think that for general advice for academics who want to ga naar Wikipedia, good starting points are probably but I'd be intersted in other's thoughts:
I agree with your idea that people could collaboratively edit a paper here for subsequent submission elsewhere. I actually hope that at some point we will see WikiJournal Preprints used for exactly that. Having said that, there are many features of e.g. BioRxiv that are hard/impossible to implement in MediaWiki, (e.g. editorialmanager.com submission assistance). I've actually not thought at all about WikiSource do you know how it handles metadata? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I wrote a lot of w:WP:Wikipedia editing for research scientists, thanks Smiley.svg; I have updated the bit about the markup, please let me know of anything else that is outdated. Maybe I need to write a new how-to. I have added some Plan S feedback; it has turned out a bit first-person, so I've mentioned that, as not disclosing a personal interest while complaining about COI disclosure seems a bit ironic. I hope others will edit it extensively and make it more general and less rambling. Should probably ping DGG. See Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData and m:WikiCite for Wikidata formats; I don't know what Wikisource does about academic articles. I've posted to Wikisource:Scriptorium#Plan S for free content: feedback request. HLHJ (discusscontribs) 05:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikimedia is a research funder; has it considered joining Plan S? HLHJ (discusscontribs) 22:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Really interesting question. Ping Tbayer (WMF) who might know the best person within the WMF to contact. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
That might depend on the exact manner of involvement people have in mind, but as a first stop you could try the contact options listed at https://research.wikimedia.org/contact.html . Note that WMF already has an open access policy concerning research that it directly supports. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (discusscontribs) 01:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Tbayer (WMF). I was thinking of WMF making an institutional statement of support; I'm not sure if it could also become a coalition member. From the policy you link to, it seems as if Plan S is a good match for existing policy, meaning that WMF might have valuable experience to share. I'm thinking you might well know who would be best to ask for contributions, in the discussion below or through other channels? HLHJ (discusscontribs) 01:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I've realized that the above looks as if I'm missing the point. The contact options provided are off-wiki and non-pseudoanonymous; would you be willing to pass it on a quick note, something like "Could WMF please consider making an institutional statement of support" of Plan S, as it seems to be well-aligned with its existing research and data policies?", as you see fit? HLHJ (discusscontribs) 03:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
The deadline is tommorrow at 15:00 UTC. Please make any more comments soon. Tbayer (WMF), I'll be on before then, and we can prepare this for submission. HLHJ (discusscontribs) 16:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, meant to ping T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo). HLHJ (discusscontribs) 00:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@HLHJ: Since the final deadline is in the middle of the (UTC+11) would you be happy to do the final submission to the form? I can help with anything that comes up 8:00-10:00 UTC. For long comments, or where there is a discussion, it might be useful to shorten/summarise for the feedback form to aid readability (link to section). What do you think? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
T.Shafee, I can be around to submit. I think shorten/summarizing/proofreading would be an excellent idea. I'm not very good at doing that for text I've written myself, so I'd appreciate any help, but I'll have a quick go, though I should warn you that I have an upcoming commitment in half an hour. HLHJ (discusscontribs) 01:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
T.Shafee, I tried a dry run on the form, and it's not working for me. I could submit to the e-mail address at https://www.coalition-s.org/privacy/. This would probably work. HLHJ (discusscontribs) 02:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
T.Shafee, I've done a draft summary. Please feel free to edit radically. I will submit by e-mail if I don't hear back. HLHJ (discusscontribs) 02:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@HLHJ: Perfect! I've done a little copy-editing and added one extra point about Wikidata. I'll upload summary to the form in 1 hr (seems to be working for me). If you'd be happy to email the contents (espec. if there are any last changes after I submit the form) then we'll make sure they definitely receive it one way or the other. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Submission done by form (Response ID: 2192). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Brilliant, thank you, T.Shafee. In the meanwhile, I got a response from Plan S saying e-mail submission would work. I was intending to add that extended-discussion link; thank you for doing that. And of course I should have mentioned Wikidata, and possibly WikiCite; good catch. I think I should have mentioned Open Journal Systems and WikiJournals, too, under barriers to entry. I failed to proofread the APC line... ah well, it's decent, and they can always check back here for details, and click the "edit" tab and post here if they want more detail. I hope they will. HLHJ (discusscontribs) 13:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Q1) Is there anything unclear or are there issues that have not been addressed by the guidance document?

  • Metadata on conflicts of interest, errata, retractions, and trial registration should be more directly addressed, see below. HLHJ (discusscontribs) 05:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Lists will have to be kept of Plan-S complaint journals and databases - is there a plan for who will audit and store this information? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


Q2) Are there other mechanisms or requirements funders should consider to foster full and immediate Open Access to research outputs?

Machine-readable COI and erratum metadata

Please give us machine-readable COI disclosures as metadata. Deliberate attempts to influence the academic literature for profit are a significant problem for Wikipedia. Traditionally, such papers were meant to influence academics. As open access becomes more common, the general public becomes a larger, softer target for misinformation. We may see more questionable journal papers promoting dubious ideas on behalf of those who profit from them. Left unchecked, this could seriously harm the public's trust in and willingness to fund academia, worsening the problem.

The lack of machine-readable open data on COIs causes significant harm. In the biomedical field, misplaced trust in research papers has killed people; it would be an interesting epidemiological exercise to estimate how many. In other fields, such as climate science, there are also substantial incentives to distort the research literature, and significant negative consequences for misinformation.

The problems I describe below mostly reflect situations I have personally seen as a Wikipedia editor; see also the Wikipedia article on "Conflicts of interest in academic publishing", which I wrote partially as an effort to understand and help resolve these problems.

It is currently sometimes hard to determine if a source is a genuine independent academic article, or a "native advertisement" (for instance, an article-shaped thing in a paid "supplement" to a journal, which has been reviewed by editors chosen by the supplement sponsor). This can be problematic. Thousands of Wikipedia articles currently cite these article-shaped ads, because they look like solid research; it would be easy to commission papers to appear to meet Wikipedia's "reliable sources" guidelines and its more stringent medical sources guidelines. As an example, a Wikipedia article averaging 2-3 thousand views a day cited, for information on dietary health risks, a paper for which the lead author, editor, and director of the funding organization were the same person. The funding organization got its money from industry groups producing products which it was describing as not causing a health harm.[1] Only the author is specified in the standard machine-readable metadata, so such problems can currently only be discovered by trawling through the articles by hand; even then, it's easy to miss, as COIs are usually declared in a non-obvious manner if at all. I've done some of this trawling; it is a slow, tedious, and sisyphean task, and I prefer to put my effort into automating it.

Machine-readable disclosures would make it possible to automatically screen for and statistically analyze systemic biasses in the academic literature, for new and historical data. While some details of COI declarations will probably remain so idiosyncratic that they cannot be expressed in a standard format, most declarations are quite stereotyped, and can even be automatically text-mined [2]. The machine-readability need not be complex in order to be usable; just ORCID-like IDs for all funders (as in "Recommended additional criteria"), and funding amounts and restrictions, would be useful. All funders should also be required to declare their funding, to avoid front organizations.

Papers and supplements to journals need machine-readable COIs, but so do journals themselves. It has become increasingly easy to start a journal, meaning many more unfamiliar journals. Anything like the "Australasian" fake journals should be instantly identifiable by its machine-readable COI declaration. The journals run by the American Society for Nutrition have been criticized for taking money from sugar producers and soft-drink manufacturers; they do issue conflict of interest declarations (including for members of the editorial board), but these are not machine-readable or visible when reading individual papers. COIs are also created by other sources of revenue, such as ads. Some COIs will be eliminated by open access (does anyone buy post-prints of open-access journals? if so, each paper should contain metadata declaring how many post-prints were bought, and by whom). It is not reasonable for journals and journal editors to hold authors to higher standards than they impose upon themselves. They, too, should declare their funding sources and other COIs in a machine-readable format.

There are many clever ways to make promotion look like independent evidence. Attempts to enforce transparency will therefore have loopholes. It must therefore also be possible for third parties to report causes for concern (including undeclared COIs, ambiguities, errors, and causes for retractions). Post-publication peer-review comments are publication metadata, and should be open data which can be reused as freely as the papers themselves (PubPeer currently severely restricts third-party reuse of content contributed to them[3]). The appalling practice of charging readers to report or read about errors, including paywalled retraction notices,[1] should be explicitly prohibited. All errata and retraction notices should be machine-readable open metadata. Retraction Watch may be able to advise.

Privately telling people about problems with their papers does not seem to be sufficient to correct the research record, in practice.[1] [4] This may be for innocent reasons: I recently attempted to contact a corresponding author, requesting clarification of the units used in a recent paper, only to find that she had died. While some publishers currently allow comments,[5] responsibility for publishing criticisms should obviously not lie with a criticized party. The journals might also prefer this, as it will free them from legal liability;[2] PubPeer seems to be able to accept anonymous criticisms, restricted by a verifiability policy, without being sued out of existence.

It should be noted that Wikipedia requires editors to declare conflicts of interest, but also allows third parties to flag other editors as having conflicts of interest, including anonymously, through the {{connected contributor}} template. There are penalties for unverifiable accusations. The system largely seems to work, although undisclosed paid editors can be hard to identify. HLHJ (discusscontribs) 05:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Obviously the absence of a COI statement (as well as statements of the absence of COIs) should be explicitly noted in the metadata. "The authors did not make any statement about their potential conflicts of interest" or some such. HLHJ (discusscontribs) 15:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Open Data

"All scholarly content must be openly accessible" in an excellent principle and should explicitly include open data, and open lab notebooks where possible. Plan S should have suitable guidelines for data archiving and sharing, through secure third parties where ethics require it.[6] Open data should be formatted for easy re-use, and be correctable when errors are found.

Open data allows reuse in other research papers, but also allows reuse by Wikipedia. For example, I made this diagram from open data, also open-licensing a script to derive it from the original files; when better data became available, another editor made an updated version. HLHJ (discusscontribs) 05:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Links to trial registries

Where a trial was registered in a trial registry, a machine-readable link to the registration should be part of the metadata of the published article. The methodology should be machine-readable, making it possible to compare the trial as-planned to the trial as-published automatically. Even a simple list of outcomes to be reported would be useful here, as outcome-switching is common; see the COMPare study for methodology and an idea of how tedious it is to do this by hand. HLHJ (discusscontribs) 05:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Start-up journals

Some statement about barriers to entry should be made. For journals starting up (espec in humanities) may struggle with some of the technical requirements. It might be useful to outline or some assistance to ensure diversified journal marketplace competition. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. A copyleft software suite, similar to Mediawiki, which one could just click-to-install on one of the open-source personal servers that are springing up, would effectively remove many technical barriers. It would probably only cost several thousand US dollars to make something like this, if existing code (like the stuff we are using here) were reused, and the cost of the hardware would be significantly less than $1000 US.
A hosting service (we could run one here) would be even easier. How much effort would it take to allow anyone to set up the software for a journal in a few minutes here? It still won't be easy to start a journal, but the technical obstacles will be gone. HLHJ (discusscontribs) 01:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
You mean something like Open Journal Systems (OJS), but is compatible with MediaWiki? OJS is open source so it should be adaptable if WMF provides some programming resource. I can see people adopting MediaWiki as a plug-in since it already takes care of typesetting (which is time-consuming and costly for post-acceptance articles) and something that OJS doesn't do. In OJS, the copyeditor downloads the accepted article, works offline for copyediting and typesetting, and then uploads the copyedited version into OJS. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Article Processing Charge (APC) cap

The APC cap is likely necessary (Nat. Comms. APC = $5200) since otherwise it could end up excluding researchers supported by funders outside of Plan S to be excluded from Plan S journals. How will APC caps be decided and how often updated? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Supplementary data

The existence of supplementary content (data, supplementary text, supplementary media, software, corrections, retractions, anything) should be identified in the bibliographic metadata, so that the reader can easily know if they have all of the publication or are missing bits. It would be useful to have a recommendation to put supplementary data in standard self-describing data formats (with an evolving database of data standards, so that one could easily find an appropriate one). HLHJ (discusscontribs) 15:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Access, privacy, and paywalls

Obviously, copyleft articles should not have paywalls. However, this expectation has not always been met; one publisher charged for access to open-access articles for over two years.[7] Academics looking into the matter fount that it was questionable whether this breached any laws. Plan S should therefore make it clear that paywalling access or exerting pressure against people hosting or otherwise distributing copies would be in breach of its standards.

Access may also become difficult if political pressure is exerted on academics, especially but not exclusively by national governments, not to access certain content. This is a problem with which Wikipedia is familiar; we are currently being banned by two governments, and we've regularly been denounced by a number of civil society groups. The most common means of censorship is self-censorship, often encouraged by, for instance, automated messages telling readers that they are being watched. This has a strong effect even if it is untrue. The other means being used is to block access to the original database of content, and give access to a redacted form.

Peer-to-peer sharing, automated and manual, is in practice used to circumvent censorship of academic articles; for open-access content, this is entirely legal and should be encouraged. Automated versions do, however, require an index database. For illegal peer-to-peer sharing, it is the index websites that have been targeted. The US military, developing ARPANET, reported wanted a fully-distributed system, but in fact wound up with the DNS system used as an index for the internet. A DNS system for the library of academic articles should be possible, with academic libraries host them.

Wikipedia is widely distributed through intranet serves (see Internet-in-a-Box). This gives access to, for instance African universities with no net access. The existing provisions in Plan S, for availability of the full text in machine-readable format, will allow us to use fully-automated tools to distribute academic articles by the same route.

Academic articles are sometimes high-bandwidth, but their metadata is not. We could also distribute a database of the metadata, similar to Crossref but with distributed prooofreading and fewer COIs about things like linking to author repository fulltexts. We already have it; it's called WikiCite. Feedback on how it should evolve would be welcome.

Some care need to be taken with the database of metadata of open-access works. Database copyright is permitted in some countries; it may be necessary to take measures against copyrighting an index to Plan-S works. Even just building good proprietary tools on top of it (annotation, tagging, and recommendations, for instance, like Mendeley) could result in a group effectively controlling access to the tools needed by academics to work competitively in their field (an "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" strategy). If the group is democratically controlled by the academics, this is not a problem; if it seeks profit, even at the expense of academics in lower-income countries, it might be. The traditional solution to this problem is a copyleft license, such as the Open Database License (ODbL) successfully used by Open Streetmap, but you might be able to think of a solution compatible with CC-0, if stronger motives compel its retention. HLHJ (discusscontribs) 16:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata

Depending on how exactly plan S ends up implemented, WikiData could be an ideal location to store information for e.g. lists of journals, or databases that are plan-S compliant, since it's easily integrated with other databases and its history is fully audit-able. All papers will soon be listed in Wikidata, so supp info, COIs, etc could conceivably be included. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  1. 1.0 1.1 Allison, David B.; Brown, Andrew W.; George, Brandon J.; Kaiser, Kathryn A. (4 February 2016). "Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors" (in en). Nature News 530 (7588): 27. doi:10.1038/530027a. https://www.nature.com/news/reproducibility-a-tragedy-of-errors-1.19264. Retrieved 27 January 2019. 
  2. "Retraction challenges" (in en). Nature News 514 (7520): 5. 2 October 2014. doi:10.1038/514005a. https://www.nature.com/news/retraction-challenges-1.16023. Retrieved 27 January 2019. 

Version submitted to Plan S feedback form

To submit 14:00 UTC 08-02-2019 (1 hr pre-deadline)

Version submitted to Plan S feedback form
Q1
  • Metadata on conflicts of interest, errata, retractions, and trial registration should be more directly addressed, see below.
  • Lists will have to be kept of Plan-S compliant journals and databases — is there a plan for who will audit and store this information?
  • What does "All scholarly content" include, and what "other research outputs"? Could the guidelines be made expandable for e.g. open clinical trial registrations and open lab notebooks?
Q2
  • Wikipedia has problems with hard-to-identify conflicts of interest in academic papers (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_109#Sponsored_supplement?). Could machine-readable COI metadata, designed to resolve such problems, be included? This has also been called for by academics.[1]
  • Metadata on what errata, retractions, and supplementary data are available should be machine-readable. A third-party enquiries service, like PubPeer but with open licensing, should be set up.
  • The APC cap is likely necessary (Nat. Comms. APC = $5200) since otherwise it could end up excluding researchers supported by funders outside of Plan S to be excluded from Plan S journals. How will APC caps be decided and how often updated?
  • Barriers to market entry by new journals should be explicitly addressed.
  • The problem of third-party data reusers adding facilities and then limiting access, as in Mendeley's case, should be addressed.
  • As an openly editable and audit-able database, Wikidata may prove a useful location for storing information on e.g. Plan S compliant archives, article errata, supplementary data.

This feedback has been compiled and summarised from contributions of multiple people. For a full record of the discussion, please see https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group/Archive_4#Plan_S_RfC

  1. Dunn, Adam G.; Coiera, Enrico; Mandl, Kenneth D.; Bourgeois, Florence T. (2016-05-03). "Conflict of interest disclosure in biomedical research: a review of current practices, biases, and the role of public registries in improving transparency". Research Integrity and Peer Review 1: 1. doi:10.1186/s41073-016-0006-7. PMID 27158530. PMC 4854425. //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4854425/. 
Confirmation of receipt by Plan S feedback form

Dear contributor

On behalf of cOAlition S we would like to thank you for having taken the time to react and provide feedback on the implementation guidance of Plan S.

cOAlition S received input from over 600 individuals and organisations during this feedback exercise. Originating from over 40 countries, respondents include researchers, librarians and libraries, publishers and editors, universities, learned societies, research funders and performers, and other interested citizens and organisations. Never before have our diverse scholarly communities seen a debate on Open Access and the future of scholarly communications play out on such a global scale.

Responses are now being analysed and will feed into an updated version of the Plan S implementation guidance. An initial analysis of the feedback will be released in the spring and all feedback responses will be made openly available. We will inform you when the next steps of the process are complete.

Kind regards

Notes on Plan S compliance criteria

Below are the criteria for being Plan-S compliant in the same way that we checked the #Free Journal Network criteria. There are a few I'm not certain on so have marked them with a question mark. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

A word of caution: Plan S's criteria are provisional, and it is not clear how they would apply. Plan S compliance might be vital if we want money (APCs or subsidies), less so if we do not. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 20:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Good point, and for WikiJournals it's probably less vital considering that most articles are not publishing funded research. I suspect it will become commonplace for journals to indicate whether they are 'Plan-S compliant' if it gets implemented. The ones that we don't yet hit (especially JATS) may be useful long-term goals anyway. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I think Wikisource would probably meet "Deposition of content with a long-term digital preservation or archiving programme"; for most content, we'd just need to copy over some academic-article-specific templates, which should be pretty quick. We could obviously also host public domain and open-licensed articles from other journals there; there are fields where older articles are actually quite hard to get a hold of, as no-one has scanned them. Pandoc will convert Mediawiki markup to just about anything, including XML and LaTeX. It has limitations, but it should do us for much of the stuff needed below. I assumed the Wikijournals were already using it for PDFs etc. HLHJ (discusscontribs) 17:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Apparently there exists a GPL2 Pandoc extension that produces JATS XML. Pandoc will read Mediawiki markup.[8] so In theory this is a ready-made solution; in practice, there are likely to be bugs; the more obscure markups won't translate. Not sure how citations would work, my guess is badly but that's just pessimism, I don't know. HLHJ (discusscontribs) 00:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Basic mandatory criteria for Plan S compliant Open Access journals and platforms:

  • YesY The journal/platform must be registered in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) or in the process of being registered.
  • YesY All scholarly content must be openly accessible (journal website or dedicated platform) and free to read and download immediately upon publication, without any kind of technical or other form of obstacles.
  • YesY The journal/platform must enable authors to publish under a CC BY 4.0 license (alternatively CC BY-SA 4.0 or CC0).
  • YesY The journal/platform must offer authors/institutions the option of full copyright retention without any restrictions, i.e. no copyright transfer or license to publish that strips the author of essential rights.
  • YesY The journal/platform must have a solid system in place for review according to the standards within the relevant discipline, and according to the standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Details on this must be openly available through the website.
  • YesY The journal/platform must provide automatic APC waivers for authors from low-income countries and discounts for authors from middle-income countries.
  • YesY The journal must not have a mirror/sister subscription journal with substantial overlap in editorial board to avoid business models charging for both access and publication. Such journals will de facto be considered hybrid journals (see ‘Transformative Agreements’ below).

Mandatory quality criteria for Plan S compliant journals, platforms, and other venues:

  • YesY Transparent costing and pricing: information on the publishing costs and on any other factors impacting the publication fees (for example cross subsidising) must be openly available on the journal website/publishing platform. This must include details on direct costs, indirect costs and potential surplus.
  • YesY Use of DOIs as permanent identifiers (PIDs with versioning, for example in case of revisions).
  • N Deposition of content with a long-term digital preservation or archiving programme (such as CLOCKSS).
  • N Availability of the full text (including supplementary text and data when applicable and feasible) in machine readable format (for example XML), allowing for seamless Text and Data Mining (TDM).
    • Working out how to code WikiJournal articles in a JATS-compliant format should be possible, but we'd need assistance from a mediawiki developer.
  • YesY Linking to underlying data, code, and so on available in external repositories.
  • N High quality article level metadata – including cited references – in standard interoperable format, under a CC0 public domain dedication. Metadata must include complete and reliable information on funding provided by cOAlition S funders.
    • Header metadata implemented as XML subpage. CS1 citation system is well structured so hopefully possible to generate cited article metadata? Again, will need mediawiki developer assistance.
  • YesY Machine readable information on the Open Access status and the license embedded in the article.

Recommended additional criteria for journals and platforms:

  • YesY Support for PIDs for authors (such as ORCID), funders, funding programmes and grants, institutions, and so on.
  • N Direct deposition of publications by the publisher into Plan S compliant author designated or centralised Open Access repositories.
    • Problem will eventually need to be solved in order to be able to export articles to PMC some day.
  • N Openly accessible data on citations according to the standards by the Initiative for Open Citations I4OC.
    • as above on citations

Revised Plan S published

For those interested, the revised Plan S is out. Main changes:

  • Slightly relaxed technical requirements for some aspects
  • Hybrid journals allowed if part of a transition to OA
  • CC BY ND allowed
  • Delayed implementation timeline from 2020 to 2021

From my reading of this, WikiJournals should be fully compliant with the new mandatory criteria, and the additional recommended ones can be worked towards. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 07:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Research Preprints

I've submitted the information on WikiJPre to ResearchPreprints.org.

  • Homepage: wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJPre
  • Disciplines: all
  • Start:8 October 2017‎
  • Unique ID: URL
  • Licenses: CC licenses (CC-BY default)
  • Format submission: direct text (mediawiki)
  • Format publication: PDF & HTML
  • Owned: WikiJournal User Group
  • Governance: Advisory board
  • Business model: Hosted by WikiMedia Foundation nonprofit
  • Description: WikiJournal Preprints is an open-access online multidisciplinary pre-print server that operates on the MediaWiki platform. This makes it well suited to collaborative writing with detailed versioning and ability for commenting. Articles can be submitted to any journal, but the server is particularly well set up for submission to WikiJournals and subsequent Wikipedia-integration. It can also import wikipedia articles as startiing points for articles (wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiJPre).

I also suggested for them to add the well-maintained w:List of academic journals by preprint policy to the 'guidance for authors' section. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

WikiJournal Preprints server is now listed on ResearchPreprints.com. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Interested in Joining the Administration

I am a highly motivated writer/lecturer with doctoral level training in Quantum-nuclear physics, theology, and archaeology. I am very good at project formulation, guidance, and execution. My vision is to see scores of peer-reviewed Wiki Journals that cover a vast range of knowledge. I am the editor of numerous massive textbooks, dictionaries, study Bibles, and encyclopedias in the languages of India. At present I am working on an English, 3 volume, Encyclopedia of Indian Numismatics. I also have 85 Kindle publications of which the majority are non fiction.

I therefore apply to be made part of the Administration. Dr. Johnson C. Philip (discusscontribs) 17:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

See also w:Johnson Philip. Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 18:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I see his book "From abacus up to quantum computers" intended for wide audience, but I fail to find any his research in quantum (and/or nuclear) physics, intended for experts. I tried Web of Science, and other professional collections, in vain. Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 19:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The title you mentioned is available on Amazon.com. Let me add that I have a total of 85 titles on Amazon Kindle, and 75 of them are non-fiction. Dr. Johnson C. Philip (discusscontribs) 15:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: for those wishing to read and coment on the application, it is listed at this page. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 22:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I am 65 years old, and based in India. India did not have computer facilities at the time I was active in the University. So you cannot find anything on the net about my work in Quantum-nuclear Physics. My PhD was awarded in 1991 when Internet was not available in India. Dr. Johnson C. Philip (discusscontribs) 03:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI am very active in Numismatics and would love to see a review journal coming up in Numismatics, a field in which I have very wide contacts in India. Dr. Johnson C. Philip (discusscontribs) 03:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Table of contents for preprint talk pages?

I tried to add __TOC__ to the Talk (Discussion) page for an article submitted to WikiJMed, but it did not work. I also tried __FORCETOC__ but that did not work either. I searched for __NOTOC__ but did not see it either, so I am assuming that including a Table of Contents is not allowed by some other method.

If that is correct, is there a reason we do not have Table of Contents for preprint Talk pages? Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Markworthen: Hmm, the TOC is meant to appear on the right hand side in preprints. I'll check whether there is a rendering issue in different browsers. The TOC is meant to be called by the main {{article info}} template so I'm surprised that __FORCETOC__ didn't override it. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I, for one, see it on the right hand side (for now). Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 05:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah ha! Thank you Boris. It might have been there all along, but I'm so conditioned to look for it in the body of the article I thought it was missing.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Laboratory notebook

Discussing content produced by teachers and students during ranging syllabuses (in universities) on french wikiversity research name-space topics, I came with the idea of "Laboratory wiki-notebooks".

In case you'd be interested in elaborating (for or with your students) I quickly translate the idea here.

"One thing that I think would be relevant is that these "contributions" of "practical directed work" can be put at use beyond 'learning'. Concerning my thesis in environmental assessment, I regret that the machine park in higher education is not used to provide Life Cycle Inventory data (basic data for environmental assessment). Many of the "practical directed work" during my studies have concerned the production and characterization of materials (Baccalaureate in materials, higher technician diploma in industrial product design and finally engineering syllabus). If these "practical works" were documented and accompanied by the neighboring fields (Laboratory Sciences and Techniques) for measurements and characterization of emissions and effluents, all supported by wikiversity and wikidata, we would have the capacity to document a nice range of processes. It would result in a learning work that is not only useful for teaching (courses, operating modes, lexicographical studies of productions for the educational sciences etc.), but also for environmental assessment (with a high diversity of replications, a very interesting characterization of dispersion and uncertainty data). In the laboratories (at least the one I was in), CNRS's UMR (mixed researched unit, a way for CNRS to look bigger ;-), we have"Laboratory notebook". They are scarcely used for research (to my knowledge), unfortunately more for the lucrative property that could result from it (as proof of prior art), but epistemologically speaking, I find it very rich. Moreover, if these "laboratory notebooks" were open and in CC-BY-SA it would greatly reduce the lucrative depredation on knowledge"

Currently for the rare occasion were I start an english research page, it's a draft of wikijournal article (Either the co-author is wiki-shy or he's not that interested). This space for "searching" is currently debated in the french wikiversity (will it be "NOINDEX" sub-user or sub-project pages..., We'll see). Anyway I believe for the benefit of Higher Education, the border between 'schooly' learning and 'research learning' should in my opinion have some room here.

--RP87 (discusscontribs) 10:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@RP87: Thank you for the info! It is a pity that the CNRS isn't more widely used. I'd heard of something similar for participants of the iGem synthetic biology competition, but it would be interesting to see something like this used more widely and integrated into other wikis. There's also a few experiments in documenting experimental protocols in a similar way at https://openwetware.org. I think these sorts of initiatives will slowly gain traction as electronic lab notebooks become the norm. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Open-notebook science. It's a great idea. If Visual Editor handled tables really well, it would be a lot more practical; last I checked, it did not do them at all. HLHJ (discusscontribs) 00:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

ReimagineReview

Reimagine Review is "a registry of platforms and experiments innovating around peer review". We may want to enter the registry in order to share our experience, now or at a later stage. We would have to describe the salient features of peer review at WikiJournals, starting (imho) with the Wikipedia-style openness of the platform, where anyone can contribute to the Talk page and/or edit the article under review. To get a precise idea of which information we would have to provide, see for example Peerage of Science's entry. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 22:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sylvain Ribault: Very interesting, I'd not come across that. I've signed in to have a look at the submission form and it looks very reasonable. I think that we should apply as soon as practical, since there is not real benefit for delay on this one. The main relevant questions to think about are below. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Sylvain Ribault: I agree with the items you've ticked. I've added some stats for the final section. Feel free to use those you think are most interesting (or add others I've not thought of). I'm happy for you to fill in the application form, or I can if you prefer. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability: They want "project leaders" to fill the form, you fit the description better. Thanks for the stats, two remarks: 1. How many articles were rejected? We should distinguish articles that were rejected from articles that are still under review. 2. Clarify that the 6.9 million views are to the Wikipedia versions, if that is true. Distinguish Wikipedia metrics (pageviews) and WikiJournal article metrics (citations, AltMetric). Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 20:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Sylvain Ribault: V. good points, especially making clear which stats apply to the journal version vs the wikipedia version. Of the 13 articles not accepted, 1 was withdrawn and 12 were rejected. I'll tackle the application today. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Sylvain Ribault: I've now submitted so it'll be listed after review by their team. It also seems that it is possible to update the details if new features are added, or to update statistics. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The WikiJournal User Group is now listed on ReimagineReview. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Splendid!Let's hope that initiative leads to interesting exchanges. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 20:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  1. Description of the project - In a nutshell, what is the project about and how does it work? (150 words maximum)
    The three WikiJournals (Medicine, Science and Humanities) are Wikipedia-integrated academic journals. This firstly means that in addition to research articles, they also publish Wikipedia-style encyclopedic review articles. These review articles can be written from scratch or based on Wikipedia articles, and can be integrated back into Wikipedia after peer review. Secondly, the WikiJournals are hosted and supported by the Wikimedia Foundation and so are free to both authors and to readers. And third, the WikiJournals use the same MediaWiki software as Wikipedia. Articles automatically benefit from features like version control and discussion pages, and anyone can edit them, including the peer reviewers, and the journals' academic editors.
  2. Goals - What are the main motivations that inspired the project and what will it accomplish? (150 words maximum)
    The main original goal of WikiJournals is to encourage and recognize contributions to Wikipedia by academics. To do this, the WikiJournals allow Wikipedia articles to have named authors, DOIs, a stable PDF version of record, and to undergo academic peer review. Moreover, WikiJournals strive to achieve a broad thematic scope that covers practically all fields of research, and to provide a zero cost, open access publishing venue for the fields that lack one. And finally, WikiJournals implement recognized best practices, in particular a form of open peer review where not only the reviews are made public, but also anyone can contribute.
  3. Areas of innovation tickbox options:
    • YesYCosts: in money and/or time and resources
    • YesYQuality of review: rigor, thoroughness, or tone of the review
    • Bias in review
    • Incentives and recognition for reviewing
    • Reviewer training
    • Speed
    • YesYTransparency
  4. Transparency tickbox options:
    • YesYDouble blind: Reviewers are unaware of the authors’ identities, and vice versa
    • YesYOpen interaction: Reviewers communicate with one another during the review process
    • YesYOpen reports: The content of peer review reports is published
    • YesYOpen identities: The identities of peer reviewers are published
    • YesYOpen participation: Anyone can participate in the peer review process
    • YesYSingle blind: Authors are unaware of reviewers’ identities, but NOT vice versa
  5. Process tickbox options:
    • YesYAuthor initiates review: The author decides to initiate the peer review process. Eg, traditional journal review is initiated by the authors’ submission.
    • Comment moderation: Comments are screened or moderated before or after posting.
    • Journal integration: (For review happening outside the traditional journal format) editors at one or more journals integrate the content of the review into their own processes or the final presentation of the paper
    • Pre-publication review: Review prior to public disclosure (of a preprint or other output) Reviewer or editor initiates review
    • Comment indexing: Comments are given a DOI or included in disciplinary databases
    • Comment rating (meta-evaluation): Comments can be up- or down-voted, highlighted, or reviewed themselves.
    • YesYPost-publication review: Review after public disclosure (or a preprint or other output)
    • YesYProfessional editors
    • Preregistration
    • Reviewer or editor initiates review: The review process is started without the involvement of the author, as in a comment left on a website
  6. Notes on review features - Please describe any features or functionality not adequately described by the categories above.
    Thanks to the MediaWiki platform, peer review at WikiJournals is extremely flexible. While comments themselves are always made public, the authors, reviewers and other participants may be named, pseudonymous or anonymous. Interactions between all the participants are possible before, during and after the review process. Reviewers may choose to perform small corrections themselves, rather than suggesting them to authors. And authors are able to revert modifications thanks to version control.
  7. Eligible reviewers/editors - How are reviewers and/or editors selected, and/or who is eligible to comment?
    Editors are selected for their professional credentials as researchers, their experience with academic publishing, and their experience with open projects and in particular Wikipedia. Reviewers are selected for their status as experts in the reviewed article's subject matter. As in Wikipedia, anyone is eligible to comment: it is not even necessary to create an account.
  8. Criteria for inclusion - What does it mean for a scholarly output to be associated with the project and/or associated tags or badges?
    Articles are accepted for publication (inc, PDF, doi, indexing etc) once they have been been assessed by at least two external peer reviewers (invited by the editorial board) and their responses and edits have been agreed to by both the peer reviewers and editorial board. Suitable material is integrated into Wikipedia, as a 'living version' where it is available for post-publication review and freely editable by anyone.
  9. Metrics - Do you track usage and participation of this project? After participation in the experiment, do you request or receive feedback regarding the review experience? Do you have statistics on how the review results are used? Or are there other indicators of that you use?
    Currently tracked are: The number of times that an article is read in the journal and on Wikipedia (for those integrated into Wikipedia); Number of pre-publication peer reviewers; Post-publication peer review; The Social media impact of each article by AltMetric.com. Later, an impact factor will be sought by ISI Web of Science.
  10. Results summary - Briefly summarize the results of the project or trial. For more details, see the “Policies” page. (150 word maximum)
    49 submitted articles, 36 accepted for publication.
    27 published articles integrated into Wikipedia (of which 8 were adapted by updating/overhauling existing Wikipedia content).
    Mean number of external peer reviewers = 3.1 per article, additional suggestions from editors = 1.2 per article, spontaneous pre-publication suggestions from readers = 0.1 per article.
    extensive post-publication commentary performed on 'living' Wikipedia versions of articles.
    75% of peer reviewers choose to have their identity open
    WikiJournal articles integrated in full or part into Wikipedia receive 6.9 million views per annum so far.
    Combined citations 121 per G-scholar
    Combined AltMetric score >200.
@Evolution and evolvability: The stats in Point 10 are interesting, it would be nice to display them more prominently somewhere. And to complete them with more general data and conclusions from our experience so far. In particular, I would be very curious to know where the authors who submitted to WikiJournals come from, and how they learned about the journals. It indeed seems that the number of good submissions is the main factor that limits the growth of the journals. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 21:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


Selling wikijournal.org

Moved to here from Talk:WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Cell_disassembly_during_apoptosis. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk

Hello all, I have decided to sell domain name wikijournal.org.
If you are intersted in it, please drop me a message to personal email: philcrosoft@mail.ru - 09:51, 11 March 2019‎ Fokebox (discuss | contribs | block)‎

This message was already posted here and I deleted it as spam. @T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk: why do you think it is not spam? Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 08:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Sylvain Ribault: Ah, I didn't see it was posted here first. I thought it was only added to the peer review page of that article. It is certainly the case that own that domain (there were discussions a few years back (when only WikiJMed) existed about using it. The idea was dropped because a merger with the existing content was incompatible - ie not peer reviewed. It's possible that the domain name could be useful to redirect to WikiJournal_User_Group. If it turns out to be spam, definitely remove again though. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
It is not a spam, I really sell the domain and website compleately under full control (existing content can be delted). If it is impossible to buy than I can give it to use according to the ideas of WikiJournal User group under the donations (hosting, ssl certificates) etc). You can contact me via Whats upp +79858889947 --Fokebox (discusscontribs) 13:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Distinction between encyclopedia and scholarly journal; copying content from one to another

I'm grateful that a recent article WikiJournal of Science/RIG-I like receptors is published and that it's integrated into w:en:RIG-I-like receptor. However, strangely I couldn't find a significant difference between the two pages in their own current forms. If WikiJournal articles and Wikipedia articles become more similar to each other content-wise, what would happen to the distinction between an encyclopedia and a scholarly (academic) journal? How different must a Wikipedia article and a WikiJournal article be from each other? An encyclopedia typically gives a general overview of distinctive topics, while a scholarly journal typically summarizes research conducted by typically academics. What are similarities and differences with an encyclopedia and a scholarly journal? George Ho (discusscontribs) 02:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

While both can present topical reviews on notable subjects only a scholarly journal can publish original research. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 19:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, a free, open encyclopedia can be useful for the general/lay reader; scholarly journals, particularly ones requiring payment to view, are traditionally not. Wikipedia is also a multi-lingual body of work. The benefits of incorporating scholarly material into the fifth most popular website in the world (as of January 2019) include more scientific accuracy for the reader, as well as more recognition for the academics providing the information (if the references are consulted). Some edits for "layman speak" are traditionally made as well, as long as the essential scientific content is not disrupted. | This article shows how Wikipedia is consulted for medical information, particularly for rare diseases, more often than even PubMed or some other outlets. Sherylock (discusscontribs) 16:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

WikiJournal participation in Wikimedia 2030 Strategy

The 2019 WikiMedia Summit in Berlin is coming up on the 29th of March. The scoping documents have just been released to guide the 3-day-long discussion on the Wikimedia Movement strategy for the next 10 years. There will be >200 representatives there from the different national chapters, user groups, affiliates, trustees, WMF staff and specialist invitees. I'll be representing the WikiJournal User Group at the summit and aiming to focus on what WikiJournals can offer, as well as their preferences. I'll also try to convey the interests of the academic community as a whole where possible. If there are any ideas or feedback on the scoping documents, please let me know below and I'll make sure to raise them during the summit. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Scoping documents prepared by respective Working Groups

Summary of WM 2030 Strategy Summit (Berlin)

This is my brief summary of the [[metawiki:Wikimedia_Summit_2019|2019 WikiMedia Summit in Berlin]]. I think that the Wikimedia Strategy Summit was very valuable - hopefully for both the WikiJournals and for the movement as a whole. There was a very intense and productive atmosphere amongst the delegates. Below are some of the items relevant to the WikiJournal User Group.

Resource allocation
  • Based on our experiences, I raised the point that although money can be requested via rapid grant, other assistance is currently difficult to request / requisition, e.g.:
    • Advocacy by WMF on a specific issue
    • PR / advertising
    • Press release
    • Social media post/repost
    • Legal advice
    • Official contact when making new partnerships
Partnerhips
  • We have useful experience in forming partnerships, as well as inviting external auditing and oversight that could be potentially relevant to other user groups
  • I recommended that the successes of the WikiJournals could be used by the WMF as PR
    • example of quality and auditability
    • as example link to wider 'big open' knowledge ecosystem
Community health
  • Several other usergroups expressed interest in the code of conduct that we're drafting. There is potential for it be useful as a template CoCs for other user groups (or even projects).
Other relevant discussions

Several attendees suggested using WikiJHum as an avenue for gathering oral histories in a systematic fashion, i.e. covering a gap in wikisource and commons for recording information to generate reliable sources for topics that currently lack them.

It was recommended that we update the sister project application and re-submit it

  • Gather updated user stats and contribs
  • Notify all relevant Wikiprojects (and other relevant locations)
  • Possible platform for other journals to join (e.g. PLOS, Gene, RNA biol etc.)
  • Write a new opinion editorial on what we think WikiJournals could be by 2030 (concrete goals, stretch goals, speculative ideas)
Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees election

This is the first year where Affiliate groups (like us) are able to vote in a candidate to the WMF board of trustees. (see #Update_on_the_Affiliate-selected_Board_seats_2019_process below for more details). The two relevant points:

  1. If anyone wishes to put themself forward as a candidate, the criteria and process are here.
  2. Once candidates are all announced, we can discuss and vote on which we want the WikiJournal User Group to support. Our user group then casts a single vote in the election (183 affiliate groups will be voting).

I'm happy to go into more detail on any of the elements above, just ask below. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Note, the summary document for the Berlin WM 2030 Strategy Summit is now published here. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Strategy Liaison

A the moment, I am the default strategy liaison, however if anyone else would like to be the strategy liaison, I'd be happy to be involved in a supporting role. The main elements are:

  1. Facilitate discussions about what WikiJournals can contribute to the Wikimedia Strategy 2030 and keep the WMF up to date (summary)
  2. Cast the vote on the #Update_on_the_Affiliate-selected_Board_seats_2019_process Affiliate-selected Wikimedia Foundation trustee based on WikiJournal User Group consensus (summary, list)
"Strategy Liaisons appointed by Organized Groups will act as a conduit for ideas, questions, and updates. This will enable Organized Groups to participate effectively in the Movement Strategy Process and ensure that voices and perspectives of organizations and collaboratives are well heard and considered. The Liaison will be engaged in (pro)active communication with the Working Groups and the Core Team to ensure that their organization is up to date with the overall process and its internal conversations are synchronous and well connected to global discussions."

If you'd like to be involved just leave a note below and email editor.in.chief@wikijmed.org, contact@wikijsci.org, and contact@wikijhum.org. I'll forward on the email that was sent after the Berlin summit. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm just posting to express an interest in having the role of Strategy Liaison until December 2019. Jacknunn (discusscontribs) 02:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jacknunn: I'd be happy to support you in that role. I'll forward you the email information and show you how to notify the WMF team that you'll be the main contact for this part of the process. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I have now onboarded Jack Nunn as a Strategy Liaison for the WikiJournal User Group via going through the links in the "Affiliate community conversations: post-Summit launch" email from Kelsi Stine-Rowe. I'll assist him through the process in a support role. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Double blind peer review (once again)

Although this has already been discussed earlier vide Talk:WikiJournal User Group#Double blinded vs open system of peer review, this is in context of Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine#SCOPUS reapplication and Talk:WikiJournal User Group#ReimagineReview. I know that there was no definite or pertinent objection to Double blind peer review and that the boards had approved optional double blind peer review. However, I would like to quote my own words from the initial discussion "..double blinding indeed should help in eliminating bias. As the articles get published, the entire details of the author and reviewer gets revealed in accordance to the choices mentioned. So, this is an issue of the journal standards. It cannot be optional. It is there or it isn't there. A middle path should not exist here. Diptanshu 💬 13:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)"

@Mikael Häggström, Evolution and evolvability, Fransplace: could you please take up the matter once again in the periodic conference calls and discuss whether it would be feasible to convert the optional part to obligatory or none at all options? I feel that optional does not serve any purpose. If one can point the significance of this being optional I am eager to listen to their perspective though. Diptanshu 💬 11:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Curiously, what's wrong with making public peer review (i.e. revealing authors' identities) the default choice? I'm unsure why you like switching the default to double-blind peer review and dislike it as "optional". To me, double-blind peer review would increase the risk of spammers and fraudulence, but I can see why authors and reviewers conceal each others' identities. Why not compromise and accept the peer review method as the "optional" choice and leave the default (open review) method as-is? --George Ho (discusscontribs) 23:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
George Ho I understand that you are well-intended but I doubt whether you understand what double blinding is about. Here is what I would suggest:
  • Please go through the details of the discussion at Talk:WikiJournal User Group#Double blinded vs open system of peer review
  • Please give an example scenario on how you think double-blind peer review would increase the risk of spammers and fraudulence.
  • Please get in touch with Bob Cummings <cummings@go.olemiss.edu>, the Managing Editor of Wiki Studies a journal which runs on the double blind peer review model. Also feel free to get in touch with Frances who happens to be on the board of Wiki Studies and well as the EiC of WikiJournal of Humanities. Feel free to get in touch with any of the actual journals running on this model and get a feedback on whether they have faced your apprehension as a reality. I would assume their experience to be of practical value over the apprehensions of anyone who has no idea of how it works. Your research will perhaps hold some value to at least some of WikiJournal board members who have no idea what it is really about but would nevertheless play a decisive role in the matter.
After you are done with all the three home-works and can declare that you understand what it is all about, I would be happy to tell you why "optional" does not serve any purpose. Rather, if the boards are really apprehensive about this development they can feel free to declare that they think double blinding to be a risky proposal and then they can dump it altogether. It is curious that the SCOPUS, ReimagineReview or similar platforms do not think the same about double-blinded reviews. But if opinions hold priority on validity and evidence, then why not?
I would wait to hear back from you after you have carried out the home tasks I have given you. I do not want to reinvent the wheel. Diptanshu 💬 07:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Diptanshu Das: I disagree that double-blind review cannot be optional. Firstly, providing it as optional gives opportunity to test author preferences over the next year. Secondly, I don't think that having fully open review in one case would invalidate those submissions that choose to be double-blinded until publication. Full double-blinding is also impossible for some submissions where editors use their real names as usernames. Double blinding has proven useful in some fields (and indeed the gold standard in much of the humanities), but its effects have been inconclusive in other fields, which is why there was not unanimous support in the editorial boards for its implementation as default or compulsory. More info in the meeting notes. Would you consent to this section being moved to be with the earlier discussion to keep the discussion together? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability: I forgot to add in my last communication to your that I would not be following up with any of given threads which I had initiated (on-wiki or otherwise). So, address the issues if they need to be addressed and not for the requirement to provide a response. As regards the given issue pertaining to double blinding, you people would be able to decide on what works best for you. Regarding the consideration of optionality, may be you could try making peer-review optional and see if all users would be interested in opting for it (just saying). Regarding the issue of users using their real name as username, double blinding can still be easy. Just ask them not to make the submission on-wiki. The subsequent edits can be made by anybody and do not necessarily indicate authorship. Diptanshu 💬 09:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Outcome: no change in recommending open identities for both authors and peer reviewers, but either/both may opt to be anonymous (with author names being displayed upon acceptance). Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 16:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Update on the Affiliate-selected Board seats 2019 process

I am copying this update (below) that was posted at our other, generally unused, Talk page, as this information is somewhat important for our upcoming attention. --- FULBERT (discusscontribs) 17:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Update on the Affiliate-selected Board seats 2019 process

Hi all,

The Election Facilitators met on Friday, April 5. We finalized the resolution, which is now frozen. The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation will be asked to approve the resolution.

We have made two small changes to be more inclusive. We extended the date for compliance with AffCom reporting and being in good standing to May 7 to allow time for as many Affiliates as possible to be current with these requirements. The Election Facilitators adjusted the language in case a quorum is not met during the election.

On the talk page of the resolution one issue was raised. The issue looks like to be about a possible candidate. Affiliates will have ample time to discuss the merits of candidates during nomination time, screening time, and they can cast their votes on candidates. The Election Facilitators didn't see the necessity for this change, and left the resolution on this point unchanged.

The Election Facilitators will be Abhinav Srivastava, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Ad Huikeshoven, Neal McBurnett and Alessandro Marchetti. We will welcome more volunteers to assist us in this process, to reach out to the diversity in language and gender in our communities, and do so in an advisory role.

The nomination period opens on April 15. We are going to prepare nomination pages on Meta. You can expect a call for nominations. There is a draft call, including a candidates' profile section with non-binding guidelines about experience and characteristics for nominees. You are welcome to add your insights, or discuss on the talk page.

Erica Litrenta (WMF staff) supports us in this process. She will reach out to all affiliates through mail and other channels to make sure we are up to date with (user)name and contact details of your primary contact.

On behalf of the Election Facilitators, Ad Huikeshoven 10:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


As one of the Election Facilitators in the ASBS process this year, I will recuse myself from discussing nominees or anything specific with our user group's voting in this election.
However, as a member of this user group, I do want to ensure that we have these discussions.
To this point, I request that those who are our user group representatives to AffComm begin the discussion about how this will happen and how our user group membership will discuss this. Our User Group representatives should have already received emails about this process and notice about an informal Telegram group where User Group representatives are gathering to discuss how this may be done, as this will be a new experience for all of us. Thank you. --- FULBERT (discusscontribs) 17:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Update about the Affiliate-selected Board seats process 2019

Infographic about the process, with clickable links.
Infographic about the process, with clickable links.

Hello everyone!

  • The Resolution has been approved by the Board of Trustees;
  • Nominations phase is now open, from April 15 00:00 UTC to April 30 23:59 UTC. See the Call for Candidates and Nominations pages;
    • Community members may ask questions of the candidates;
  • Your main representative has just received an email to confirm that they are indeed the primary contact and will perform official actions on behalf of your group (such as endorsing candidates and then voting). Some groups also need to verify their eligibility status in due time, as explained in the email;
  • New content is available to spread awareness around the process - the infographic on this page has clickable links and can be translated, and a primer is available, that we hope will be particularly helpful to those new to such a process;
  • Finally, you are welcome to help with translations! Pick one page from the ASBS category and, in the next couple of weeks, please consider translating profiles of the candidates in particular.

Thanks for your attention! The Facilitators for ASBS 2019, 07:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I tweaked the coding on the list delivery for the ASBS process, so we should no longer miss any of these. This was the first one since then, so are getting these as expected. Now the real work begins! --- FULBERT (discusscontribs) 15:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Who is our AffCom Rep and Who is voting for us in the ASBS elections?

I am a bit confused over who our AffCom Rep is and who is our delegated voter in the ASBS elections, given our User Group has a vote both in nominations and in the election itself. Is this accurate as listed on the Affiliate-selected Board seats/2019/Eligible entities page? Pinging Mikael_Häggström and Evolution_and_evolvability and User:Elitre_(WMF) for clarification. For full disclosure, I am asking as a member of this User Group, and as an Election Facilitator in the ASBS process, I cannot vote in it. However, I want to make sure this is clear and our members are aware of it. --- FULBERT (discusscontribs) 20:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, FULBERT, for keeping the group updated through these posts! I am registered as the spokesperson in this process, but I don't see any name mentioned from our group yet, so unless anyone want to nominate anyone within the next day, I will make no nomination from our group. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 04:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Since the User Group gets to endorse two nominees to go through the the final voting stage (though that doesn't lock us into casting our final vote for them), my preferences would be for: Kayode Yussuf and Douglas Scott. I spoke to Kayode Yussuf at the Berlin 2019 summit, and I think his perspective is well thought-through and his experience with Creative Commons would be useful. I think Douglas Scott's work with The Safety Lab is also nicely in-line with promoting online community health over the coming years. They both would be good representatives of the Global South. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: Another board member noted on the mailing list that they also recommend Douglas Scott. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 15:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I've now added endorsements at:
Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 15:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Small update: They have now been moved to the talk pages of those pages. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Affiliate-selected Board seats 2019 process: your representative

Nuvola apps important.png

Hello. The name of the only person who will vote on behalf of this group to select the next two Board members is now at m:Affiliate-selected Board seats/2019/Eligible entities. Please contact me directly as soon as possible if you need any kind of corrections there. There's only a few hours left to endorse candidates, and only the official voter can do that. I would also like to take this opportunity to remind you that you can make a difference with the necessary translations.

Appreciate your attention and your support so far! Thank you! Elitre (WMF) and Facilitators of ASBS 2019, 12:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Elitre (WMF). I made endorsements as mentioned in previous section. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Board of trustees nominees questions page

The nominees are beginning to answer the questions laid out for them at this page:

meta:Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Questions

They should all have their answers posted by the 8th of May and the final voting deadline will be on the 31st of May. I propose that we discuss them over the month and tally up support for the candidates so that Mikael can cast the consensus vote of this user group on the 31st. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Almost all candidates have now finished making their statements and answers to questions at this page. Since the voting deadline is 31 May 2019, I think we should dicuss who (if any) the WikiJournal User Group would support so that our nominated voter (Mikael Haggstrom) can cast the vote. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 13:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion & votes

Hi there. I have just seen the email and thought I'd launch the discussion on the new members to join the board of trustees. The WikiJournal User Group should support candidates who are committed to advancing the group mission and core pillars. Having read the candidates' statements, I believe the candidates to be considered are:

  • strong Symbol support vote.svg Support to Shani Evenstein, for her involvement in free knowledge from an academic perspective and her strong stand for transparency and accountability in decision-making. She is the chair of the UG Wikipedia & Education, with which the WikiJournal User Group shares a direct affinity.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support to Richard Knipel, for his involvement in free knowledge from an academic perspective. It is worth emphasizing he is a member of the Wiki Education Foundation.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support to Taweetham Limpanuparb, for his involvement in free knowledge from an academic perspective

From the Q&A with candidates, I'd recommend reading answers to: How do we deliver the improved accountability and transparency expected by our editing community. I hope you are enjoying a great Sunday. Cheers from São Paulo, Brazil. --Joalpe (discusscontribs) 13:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

There are a number of excellent candidates with interesting experience and ideas (including Taweetham Limpanuparb, Kayode Yussuf). However overall, my support goes to:

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support to Shani Evenstein - I particularly liked her analysis of the major disrupting factors and risks that will likely affect the WMF, and it's future role.

T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I have now submitted our support to Shani Evenstein as per above. I was also able to submit votes of lesser rank to other candidates, so I also entered the others mentioned. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 21:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


New Affiliations Committee appointments

AffCom is excited to share with you the news that the Wikimedia Foundation Board has unanimously approved the changes to the Bylaws during the last Board meeting on January 30, 2019.

This change allows the participation of User Groups in the Affiliate-selected Board seats (ASBS) 2019 process.

To read the Board's announcement, please click here

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Help us make Wikipedia talk pages more accessible to more participants

Hello!

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As an affiliate, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants, or it is an consultation that would interest your members.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities.

We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for groups that can discuss and report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate, with the user groups that you belong to. You can learn more about the consultation at Mediawiki.org and if you're interested in hosting a group discussion (on-wiki or off-wiki), you can sign up at the participant sign-up group.

If you’d like to participate or if you have any questions, please contact us and let us know. The more people participate from many horizons, the better the outcome will be.

Thank you! Trizek (WMF) 15:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Call for complementary facilitators and more to get the ASBS 2019 process started!

User (13635) - The Noun Project.svg

Hi everyone, hope all is fine with you!

The next weeks will be intense, as affiliates figure out their participation in the process that will soon select 2 people for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Since new Bylaws established that the user groups are for the first time going to be involved in such process, a lot more support than before is certainly going to be necessary, among other things, for big and healthy conversations on the topic. Hence, please encourage members of your group to become a complementary facilitator, or sign up yourself! You can add yourself to the list on Meta or reply to me to flag availability. One person from the facilitators group should soon be selected to liaise with the Foundation Board’s Chair, María Sefidari, on behalf of all affiliates, and it may be wise to also find a deputy for them.

Finally, if you can think of any huge obstacles that would prevent your group from participating to the process (for instance, a language barrier, or lack of good decision-making mechanisms, etc.), please reach out to me directly: it is really important that we hear about them as early as possible. Thank you! Elitre (WMF) 15:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Update on the Affiliate-selected Board seats 2019 process

Hi all,

The Election Facilitators met on Friday, April 5. We finalized the resolution, which is now frozen. The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation will be asked to approve the resolution.

We have made two small changes to be more inclusive. We extended the date for compliance with AffCom reporting and being in good standing to May 7 to allow time for as many Affiliates as possible to be current with these requirements. The Election Facilitators adjusted the language in case a quorum is not met during the election.

On the talk page of the resolution one issue was raised. The issue looks like to be about a possible candidate. Affiliates will have ample time to discuss the merits of candidates during nomination time, screening time, and they can cast their votes on candidates. The Election Facilitators didn't see the necessity for this change, and left the resolution on this point unchanged.

The Election Facilitators will be Abhinav Srivastava, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Ad Huikeshoven, Neal McBurnett and Alessandro Marchetti. We will welcome more volunteers to assist us in this process, to reach out to the diversity in language and gender in our communities, and do so in an advisory role.

The nomination period opens on April 15. We are going to prepare nomination pages on Meta. You can expect a call for nominations. There is a draft call, including a candidates' profile section with non-binding guidelines about experience and characteristics for nominees. You are welcome to add your insights, or discuss on the talk page.

Erica Litrenta (WMF staff) supports us in this process. She will reach out to all affiliates through mail and other channels to make sure we are up to date with (user)name and contact details of your primary contact.

On behalf of the Election Facilitators, Ad Huikeshoven 10:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Update about the Affiliate-selected Board seats process 2019

ASBS 2019.pdf

Hello everyone!

  • The Resolution has been approved by the Board of Trustees;
  • Nominations phase is now open, from April 15 00:00 UTC to April 30 23:59 UTC. See the Call for Candidates and Nominations pages;
    • Community members may ask questions of the candidates;
  • Your main representative has just received an email to confirm that they are indeed the primary contact and will perform official actions on behalf of your group (such as endorsing candidates and then voting). Some groups also need to verify their eligibility status in due time, as explained in the email;
  • New content is available to spread awareness around the process - the infographic on this page has clickable links and can be translated, and a primer is available, that we hope will be particularly helpful to those new to such a process;
  • Finally, you are welcome to help with translations! Pick one page from the ASBS category and, in the next couple of weeks, please consider translating profiles of the candidates in particular.

Thanks for your attention! The Facilitators for ASBS 2019, 07:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Affiliate-selected Board seats 2019 process: your representative

Nuvola apps important.png

Hello. The name of the only person who will vote on behalf of this group to select the next two Board members is now at m:Affiliate-selected Board seats/2019/Eligible entities. Please contact me directly as soon as possible if you need any kind of corrections there. There's only a few hours left to endorse candidates, and only the official voter can do that. I would also like to take this opportunity to remind you that you can make a difference with the necessary translations.

Appreciate your attention and your support so far! Thank you! Elitre (WMF) and Facilitators of ASBS 2019, 12:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


Unified location to view all open editorial applications

There has been a problem for a little while that often new editorial board and associate editor applications are missed, leading to low vote tally, and delayed on-boarding. This is partly because applications were separated by journal and by editor type. To help address this:

  1. All open applications are now collected together here: Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group/Editors
  2. There is a plan to send out a monthly email listing the open applications

I'm hopeful that together these should help with the issue. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

SHERPA/RoMEO

I've submitted to the details for the WikiJournal User Group as a publisher to SHERPA/RoMEO via the publisher submission form. I've also submitted the details for the individual journals via the journal submission form. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


Missing Talk / Discussion Page Posts

Our User group appears to be missing a number of recent communications from the WMF, and I recently spotted this as related to the ASBS process. With a few others, we seem to have tracked down the issue . . . the official Talk or Discussion page for our WikiJournal User Group is not here, but actually here. If you click the Show button there, then you may notice a number of communication items, including important issues related to the upcoming ASBS Board Election, that some of us may have otherwise missed.

Should we alert AffCom and any other powers that be that this page here should be where our automatic WMF posts should be delivered? --- FULBERT (discusscontribs) 17:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this, FULBERT. I have received important updates directly by email from the Affiliations Committee (which I however haven't really been dealing with in a timely manner recently), but nevertheless I have now sent an email to them, asking to switch to this page for announcements etc. I'll also enlarge the note there stating that this is the main talk page. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

A new Code of Conduct for WikiJournals: Feedback invited

Although I suppose that this post should have come here from some WikiJournal board member, I assume that it has somehow been missed out. For WikiJournal User Group members who do not subscribe to or follow the email list, let me mention that vide this thread on the mailing list the following announcement has been made:

Hello to all those interested in WikiJournals,
In collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation’s trust and safety team, a code of conduct has been drafted over the last few months. We have drawn inspiration from CoCs used in different Wikimedia areas and open projects (listed below the draft).
Draft code of conduct available here
WikiJournal User Group/Code of conduct/Draft
Everyone is welcome to provide suggestions on how to improve it: please join the discussion here
Talk:WikiJournal User Group/Code of conduct/Draft!
We aim to put the draft to a vote to implement on the 14th of May.
(Eligible voters = authors + reviewers + editorial boards + associate editors + members with >30 contribs to any WikiJournal space).
Sincerely,
Thomas Shafee

Diptanshu 💬 12:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for re-posting the above note! I thought I'd posted on this page as the first location, but I must have failed to save. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Since a couple of people have emailed saying that they still intend to comment, I think it is sensible to delay voting until the the start of June to give time for feedback and implementation of changes. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Invest in Open Infrastructure project

Is everyone aware of this: https://investinopen.org/docs/statement0.2 --Leighblackall (discusscontribs) 01:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Very interesting. I'd not come across this particular group. I did go to a talk on the topic from an Austrlaian perspective (summarised here), so it's good to see how widespread the ideas are. If people agree, there are two small ways we can get involved:
I can also email them to make sure they're more broadly informed of what we're doing here. My position is I think it would be worth doing all of the above, since its aims align with ours and it also ensures that they are aware of our work here. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Good to see. Please do. I think it needs to be linked up. For what it's worth, they are using a web based annotation extension called Hypothesis. I added an annotation linking them to the Wikiversity Journals Group page. Leighblackall (discusscontribs) 05:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I see no disadvantages to supporting this and many advantages; it looks like a very measured project which realised that OA costs money and someone must invest. Roger Rwatson1955 (discusscontribs) 05:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I also notice that Wikipedia Library is a supporter (via Ocaasi). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I've now signed the User Group up as a supporter of the project. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)