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


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)

Application of WikiJSci for 2019[edit]

Deadline = 31 Dec. We will decide in December whether to apply or postpone until next year.

We have to check that WikiJSci fulfills the 'hard criteria':

  1. YesYsatisfy all 5 Fair Open Access Principles
    • YesY The journal has a transparent ownership structure, and is controlled by and responsive to the scholarly community; The journal is hosted by the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation (within the Wikiversity project) and is published by the WikiJournal User Group. Open editorial board applications, EiC elected by board vote.
    • YesY Authors of articles in the journal retain copyright; Yes, if they have the copyright to start with. (We also accept submissions of Wikipedia content under CC-BY-SA)
    • YesY All articles are published open access and an explicit open access licence is used; CC-BY default, authors choice of
    • YesY Submission and publication is not conditional in any way on the payment of a fee from the author or its employing institution, or on membership of an institution or society; No fees whatsoever
    • YesY Any fees paid on behalf of the journal to publishers are low, transparent, and in proportion to the work carried out; No fees whatsoever
  2. YesYhave an ISSN; 2470-6345
  3. YesYhave an explicit and transparent quality assurance policy for published articles; Editorial guidelines and Public peer reviews
  4. YesYhave an explicit policy on publication ethics; Ethics Statement
  5. YesYoffer the choice of a CC licence to authors for each published article; Default CC-BY, with choice of Wikipedia-compatible OA licenses, Info for authors
  6. YesYinclude a title and abstract in English for each published article; Yes, for both HTML and PDF versions
  7. YesYhave a website that clearly lists all information required for FJN to determine whether the criteria above are satisfied; Combination of Ethics Statement, Editorial guidelines, and About page
  8. Nhave been in existence for at least 12 months and published 5 papers in the last 12 months, or have been in existence for at least 6 months and published at least 10 papers in the last 6 months; Currently less than 12 months old, only 8 publications, however by Dec 31 likely pass

Additional 'soft criteria'

  1. YesYinternational nature of editorial board and authors; Highly multinational board and authors
  2. Nmembership of DOAJ, SciElo, etc, or indexing by Scopus, etc; Indexed by GScholar and Informit. Will be able to request update on DOAJ application in early Dec. We could also apply for Scopus this year
  3. YesYdealing with original research as understood by the steering committee; Mostly focussed on review articles, however able to process original research as per Ethics Statement and Public peer guidelines

Fair Open Access Alliance[edit]

@Mikael Häggström, Evolution and evolvability, Fransplace: I would request you to apply to apply to join The Fair Open Access Alliance by emailing them. This would further qualify the WikiJournals to qualify for membership of Free Journal Network for which @Sylvain Ribault: has already placed a nomination as mentioned here although the list of journals under consideration does not reveal our entry. Requesting you to set your timelines to early 2019 for a fresh application or follow-up communication with them. Diptanshu 💬 18:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)
I've created a page for WikiJournal User Group/Open questions. We can use it to try to summarise the issues and possible solutions. I've just given it a draft organisation, but if you think there's a better way to format it, feel free to change it up as it evolves. Once it's a bit more populated, we might place it in the 'resources' tab of the WikiJournal top menu template. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:46, 10 October 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)
@Mikael Häggström, Evolution and evolvability, Fransplace: I propose that two new fields be added to the form.
  • In case the author opts for a non-anonymous review, the author's name would preferably be linked to an online profile of the author. The author should be enabled to provide a link they prefer. An 'authorlink' field can be added for the same.
  • Furthermore, the author should be able to specify their credentials that they would like to be listed on the review. A field to specify the same would be useful.
Updating the document accordingly should be helpful. Diptanshu 💬 13:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Implemented (although we will have to be careful not to let the form length creep upwards too much). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:45, 4 November 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)

Request for further amendment[edit]

  • Mikael and other EiCs: I would request for another update to the by-laws (after discussion). I propose that a rule be introduced that the scope of any vote on the WikiJournal boards should not be modified after the voting process has begun. In other words, the scope of a vote would be limited to that defined at the onset of the vote and a re-voting would need to be initiated in case the scope needs to be changed/updated subsequently. Diptanshu 💬 18:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Mikael and other EiCs: I would request for yet another update to the by-laws (after discussion). I propose that a rule be introduced that all members should treat all others with respect and dignity. Diptanshu 💬 18:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Diptanshu. Perhaps these are better suited for the WikiJournal User Group/Ethics statement. I think it follows the bylaws that once the vote no longer seems to be about the original proposal, a new vote is mandated, and anyone may demand that during the course of a vote. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 05:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Mikael, you have rightly pointed out that these would perhaps be more relevant for the Ethics statement. Anyway, the purpose of the communication was to make you aware of the issues. If you feel them relevant, I would request you to take them into consideration and to get them implemented in whatever form you deem fit. You have adequately addressed the voting issue I raised. I have already included the rest in the Code of Conduct I have proposed. You can take it up from there. Diptanshu 💬 04:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

PDF file hosting location (local or commons)[edit]

Currently we upload PDF versions of articles locally (example). Would it make sense to migrate them to Commons? Uploading to Commons is slightly easier than local uploads, however I don't know if there is some incompatible Commons policy. The nearest example I've seen is this PLOS article on how to edit Wikipedia. Not particularly vital either way, but any opinions welcome. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Commons will put files up for deletion if they are not considered within its scope even with a commercial-free license. There are many additional reasons that can also produce deletion, see File:Vasyugan Swamp2.jpg, for an example. It might help if someone on commons regularly can keep an eye on them. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 12:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing Wikipedia articles through WikiJournals[edit]

As of now, the authors need to declare their authorship in case they wish to publish their article on WikiJournals. This method of declaration is standard for academic journals and the process ensures that any liabilities pertaining to an article is borne by somebody who submits the article. Following standard practice the same is applied when reviewing a Wikipedia article through WikiJournals. The process mandates that the primary author(s) or significant contributors submit such an article on WikiJournals for it to be considered through the editorial process. However, I feel that such a process might not be essential for an Wikipedia article.

  • When contributing to an Wikipedia article the authors essentially consent to publishing the contents under CC-BY-SA which automatically makes the content freely available for use and reuse under a compatible license, the only catch being the obligation to provide credits to the author while making use of the contents. The contents of a particular version of an Wikipedia article should therefore essentially be available for publication in WikiJournals without the requirement of further approval from the authors. They therefore need not separately declare that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
  • The originality of the article contents is essentially ensured by the policies of Wikipedia which ensure that there is no copyvio. The authors do not need to declare the same for the publication in WikiJournals. In any case the same would eventually get re-ensured while the article goes through the editorial and review process.
  • The contibutions of each author remains documented through the history tab of an Wikipedia article. The same should serve as an adequate documentation of authorship.
  • No single contributor can be the sole author of an Wikipedia article although the respective person can be sole author till a particular version of an Wikipedia article. Even in such a case the process does not obligatorily require
  • Who will undertake the task of updating the article in accordance to the suggestions obtained through the review process? Since anybody can edit an Wikipedia, anyone can make the requisite changes, irrespective of whether they have been prior contributors to the article in question. I assume that they can also be participants of the WikiJournal boards. However, for neutrality issues, that contributor should mandatorily volunteer out from the editorial process for the given article. In other words, with respect to a given article, you can either be a contributor to the article, or to the editorial board, not both.
  • A clear policy needs to be determined about how to represent the authors with pseudonyms (in case real names are not available) and when one or more of the significant contributors are unregistered IPs.
  • In case no corresponding author is available, the correspondence for the given article can be addressed through the talk page of the given article.
  • A transparent note for each of the processes, starting from selection of the given article for review and publication through WikiJournals, the inputs from the reviewers, etc. upto the final note of approval or rejection by the board after the process, should be placed mandatorily on the talk page of the given article. A note also needs to be left on the talk pages of at least the top 5 contributors of the article in question, urging the contributors to participate in the review process for the article.
  • A clear policy needs to be formed about the optimal response time between leaving a note on a talk page, and the next step.

My proposal may be freely discussed and based on the consensus the by-laws of the WikiJournals may be updated accordingly. Diptanshu 💬 18:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


The issue of authorship is one of the two 'vital issues' that I think deserve a permanent discussion page, see here. It is indeed not obvious who can be considered an author, and whether we need an author for working on a Wikipedia article. However, before we start investing editors and reviewers' time in a submission, we need some guarantee that someone will work on the article. Having already made major contributions is the best guarantee we can think of. On the other hand, there is no requirement for WikiJournal board members to be proficient contributors to Wikipedia, so I am not sure we can trust ourselves to act as corresponding authors. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 18:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

PS: There is now a permanent page for suggestions on this issue. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 20:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that having specific corresponding authors submit articles is important. For example, I think the BMJ organised experts to peer reviewer the Parkinson's disease Wikipedia page (here). However, because nobody was specifically designated as a corresponding author, it took a long time for the recommendations of the reviewers to be implemented by wikipedia editors and may have been off-putting for the BMJ after they had put in the effort to organise review. My preference is to prioritise expansion/overhaul of stub/absent articles (example, example) by contacting non-wikipedian experts in topics that are currently under-developed in Wikipedia. However, WikiJournals could certainly have enhanced presence on Wikipedia with more targeted instructions for how to submit high-quality Wikipedia articles for review, analogous to GA and FA review options. Perhaps an update and reorganisation of the w:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/WikiJournal page. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 13:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Having non-Wikipedian experts write new Wikipedia articles or improve poor articles is indeed the ultimate goal. However, it seems easier to begin with having Wikipedians submit a few existing good articles. These articles can then be pointed to the non-Wikipedian experts, as examples of what we do. The lack of such examples in my field is the reason why I am reluctant to try recruiting non-Wikipedian experts at the moment. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 20:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Which brings me to the question: how do we convince Wikipedians to submit good articles? What has been attempted with this template looks like the right idea, but the results do not seem compelling. Maybe we should fine-tune the message and the venue? Going to talk pages of specific articles and users, rather than WikiProjects? Something along the lines 'constructive expert feedback, academic recognition for your work, free journal: please submit your article(s)'. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 21:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
For biologist Wikipedians who also edit under their real names, I've had some success with contacting via their faculty email address. Recent GA/FA authors are certainly prime options. Identifying high-quality B-class articles that have highly-engaged current editors is much harder. Approaching WikiEdu course organisers also seems like a possible longer-term avenue. I'm in talks with an academic at my university about getting 20-40 Masters students to all work on different sections of a single article and submit it with oversight from a couple of more senior researchers. The other backup option is that it is for one or two editorial board members to submit articles to the journals (though it is not ideal, and should be a small final minority of articles). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Thomas, after I can manage some time I myself would be taking up the task of shortlisting B class medical articles, updating them, and submitting them for review through WikiJMed (definitely after contacting the significant authors). I would also contact the significant contributors to Wiki Project Med articles and try to team up with them for the task. My not being on the board any more is an additional advantage that I now enjoy and let me heartily thank you (and the participating members) for the same. Diptanshu 💬 17:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I have started writing a template for inviting submissions from Wikipedia. I would appreciate some feedback, and some help in writing the 'How to submit' section. Some questions: should submitters be logged in to Wikiversity? could copying a Wikipedia article be automated? Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 20:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Nice. I think that the Wikimedia accounts system should be merged so that you can log into any WMF site using the same login. I like your idea of including both an example of an accepted and rejected paper. I agree that an advert to go on article talk pages should have light formatting like this (rather that the more heavily formatted 2017 adv for wikiprojects). Wikipedia articles can just be copy-pasted, into the submission page with the only problem being that the wikilinks have to be updated using the find-replace tool to change [[link]] to [[w:link|link]]. Alternatively, it's also possible for a wikiversity admin to Special:Import a page from Wikipedia so we could set up a location where ppl could just adding their username and wikipedia article to a list that is watched by a few of the WikiJournal editors with 'custodian' rights. Step-by step submission instructions for Wikipedia articles should def be added to the w:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/WikiJournal page too. I'll help with some further updates over the next week. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I've written what I hope is a clear and concise set of instructions for Wikipedians wishing to submit existing Wikipedia articles.
Any ideas/inputs welcome (especially by experienced Wikipedians). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Thomas for your efforts. This was needed. I will see what I can do to contribute. Diptanshu 💬 10:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
"Articles that pass peer review are also have a stable, citable..." — should "are" be here?
" you assert that you: The article is of a high standard" — you the article?   :-)   Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 04:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tsirel: Thanks! I've fixed both errors now. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 22:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Nominating Wikipedia articles for WikiJournal[edit]

I misunderstood the requirements and have already nominated a few prospective submissions at Wikipedia:WikiJournal article nominations. There is a difference between nomination and submission. I think that anybody should be able to propose articles for the purpose. In that case they would have to take the responsibility of communicating with the authors who have contributed significantly to the article. If the respective author(s) agree, the highest contributor can act as the corresponding and first author. If that is not the case, the eager author can choose to be the corresponding author.

If the above is agreed upon, w:Template:WikiJournal header needs to be suitably updated. The current page assumed nomination and submission to be equivalent. Thomas, please do the needful. Diptanshu 💬 13:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it is best to suggest an article by adding a journal-specific version of WJS_invitation_2018 template to its talkpage. However I think we should avoid organising peer review for articles where the authors have not committed to addressing the reviewer comments. I'd certainly support if either Doc James or Ozzie10aaaa wished to submit one of their articles! Perhaps starting with one or two to begin with. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Ozzie10aaaa has consented to take up Dyslexia, West African Ebola virus epidemic and Hepatitis E for submission to Wiki.J.Med. Let me work with them and see how we can take it ahead. Diptanshu 💬 04:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The current process of nomination practically equates to submission. The process have not generated a single submission so far (except for the submissions subsequently authored by some board member) till I tweaked the process and three submissions followed. In fact another author has privately contacted me about the submission of another article that I had proposed. However, by that time, the entire list has been removed vide this edit without even adding them to newly added archival page. I do not see why it was necessary or where the intermediate listing of prospective articles should be done. I would propose on altering the process. Diptanshu 💬 12:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
My step of searching out prospective Wikipedia articles and considering them for submission to WikiJournals (Wiki.J.Med as of now) has yielded three submissions and I am enthusiastic that more would come out of it. However, the editorial board members are reluctant to even keep the list in place. There needs to be a place to process such a list. I have created w:User:Diptanshu Das/WikiJournal article nominations wherein I will proceed with the same. I would invite all others to feel freeto contribute to the page. Diptanshu 💬 18:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to keep the w:Wikipedia:WikiJournal article nominations page to have just the ones to be imported and to have peer review organisation begun othersise it would quickly get unmanageable. If you make a medicine equivalent of w:Template:WJS_invitation_2018 to place on talkpages, those articles can be easily tracked (see this example list). The editorial boards also maintain a hitlist of high quality Wikipedia articles to invite for submission, and absent/stub/start articles to invite non-wikipedian experts to write articles on. I've also started updating w:WP:W2J and w:WP:J2W to better reflect what is currently going on (the previous pages were about out of date). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I have created w:Category:WikiJournal to consolidate the relevant pages on Wikipedia. Since the editorial boards also have their own list of prospective articles for consideration of review through the WikiJournals, I invite them to add them to Wikipedia:List of prospective Wikipedia articles for review through WikiJournals for intermediary processing. Subsequently I intend table the list with check-marks to be inserted for every stage of processing (say, leaving message on talk page of authors, corresponding author identified, and so on). Diptanshu 💬 07:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Location of reviews for Wikipedia articles being reviewed through WikiJournal[edit]

I would propose that instead of importing a particular version of the given article to WikiJournal Preprints, the entire process be carried out on Wikipedia, and only the final version be imported to WikiJournal Preprints and subjected to editorial judgment. In other words, I propose that the review suggestions be placed on the talk page of the given article and the updates be placed accordingly. The details of the review process can therafter be suitably copied to the talk page of the WikiJournal article on Wikiversity. Diptanshu 💬 13:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

If that is agreed upon, the requisite templates would need to be adapted for the Wikipedia articles or talk pages. Diptanshu 💬 13:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I support the preference of having authors edit Wikipedia, and even having the peer review of such Wikipedia content, before copying to a WikiJournal page. In such cases, we don't need to redo the Wikipedia edits after article acceptance. I've added this as at least an alternative at the bottom of WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing#Publication_formats. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Authorship of Wikipedia articles for WikiJournal[edit]

It needs to be decided about the format of authorship of Wikipedia articles that are reviewed through WikiJournals. I am referring to the authorship metadata in international journal format (for eg. as listed on pubmed). As I understand, it consists of two fields viz. last name and first name. In such a case how do we intend to fit a link for the et al list of authors? Perhaps we need to give it a thought. Diptanshu 💬 17:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mikael Häggström, Evolution and evolvability, Fransplace: Have you given it a thought as to how the contributors in et al are to be credited for their contributions to Wikipedia articles that are reviewed through WikiJournals? One option could be to put the link in the 'last' field but I do not think that to be appropriate. Diptanshu 💬 19:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Social media activity of WikiJournals[edit]

WikiJournal twitter accounts[edit]

Below are summarised recent suggestions by Diptanshu Das sent to the wikijournal-en mailing list:

  • WikiJMed twitter should promote the recent WikiJournal interview
  • WikiJournal twitter accounts should consider applying for verified status via @verification to improve credibility

Copied from mailing list by T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Since only a small number of members from each journal control each social media account (twitter and facebook). I have made a test form that could be used for people (including article authors) to suggest possible social media posts. It would have to be monitored by those in charge of each journal's social media profile.
I don`t know enough about twitter verification to know whether it is worth the effort at this stage. Others with more twitter knowledge will have to make the call on this one. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Currently the verification process is closed till they develop their systems further. I would urge you to be on the lookout in case a future scope arises. Diptanshu 💬 19:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Facebook verification[edit]

@Mikael Häggström, Evolution and evolvability, Fransplace: The facebook pages for the respective WikiJournals can still get the verified badge. I would request you to apply for the same. Diptanshu 💬 18:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Did anybody have a look? It should be rather easy to obtain and would hardly take up any resources. Diptanshu 💬 10:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Twitter handles to follow[edit]

@Mikael Häggström, Evolution and evolvability, Fransplace: I propose that the following twitter accounts be followed by each of the WikiJournal twitter accounts: Free Journal Network @freejournalnet, DOAJ @DOAJplus, Open Science @openscience, Open Access Tracking Project @oatp, Unpaywall @unpaywall ‏TheWikipediaLibrary @WikiLibrary, WikiResearch @WikiResearch, SHARE @SHARE_research, ScienceOpen @Science_Open, ScholarlyHub @ScholarlyHub, Scholarly Commons @in4open, Scholarly Commons @ScholrlyCommons, PLOS Blogs @PLOSBlogs, OpenTrials @opentrials, Open Culture @openculture, OpenCon @open_con, Open Access Network @OA_Network, OA Directory @OADirectory, Liberate Science @libscie. You can check the pages each of these pages follow and act further.

Other followable ones could be Wiki Project Med @WikiProjectMed, PLOS Medicine @PLOSMedicine, Search Engine BASE @BASEsearch, Sci Hub @Sci_Hub, Right to Research @R2RC, PubMed Commons @PubMedCommons, Publons @Publons, Altmetric @altmetric.

Sometimes relevant tweets from these accounts can be re-tweeted. Sometimes you can direct one or more of these in tweets that we make. This will enable the followers of those respective twitter handles be able to view the concerned tweet that we made. A list of hashtags like #openaccess can be added wherever relevant. Such an action will make our tweet show up whenever users search for that particular hashtag. Diptanshu 💬 19:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Rationale of removal from facebook admin[edit]

@Mikael Häggström, Evolution and evolvability, Fransplace:

Impact of post by DD
Impact of post by TS

Till a few days back I was an admin of the facebook profile of Wiki.J.Med. I was removed from the adminship on November 1, 2018, 7:14pm (IST) without any communication from EiCs or from the boards of the WikiJournals. Since I am no longer on the board of Wiki.J.Med, I am ok with it. However, I do have certain issues with the way it has been effected.

  • I feel that it is a common courtesy to at least inform the user of such a development, if not to discuss with them. I see that common courtesy lacking. I think that the EiCs need to ensure that such an act of common courtesy with respect to any participant does not get ignored. I hope that they would admit that exhibiting respect is very important.
  • Since I am no longer on the board of Wiki.J.Med it should be ok not to keep me on the adminship any longer but since that did not happen alongside my removal from the board (the scope of that vote did not extend to adminship of facebook profile), I assume that the recent removal should either have been on the basis of a recent consensus from the boards or due to some definite disruptive action from my side. I am keen to know what exactly happened.
  • As far as I understand, my last action of posting this on the facebook profile of Wiki.J.Med was more constructive than destructive. In fact, it was making a significant impact that the combined actions of the three boards could not make. As of 19 October 2018 it had reached 1928 people, had 44 engagements and 108 clicks. This was in sharp contrast to that post reaching 16 people, had 0 engagements and 2 clicks, on the same day. Yet, my act was met with criticism. I assume that my private inputs to the EiCs (truncated below) or the ones publicly placed (as above) were far from disruptive. I may be wrong, but in a collaborative project like this, it perhaps makes more sense to make use of interested and competent contributors rather than to remove them. I am keen to learn the rationale of the EiCs or the editorial boards. Diptanshu 💬 19:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Email 'Social media posts' from Diptanshu Das to the editors-in-chief

Dr. Diptanshu Das Fri 19 Oct, 23:01 to Mikael, Thomas, FRANCES

Dear Mikael and others

I have not formally apologised for posting on the social profile of WikiJMed without prior discussion with the board. Furthermore, I later observed that my post was actually a duplicate of a former one (by Thomas) which somehow I had missed while making the post. Nevertheless, if you look at the outreach statistics for each of the two posts (see the screenshots below), there is a striking contrast between mine and that of Thomas. The purpose of this email is to convey that posting on the social profile is not enough. A strategic effort needs to go into it. As a first step I had shared it with the Wikipedian, Wikimedian and Open Access groups that I am a part of. The next step would have been to research into the overlapping scope of other groups that I am not a member of, and to share there after joining. The subsequent step would have been to research into the academic groups where such a thing would have been contexual, to join them and to share there. I would have done that but by then JK and others started having issues (something I have considered as discrimination, driven by ego, and not originating from sincere thoughts for the well-being of the wikijournals) and I stopped going ahead with it. In fact I had requested for the post to be boosted (check my email) but no such thing was done.

I would request the EiCs to take the pains of executing the steps that otherwise I myself would have taken, and also to boost the post. Also take a note that disruptive and authoritarian steps by certain members of the boards is acting in a direction contrary to the best interests of the journals and letting them go uninhibited is perhaps reinforcing their actions.

Regards Diptanshu

Email 'Social media promotional strategy for WikiJournals' from Diptanshu Das to the editors-in-chief

Dr. Diptanshu Das <> Sat 20 Oct, 00:08 to Mikael, Thomas, Frances, Gwinyai, wijoumed

Dear EiCs

Perhaps you could consider using the social media profiles (Fb and Twitter) to post materials like (seemingly unrelated but interesting news nevertheless) and then adding something like 'if have an interesting academic finding that you would like to publish, consider publishing in WikiJournals as they are free for you to publish in, and free for the reader as well'... something of that sort. I am thinking out loud. Fine tuning of the idea is needed.

Please note that just posting from the social handle would not be enough. They need to be clubbed with appropriate hashtags which match the interests of our target audience, be directed to suitable twitter handles, or need to be shared to groups who might be prospective authors, readers or contributors of some sort. This needs to be done efficiently, contextually and meaningfully such that it does not resemble spamming.

Specific strategic thinking would be needed prior to that. Target groups need to be identified. A taskforce of interested contributors need to be formed who would join the social groups of certain types and periodically post or share there. One person is not enough. Contributors need not be board members but till now the utilization of non-board members by WikiJournals has been rather poor. Plans to boost specific posts needs to follow but sharing strategically has much greater implication.

This email may be shared with the boards if the EiCs feel. Nevertheless, not sure how productive board members would be in the matter.

Regards Diptanshu

Hi All, I think Diptanshu has brought up a great point. It seems as though we don’t have any sort of protocol or process to follow when someone is removed from the Board. Perhaps we should discuss that just in case another removal comes to pass. I will open another discussion below. Best, Jackiekoerner (discusscontribs) 18:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jackiekoerner: there is something known as 'serendipity' where something fruitful comes out of something otherwise unintended. As per my understanding we treasure serendipitous developments. Not removing my social media admin access was something inadvertent but when some previously unachieved development emerged from it, it perhaps makes more sense to preserve and develop on such a serendipitous development rather than shunning it just because it was not a part of the original plan. I feel protocols are good but insightfulness is something far more valuable. Don't you agree with me? Diptanshu 💬 09:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jackiekoerner: I thought that you would reply. Do you find my points valid? Diptanshu 💬 05:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Calendar merge[edit]

Several of the items in the WikiJMed calendar will be identical for the other journals. Since it's not particularly cluttered at the moment, I've merged them into WikiJournal_User_Group/Calendar. We can split again if they start to get full, or very divergent. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this merge. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 14:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Strategy session for the boards[edit]

In the context of my proposal above, I would insist on:

  • periodic strategy sessions for the boards.
  • The strategy sessions are to be held transparently through online discussion fora and do not require the board members to meet.
  • If held through online video collaboration like google hangouts (only after the initial work-up), a record for the same needs to be maintained using items like youtube rendition of the same and/or etherpad listing of the same.
  • Define a particular periodicity for strategy sessions between board members of the respective groups, and thereafter in unision. I propose an annual periodicity.
  • Define specific timelines for the strategy sessions. I propose January or December. As per previous indication August is possibly the best time for this. A vote for the month of choice can be done with each person putting one mark for each month they feel they can get involved in (max 12 marks per member). The month with highest number of votes would be selected for upcoming sessions.
  • Typically this strategy session should precede a budget allocation/application for grant since the latter needs to be based on the former.
  • If the timeline of a strategy session is defined in advance, the members can gather their thoughts and make a submission (in transparent manner) prior to the actual session of brainstorming.
  • The purpose of the strategy sessions is to clearly delineate strategy/ies to be executed in order to realise the mission of WikiJournals.
    • Let me add that 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.

Kindly note: Mission is a general statement of how you will achieve the vision. Strategies are a series of ways of using the mission to achieve the vision. Goals are statements of what needs to be accomplished to implement the strategy. Objectives are specific actions and timelines for achieving the goal.

A demo goal statement for WikiJMed could be:

  • Get indexed in Pubmed

The corresponding objective would be:

  • Get 40 submissions at least

The strategy for the same needs to be defined. That is the purpose of the strategy sessions. I have already communicated a very basic version of social media strategy for the same in a separate email to the EiCs. The rest is supposed to occur at the strategy sessions I propose. Diptanshu 💬 11:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

This is to add that my proposal is similar to the manner by which Wikimedia board of trustees convene. This is in conjunction with the existing method by which the boards of various WikiJournals interact. Diptanshu 💬 15:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I congratulate T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) and other members for the first meeting held in the direction I had pointed. I believe that with time their productivity would increase even further. Diptanshu 💬 15:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Policy[edit]

@Mikael Häggström, Evolution and evolvability, Fransplace:, Could you have a look at the following links

and see if our Conflict of Interest Policy can be updated. Diptanshu 💬 16:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Interwiki links[edit]

Links in WikiJournal articles are typically to Wikipedia and so have to be inserted using interwiki links ([[w:link|link]]link). I've asked over at the MediaWiki helpdesk to see if there's anyway to change the default within a page or page section to just link out to Wikipedia as default. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Although I've not got a perfect solution, for the moment I've made a template ({{Default_interwiki}}) that is a pretty efficient way to convert all links to point to Wikipedia. Just add {{subst:Default_interwiki| and }} at the end and the template will go though and replace all the links. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 06:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

ISSN registration location[edit]

When applying for an ISSN for WikiJHum at the US library of congress, it turned out that all journals in the WikiJournal User Group have to be registered at the same location (even though we are online and international). The USA was decided as the most logical location, since there will likely always be a US resident on one of the editorial boards to receive post in the rare instance that physical post is necessary. The EiCs have contacted the Swedish and US offices to move the ISSN registrations for WikiJMed and

  • WikiJournal User Group requesting recognition as based in US for publication purposes
  • WikiJournal of Medicine: requesting move from Swedish to US office, retaining registration as 2002-4436
  • WikiJournal of Science: already registered at the US office as 2470-6345
  • WikiJournal of Humanities: Applied for by Frances Di Lauro, provisionally 2639-5347

T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 22:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The US and Swedish ISSN offices have now confirmed that the registration locations have now been moved to unify them all in the US Library of Congress. All ISSNs remain the same. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Great! Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 15:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Annual activity report[edit]

The WikiJournal User Group's annual activity report has been compiled:

Feel free to add anything that I've missed. I've also sent an email asking if we can move the reporting date (currently July) to December so that we can combine it with the journals' yearly financial report. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 06:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I have contacted the WMF to ask if our annual report date can be changed to be lodged in December so that it is in sync with our funding grant report (2017 example). Several other user groups seem to use the same report for both so as to reduce duplication and splitting of information. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Given the extensive overlap, I have merged the annual report into the annual grant report. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Academic journal or peer-reviewed encyclopedia?[edit]

I have better expectations for the (sub)project and voted in favor of it at Meta proposal discussion. Recently, I've seen published articles adapting from Wikipedia articles, like WikiJournal of Medicine/Rotavirus, WikiJournal of Humanities/Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, and WikiJournal of Science/Peripatric speciation, which either rarely or does not use first-person narrative pronouns, like "I" or "we". Contrast those with other articles outside the project, like this one and that one, which includes those pronouns, like "we".

Typically, an encyclopedia is not peer-reviewed. I searched for peer-reviewed encyclopedias and found out that they exist, e.g. Scholarpedia, International Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Oxford Research Encyclopedias. I made a comment at Talk:WikiJournal of Science (but in a somewhat different form) about the goal of this project.

I can't remember whether an encyclopedia project that would allow original research was proposed; I just couldn't find it properly at meta:Proposals for new projects. Nevertheless, I also wonder whether the (sub)project can be split into two projects: one resembling (pure) academic journals and another resembling peer-reviewed encyclopedia. If that's not the case, maybe I've been mistaken. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 12:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of peer reviewing going on in Wikipedia as seen at Wikipedia:Peer review. Indeed there might be a place for a project where all articles must have undergone peer review. It might be difficult to find enough activity to keep it self-sufficient, though, and there is a risk that it ends up like largely inactive like Citizendium, which had a similar aim in becoming an encyclopaedia built through academics with credentials. WikiJournal, on the other hand, draws interest by its close relation to Wikipedia, such as gathering tens of thousands per views per month from images and content that can be integrated into Wikipedia articles, and I don't know right away how a separate peer reviewed encyclopaedia could have the same advantage. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 21:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Still, I don't know how long the editorial board or peer reviewers can continually approve articles adapted from Wikipedia by authors. BTW, en-WP's Peer review process is not mandatory; it's utilized usually to improve quality of articles into resembling Featured and Good Articles. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 23:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
You're right that traditional paper encyclopedias were typically not peer reviewed, and instead relied on the authority of the authors. In part I think this was just because the workload would have been too great. One of the benefits of the journal model is that it can drip feed articles one at a time into Wikipedia, since an encyclopedia with 100-1000 articles is not particularly useful, but having a small and growing number of Wikipedia's articles brought up to that standard is (w:Category:Wikipedia_articles_published_in_peer-reviewed_literature). That way, any publishing rate for the journals is relevant and sustainable (though higher is beneficial for things like PubMed indexing). For review articles, often the stylistic differences are greater than the content differences (2016 journal review, 2014 wikipedia equivalent) , so I'm keen to keep a mix of articles adapted from Wikipedia (eg), ones written de novo that then go into Wikipedia (eg), and ones never intended to go into the encyclopedia (eg). I've done some updates to the information on the right hand side to try distinguish the different types, but could maybe automate some categories, like how PLOS has a list of all its Topic Pages. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Performing peer review of existing Wikipedia articles is also useful for the journals as they establish themselves because it has a lower lag time (because the article is already written). Conversely, the turnaround from contacting a potential non-wikipedian author to them submitting an article can be up to a year. As the boards ramp up our invitations to new authors, I expect non-wikipedian submissions to become the large majority over the next couple of years. It's also a demographic that I think the journals serve particularly well, since they're people who have subject expertise but would otherwise probably not contribute to Wikipedia. I've made the relevant tracking categories that should be automatically populated by the {{article info}} template:
To be honest, I'm surprised that I'd not thought of it before. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC) → ↓

New board member's perspective[edit]

I'm a brand new editor/board member, which has it's advantages and disadvantages. One of the advantages is that I am encountering the WikiJournal endeavor "fresh", without prior knowledge of the WikiJournals, and without any preconceived ideas of what it should be.

I love the concept and I am willing to devote time and energy to the WikiJournal of Medicine as well as the overall project. However, ...

I've been thinking about colleagues to approach with the idea of writing an article for WikiJMed. I started asking myself some questions.

  • How will I describe the journal?
  • What page on should I give them to learn more about the journal?
  • What questions should I anticipate?

What would my colleagues think?[edit]

I realized that I should flip the roles and imagine that I had been asked by a WikiJMed editor to consider submitting an article. I had to pretend in my mind that I didn't know anything about the journal. I wrote down my initial impressions and questions. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on the context) I'm imaginative and can easily adopt another persona.

Professor Fictum Scriptor shares his thoughts and impressions[edit]

So here are the impressions and questions generated by Prof. Fictum Scriptor after I asked him about writing an article:

  • What would the journal look like if there was a printed version? Cover? Masthead?
  • Is this a real journal? The articles are interesting, but they don't look like journal articles.
  • Is this really a way to get scholarly types to write stuff for Wikipedia? I mean, I can do that anyway if I want.
  • Don't ask me to write a scholarly journal article if what you really want is help with Wikipedia articles.

Keep in mind that I asked Prof. Scriptor to "tell it like it is" and "don't pull any punches", so he obliged. I sent him a bottle of his favorite single malt and thanked him for his feedback.

Some answers:
  • Who cares?
  • So what?
  • You can, but do you? We're trying to give incentives, we'll see if that works.
  • Good point. We could be more Wikipedia-centered.
Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 10:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
* Who cares? - Potential contributors might. Also, despite the dramatic changes over the last 15 years or so in how we consume journal articles, I suspect that most medical professionals still conceptualize a "journal" in a visual, articles-bound-together-like-a-magazine sense. Of course, I could be wrong, or perhaps older people visualize a journal in the print-version sense, but younger medical professionals do not. I'm one of the older folks, although I have adapted to new technologies more readily and earlier than most of my colleagues. But I still think of a journal as having a cover, masthead, list of editors, etc. - all the "front matter" info. I stopped subscribing to print journals by 2005, but I notice that almost all psychiatry and psychology journals still have the "look and feel" of the print versions.
* So What? - It depends on the journal's priorities. If we mainly want to attract current Wikipedians, then it doesn't matter. If we want to attract potential authors who are not involved with Wikipedia, then it might matter a lot.
* You can, but do you? We're trying to give incentives, we'll see if that works. - If we want to attract new editors who will contribute to ongoing improvement of biomedical articles, then your question is relevant. But if that is the primary goal, we should say so up front. Right now we present WikiJMed as a scholarly journal featuring transparency, no fees for authors, more flexibility regarding article content, etc. If our primary goal is to improve Wikipedia articles, we are not making that clear. A lack of clarity will alienate many potential authors.
* Good point. We could be more Wikipedia-centered. - I think WikiJMed is already very Wikipedia-centered. If the consensus is to make it even more Wikipedia-centered, then we should make that crystal clear on all "front-facing" web pages, in interviews and presentations, on social media, etc.
I do not mean to denigrate all the hard work you and others have put into the journal thus far. I think my remarks might have come across that way. My intention was (is) to stimulate discussion about the journal's priorities. I am presuming that if new volunteers like myself cannot discern the journal's goals, identity, priorities, vision, etc., then potential authors, editors, supporters, partners, etc., will also be perplexed.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the elaboration. You have a very good point that more clarity is needed. I would argue that we do not need to publish original research, as this is a lot of work, and better done elsewhere. The core mission is peer-reviewing Wikipedia, an easily understandable idea. Maybe we should focus on doing that well. This would simplify the communication, editorial guidelines, workflow, etc. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 20:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your reply. Although I have my preference, if the consensus is to focus on peer-reviewing Wikipedia, I'm still onboard. :O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Really interesting points and discussion. My preference has so far been to be flexible and try different things to see what works. I think publishing review articles that can replace Wikipedia articles will always be a key focus (especially from non-wikipedian authors), since it makes the most of the uniqueness of the on-wiki format. To what extent we also try to do other things may vary (e.g. case studies, meta-analyses, teaching aids). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are peer-reviewed[edit]

I agree that Wikipedia articles, particularly the good ones, are peer-reviewed, whether there was a formal request for peers to review an article or whether an article developed through the usual bold, edit, edit, revert, edit, bold, consensus, edit, ... collaborative anarchy article development process. Thus, we already have peer-reviewed encyclopedia articles on Wikipedia.

Umm... There should be :w:; the links are broken or something. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 21:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Yikes! I forgot where I was... Thanks George! :O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome, but shouldn't it be :w:Wikipedia:? It looks annoying to type, but that's how they work. Also, "Wikipedia:" is a namespace. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 23:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Have corrected links (either wikipedia:wikipedia: or w:wp: works). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both. Wikimedia is a continuous learning process.... ;o)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
But Wikijournal not only peer review Wikipedia, they also give credit to authors. Moreover, although Wikipedia does have mechanisms for reviewing articles, in practice not enough academics participate, and the resulting quality is often low. See our experience with the Good Article on Surface tension. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 21:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, that's an excellent point Sylvain Ribault. Thank you.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I vote for WikiJournals that resemble pure academic journals[edit]

Consequently, drawing on George Ho's excellent point, I favor WikiJournals that resemble (pure) academic journals.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 10:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

In general, I think the journal types that the WikiJournals most closely resemble are review-focussed journals such as the Nature Reviews X series crossed with community-driven journals like PeerJ. We've so far been very cautious in processing original research, since those often require more specialist board member knowledge to process. I suspect that will be constantly revisited depending on what articles are submitted. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Code of Conduct[edit]

This discussion refers to this draft guideline: Code of conduct draft

I have proposed Code of conduct document to serve as an add-on to the existing Bylaws and the ethics statement of WikiJournals. This because the existing documents do not adequately address the issues concerning a well defined Code of Conduct of Editorial board members although that of other participants like authors and peer-reviewers has been adequately addressed. The proposed document has been developed by me in accordance to the requirements as stated by COPE and is also mandated by the ICMJE and WikiJournals abide by both. The document has been partially derived from this and this document of the Wikimedia Foundation. The document may be freely discussed here, modified and accepted by the existing board members. Unless opposed significantly, this document should automatically implemented in 10 days from the date of proposal. The periodicity of revision of the existing documents and processes needs to be decided upon. After implementation the Editorial board members would need act in accordance to the stated Code of Conduct. The scope of the document can be extended to the Associate editors as well but as of now the WikiJournals have not been able to make best use of them. If needed, that can be done as an amendment, but after a separate and independent discussion. Diptanshu 💬 10:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

OhanaUnited too has stressed upon the significance of such a reform with regards to community safety. Subsequently a vote for consensus was opened for 10 days between 15 November 2018 and 25 November 2018.

Summary of vote

By the end of stipulated period (the archived results including the form of discussion on that date) there were two votes, both in favour of implementation of the Code of Conduct. During this period T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) and Mark independently reviewed the document and pointed out salient points in the document during this period. No objection or opposition was received during this period. However, T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) subsequently felt (on 26 November 2018) that it reasonable to extend the discussion time to give people more time to comment given the significance of such a document if it gets ratified. Fresh voting may be re-opened by the EiCs (in case they feel required) after the document has been reviewed and the editing is completed. Portions of the discussion (that might not be very relevant at the moment) have been collapsed since the discussion was becoming excessively lengthy to browse through. The EiCs may feel free to subsequently collapse other segments once they think that the purpose of the respective segment has been dealt with. Responses by some users have been split into segments (when they contained multiple points bundled together) to ease discussion based on each of the components in concern. Users are requested to put in their responses parametrically (rather than grouping number of items together) so that each of these parameters can be discussed such that meaningful modifications can be made to the existing document for betterment. The other option of course is for somebody else to prepare an independent document from the scratch, if one is eager to volunteer for it. I doubt if the latter is a practical option though. Diptanshu 💬 11:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC) updated Diptanshu 💬 04:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

As of now, considerations regarding the document can be grouped into two broad categories:

  • Whether any Code of Conduct needs to be defined and implemented
  • Salient updates that need to be made to the existing draft
Why a Code of Conduct needs to be formulated - A personal perspective
  • WikiJournal is not only a community based effort, it involves formation of new communities. Wiki.J.Med established a culture and I have been a part of it in the past. Subsequently Wiki.J.Sci and Wiki.J.Hum have come up. Subsequently others like Wiki.J.Economics or may be Wiki.J.Politics would be coming up. The backgrounds are entirely different. So what are the commonalities we would like to retain or infuse into the newly formed communities, or do we let them take their own course irrespective of any guidelines? Would they even need to maintain the standards of an academic journals or would they be free to do whatever they wish? A Code of Conduct will help in laying down the guidelines about what is expected of a WikiJournal.
  • There is no authoritarian regime that will maintain standards. The varied backgrounds and thought processes of the members of independent communities are likely to vary significantly. Therefore a common ground needs to be defined so that people can work in unison and harmony. A code of conduct will help in forming a common set of guidelines for the same.
  • Over the last six months or so I have observed several irregularities on the part of multiple board members that I consider not to be up to the culture that can be expected to be prevalent in a WikiJournal community. Interestingly a number of them are not even aware that their behavior might need some fine tuning. So who will define what is acceptable and what is not? A 'Code of Conduct' can ensure that without implicating individuals in a fault-finding manner.

- Diptanshu 💬 05:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Why you should get involved in fool-proofing the Code of Conduct?
  • If you consider yourself to be a part of the WikiJournal initiative (in whatever form), the onus of betterment of the culture lies upon you. If you do not help it improve there is no one on whom automatically the responsibility can be automatically implicated. Surely you can involve others, but in a community based initiative like this things are not supposed to happen on its own.
  • There has been no opposition to the requirement of a Code of conduct, either during the voting period or till date. So, it can be assumed that sooner or later a Code of conduct will be ratified, and that too is likely to happen in a finite time period. If you find something in the existing draft of Code of conduct, now is the time to discuss and sort it out, else what you find objectionable would become applicable to you unless you help in getting the appropriate changes made.
  • Ever edited Wikipedia? Have you seen somebody complain 'This article is too short', 'This article is too long', 'This article is unfocussed' etc.? If you think that the present state of the article concerns you, fix it, or involve others constructively to help the article get fixed. The same applies to the proposed Code of Conduct draft. If you find a gap, identify it, discuss it, work on it, fix it. Fault-finding would not help. Opposing will not help, raise the concern, discuss the problem by defining it in solvable terms, solve the problem meaningfully.
  • Like Wikipedia, anybody can edit the Code of conduct draft. So, if you find a scope to contribute, why would you not?

- Diptanshu 💬 05:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I request users to raise their concerns and to raise them in the the appropriate section so that further improvements to the existing draft can be made. Diptanshu 💬 11:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Eligible voters
Eligible voters were (and would be if the voting reopens)
  1. Current Editorial Board Members and Associate Members.
  2. Authors who have submitted at least one article to any of the WikiJournals.
  3. Peer reviewers who have completed at least one peer review.
  4. Wikiverstity Editors with at least 30 edits to WikiJournal pages.

The EiCs may extend or modify the scope in case they feel any particular important segment to have been inadvertently included or excluded. During the period of next 10 days, the document will also open to discussion on each of the individual clauses and modification can be suggested. In case changes are suggested, the users would have the option to re-opine in order to finalize the consensus. Diptanshu 💬 19:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The window of participating in the voting process is on the verge of closure. Requesting the board members to feel free to oppose or support. More importantly, their involvement is needed in the context of the questions raised by Mark. Diptanshu 💬 14:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

A note on electorate: Thejournal bylaws are amended by votes by the journal boards. I think it is reasonable that the same is the case for a code of conduct, which is an extension of the bylaws and ethics guidelines.T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think that voting is premature when the document is in such an early state and still being edited. Other documents have taken many months of work, and I would be keen to give time for more people to be involved before a final vote is held. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Given the significance of such a document if it is ratified, I think it's reasonable to extend the discussion time to give people more time to comment (it took several months to write the ethics statement). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Inputs from Mikael

Diptanshu, I see you have put significant work into the draft, but it would need to be supported by at least a consensus among journal participants in order to become official. I'll need to evaluate the document a bit further before being able to form an opinion. To give me more time for this, would you be able to coordinate the peer reviewing of any of the new article submissions of WikiJMed? WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Potential_upcoming_articles. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 17:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mikael Häggström:, please take your time to evaluate the document and make amends before you place it before the boards for consensus. But please set a dealine and act accordingly. In the meantime I would possibly add or modify a point or two. Do follow the history page.
I would possibly be available to take up coordination of peer reviews in or after December but not at the moment. Furthermore, in my present capacity I am not sure whether I hold the right credentials for the task. Since this is outside the scope of the ongoing discussion, perhaps we can discuss it elsewhere. Diptanshu 💬 17:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Just an update. I have coordinated with a few prospective reviewers and one of them has already consented to review of one of the articles. Details have been emailed to you. I expect a few more positive responses soon. Will keep you updated. Diptanshu 💬 16:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mikael Häggström:, I understand that you are possibly busy, but please set a deadline for yourself and others. 8 days have already elapsed. In the meantime, the scope of the document now extends further. Diptanshu 💬 10:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the help in finding peer reviewers. I will look over the current potential upcoming articles, and I can't say yet when I'll be able to make a proper review of this draft. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 15:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mikael Häggström:, in case you are busy at the moment there is no reason to assume that @Evolution and evolvability, Fransplace: are equally taken up. They can take up the task of reviewing the document. Such an important thing should not wait indefinitely. In case the other EiCs are taken up as well, the rest of the boards should be able to judge the document. In such a case, do you not think that we need to hear back from the other EiCs first and in case they are not in a position to dedicate time, the consensus should perhaps begin outright. They can crucially evaluate the document and discuss. They would also be free to oppose the enforcement of any 'Code of Conduct' and may express their willingness to remain free from all obligations. @Mikael Häggström:, should the process be kept indefinitely waiting just because you are taken up at the moment? Diptanshu 💬 13:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Objection to re-structuring[edit]

For the record, I strongly object to w:User:Diptanshu Das shifting the different bits and pieces of the discussion around according to his own judgement. I fully believe that Diptanshu thought he was acting for the best, and trying to be constructive, but changing the context does amount to a change, and requires judgement calls that are not, in general, be the same as the judgement of the original author. As an example: While browsing the newly structured discussion, I found at least one comment that was originally a reply to another user, and has now been changed, by Diptanshu, to read like it was a reply by me to Diptanshu. It's an unreasonable imposition on editors to be required to check for context just because someone else has decided to, on their own, restructure the whole discussion, picking comments apart into small sections and arranging them to their own liking, and I call on Diptanshu to refrain from such presumptuous behavior in the future. You're not a talk-page-editor-in-chief, Diptanshu – please respect the contributions of others by leaving them as they were written, in the context they were written. On Wikipedia, this would be grounds for a ban under WP:TALKNO. Markus Pössel (discusscontribs) 13:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, I note that a very general comment I wrote about the Code of Conduct being much too broad is now sequestered under the sub-point "stakeholders". This completely changes the context of what I was saying. I really have no time or inclination to go through all the different chopped-up bits of my original comment to see which ones are still in context, and which aren't, and am fairly annoyed that Diptanshu, through his actions, is now forcing me to put in that time. Let us please go back to the non-restructured version. In my view, proper procedure would be to leave the original discussion as is, start a new section for the newly structured discussion, and then, if deemed appropriate, set links to different bits of the original discussion. But not this context-insensitive chopping-up, please. Markus Pössel (discusscontribs) 13:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear Markus, you do not really need to summarily oppose the restructuring. I am sorry if I have inadvertently misrepresented your comments. I did take care to inform the original authors so that they can check if things are fine. If they are not, suitable corrective actions can be taken. You do accept that my edit was in good faith. I have never heard an editor get banned due to good faith edits. Furthermore, if misrepresentation was unintentional, I doubt if would have counted as a ground for ban. If you are doing this, perhaps you are adversely affecting contributions on Wikipedia. I would humbly urge you to modify your pieces so that they convey what you meant. I am sorry that you might need to put some extra effort in the process. But please do not call for reversion of the reorganisation because else the entire discussion will lose its purpose and the discussion in the former state would not help in improving the document in question. So, one does need to rely on best judgement about what to do. Still there can be better ways that one has not perhaps thought of. One would always act in ones best judgement and one does not really need to be the editor-in-chief to think in the best interest of the project one is involved in. Rather than summarily rejecting anything done for good, a better way would perhaps be to retain the good and to eliminate the negatives. That is how progress is made. Please do not be averse to progress. Diptanshu 💬 13:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Dear Markus, I think that the point you raised is taken care of by now. In fact, I had only made one big edit for the restructuring and was in the process of reviewing each segment so that I could ensure that the representations were proper. You placed your objection before I could have reviewed the whole stuff and set things in order. I think that I have taken care of your concerns. In case there are more points that I have inadvertently omitted, please do not hesitate to make me aware and also to take corrective measures. But I would humbly request you not to undo the positive developments that this restructuring offers. Diptanshu 💬 14:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Dear Diptanshu, I am dismayed by the fact that your responses do not convey any acknowledgement on your part that what you did has some significant problematic aspects. Instead, you spend time on telling me, without any specific evidence, I might have a negative effect on Wikipedia, and on warning me not to stand in the way of progress. And you do not in any way seem to have understood that it is an imposition to force others to spend time on a particular, and in their view unnecessary task. Humility is not achieved by adding the adjective "humbly" to every other sentence or so, but by trying to understand, and by acknowledging, the concerns of others, something that, judging by your replies, you have failed to do. Markus Pössel (discusscontribs) 15:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
And no, the reply you initially falsely moved so it seemed like a reply to yourself is now equally misleadingly moved so it looks like I was replying to myself. Please consider that you are somewhat out of your depth with this reordering, and should not have taken this onto yourself, but started a new section, keeping the old discussion intact and quoting it. This is really annoying. Markus Pössel (discusscontribs) 15:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Humility is in the tone and not in the word 'humbly' that has been included. I do not think that with any amount of sincere efforts I would be able to satisfy you. Please feel free to segment my response and move it (or duplicate if, if needed, with or without a strikethrough) to the appropriate section that you feel relevant.
I thought that creating a new section would not solve the purpose because each of the long responses (with multiple bundled points) would still need to be split (or rather duplicated) in order to discuss each of the points parametrically. Without that the discussion would just have some to standstill.
I might be wrong but on multiple occasions I have observed behaviours (by one or more board members) that I considered inappropriate. These could be averted if there was a Code of Conduct in place. So, even if it may seem to be an unnecessary task possibly it is not. Diptanshu 💬 04:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


Discussion: Whether any Code of Conduct needs to be defined and implemented[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - As the proposing member I express my support. Diptanshu 💬 19:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support (Will wait until we are done editing.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)) - I will offer some minor copy edit suggestions later. I support the code of conduct. I very much like the way it is written.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I support implementing this now as is. I have the opinion that no one in the world has ever produced a reasonable code of conduct for online communities. Inspired by the discussion here and other Wikimedia efforts, I am trying to collect all existing codes of conduct in Wikidata as documented at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Policies. It will not be quick, but I hope that by documenting codes of conduct it will be more apparent how little anyone knows about doing this. At meta:Wikimedia community code of conduct there is no Wikimedia community code of conduct, so for a starting example, what this user group is doing is the best in the Wikimedia community. The mw:Code of Conduct was complicated to develop and is okay, but the proposal here covers more necessary situations and addresses more problems. I say to publish wiki-style and accept this good-enough draft, then debate the details over the coming years. Note where there is problems, but be proud of what the team has compiled to this point and go with it. If someone violates the policy because the policy has confusing elements, or if someone complies with the policy but still does something problematic, then use human judgement and conversation to sort the issue out. We are not robots, we do not have to exist by a code of laws, no one has codified online community conduct in this way successfully before, and this is as good as it gets. It is useful to have this even in its incomplete state. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Issues raised by Mark
  • (b) Perhaps we do not need our own Code of Conduct? That is, if we all agree to follow the COPE Core Practices, the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, and Wikimedia policies, would that be enough? Are there any conflicts or important topics that are not covered by any of those documents?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Markworthen for your valuable inputs.
  • First of all, COPE or ICMJE needs us to stick to best practices and 'Core Practices' is an example of such a thing. This can be done by creating a custom list, or by adhering to a list like the one provided by COPE.
  • WikiJournals did have their own Code of conduct but its scope was rather limited. I do not have objections if the WikiJournal members choose to abide by a salient list of that nature. But more importantly, we need to understand that the dynamics of WikiJournals is significantly different from a regular academic publication. In addition to the characteristics of an academic journal it also encompasses the principles of collaborative contribution, free knowledge movement (including this and this). So, I felt that a unique set of 'Code of Conduct' needs to be formulated with the latter items in mind.
  • Wikipedia principles should have sufficed but they are specifically oriented towards collaboratively preparing encyclopedic content and in adhering to standards for the same. Most of the important Wikipedia principles remain valid for the WikiJournal platform but it needs to be clearly identified which ones applicable. Hence the need for a custom list.
  • Wikimedia board principles are more relevant and the list I have suggested is primarily based on the same. Nevertheless, the functioning of WikiJournal is slightly different. The principles of academic publishing also come in. Hence the requirement of a custom list.
  • I also felt that the board at Wiki.J.Med till shortly back was made of people who were familiar with the culture and altercations never arose even though there was no defined set of best practices. However, the subsequently formed boards were formed primarily of academicians who might not have been familiar with the additional components that distinguishes WikiJournals. Hence the need of a custom 'best practice guideline' (if that is what we would like to call it). The set of best practices that I have outlined are supposed to act as community guidelines for a harmonious community.
  • If such a list of best practices were adhered to by the folks who make up the boards, a recent chain of unfortunate events would never have occurred.
  • It was never marked which principles to follow. Hence nobody followed them.
  • If the set of guidelines had been precisely identified User:OhanaUnited would never have felt the requirement to set community safety guidelines.
Hence the custom list that I proposed. I could discuss in more detail but that will make the discussion unnecessarily long. Multiple contributors have strongly urged me to try to be concise. Diptanshu 💬 18:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC) ↓

I made some copy edits to the Code of Conduct draft (diff), and I asked some non-urgent questions on the Talk page.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Valuable inputs by Mark and T.Shafee
Mark, I have given some responses to your questions. Requesting Thomas for his involvement in the issue. Thomas, the time-sensitive issues remain critical and call for further development of guidelines about how board members are to act in such cases and how to prioritize some matters above others. Diptanshu 💬 14:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
It could also be useful to list here some (in the same way that the bylaws were influenced by the WikiProject Med foundation bylaws, and the ethics guidelines influenced by the COPE and ICMJE guidelines. Relevant examples of reference for this might include:
Most other journal codes of conduct that I've found more closely resemble our publication ethics rather than civility guides. It will certainly need to include some comment on harassment or disruption. One thing to consider whether some elements are better placed in either bylaws or publication ethics. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC) list updated 11:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
A good suggestion from one of the other editorial board members via email: we should get feedback from the WMF's Trust and Safety team to get feedback based on their experience. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 22:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I've temporarily underlined the sections of the document adapted from the WMF codes of conduct so that it's easier to see which sections are newly added for specific reference to WikiJournals. I think we should also aim to keep it concise where possible, since it's easy for policies to expand, but harder to shrink. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Thomas for the great work. I have made a few other changes (diff). Feel free to review them. Diptanshu 💬 08:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been reading up a lot about codes of conduct in order to try to ensure that the one being drafted is as useful as possible. Things I like in the WMF trustees' CoC (the main influence on the current draft):

  • It is positively framed as much as possible
  • WMF has a lot of experience with interactions between volunteer community members in both informal and professional environments
  • It is relatively short

There are a few things I'm keen to avoid (where possible):

  • A situation in which a Code of Conduct is used to attack others, as can sometimes be observed in Wikipedia ("Wikilawyering")
  • Blurring the lines between actionable offences (e.g. harassment) versus guidelines (e.g. be flexible)
  • Duplication, (e.g. the journal group's ethics statement has points on harassment and discrimination).
  • Policy creep, where the guidelines expand to cover additional circumstances.
  • Inconsistent levels of detail between areas.

T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion: Salient updates that need to be made to the existing draft[edit]

Portions of the current discussion have been moved from Talk:WikiJournal User Group/Code of conduct draft which now redirects here

Overtly long and seemingly unfocussed[edit]

My impression of the current version of the Code of Conduct is that it is overly long, and serves no clear purpose. Why is something shorter like the Wikimedia code of conduct not sufficient for us? Which concrete examples from the past mean that we need a specific code of conduct? All this with the background: Is this really where we want our participants to invest their limited time and energy at this time? Markus Pössel (discusscontribs) 22:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been wondering about this – do we need another very general conduct like that from WMF, or should we perhaps go the exact opposite route – try to identify what's special about the WikiJournals, and then just try to encode that into a specific Code of Conduct? (We could point to the more general Wikimedia one for those interested.) I'm a great fan of the principle of subsidiarity, in general, and this would be a case in point. Markus Pössel (discusscontribs) 10:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose in the present form. This is a curious mix of statements that are so commonplace that we probably do not need an additional code of conduct to be aware of them, and of statements that I think go counter some of the spirit of what we are doing. Markus Pössel (discusscontribs) 22:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Dear Markus, you do not need to accept it in its current form. You can definitely develop upon it. You have already pointed out some pertinent issues. Please help in pointing out ways of modification so that the 'Code of conduct' can be reshaped for good. Indeed it would make sense to identify what is special about WikiJournals. I have done my part. Please get others involved so that they can put in their valuable inputs in this regard. Diptanshu 💬 14:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm with Markus here, I find the current draft too long and too unfocussed, and.. Split to the next point to respond specifically to that issue... Chiswick Chap (discusscontribs) 13:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Does the Code of Conduct need to be short?
I do not think so. It should not be long either. Its length should be optimal. The optimal length is a balanced trade off between size and functionality. It should essentially contain the functional components that form key guidelines without making it overtly long. Diptanshu 💬 12:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Can it be as short as Wikimedia code of conduct?
I do not think so. Essentially WikiJournal has additional attributes as compared to Wikimedia in general. Factoring them in would automatically make the list longer than the Wikimedia code of conduct. Diptanshu 💬 12:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Is it unfocussed?
I do not think so. The focus of the existing draft is on two things
  1. The behaviour of an academic community that ensures quality and neutrality in producing peer reviewed literature.
  2. The behaviour of an online community that acts collaboratively.
If one finds any (unfocussed) clause to be out of place, one is free to discuss it here in the discussion thread pointing out why they think it to be out of place. Diptanshu 💬 12:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Verifiability of items[edit]

Split from previous point to respond specifically to this issue... unfocussed, and I suggest probably unverifiable in several of its items (how do we decide if someone is being insightful? It's a matter of personal opinion). The Wikimedia code of conduct is much more like what we should have, and it's certainly available for us to use. Chiswick Chap (discusscontribs) 13:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear Chiswick Chap, I would point out that 'being insightful' is an attribute meant for the EiCs. You have correctly pointed out that it is not verifiable. This point is not meant to be verifiable or judged. If the EiCs are not insightful, the journal is bound to suffer. This is almost analogous to leadership. I do not think that you would oppose EiCs demonstrating leadership qualities. Leadership is not a verifiable quality, yet essential on the part of EiCs. I hope that you would agree. Diptanshu 💬 14:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The insightfulness is itself unverifiable. I don't think it desirable to ask for unverifiable attributes of anybody or anything. Argument by analogy merely introduces further concepts to the discussion, making it more complex but without resolving the matter under discussion. I oppose. Chiswick Chap (discusscontribs) 15:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I reviewed the following policies and found parameters that are not really verifiable.
Wikimedia Foundation Code of Conduct
1. Treat other people with respect - Respective is not a verifiable parameter. It is subjective. Nevertheless, it is indispensible.
1.. aim to be honest and ethical in their dealings with each other - Essential, but what are the parameters to verify that it is actually in place?
Wikimedia Foundation Code of Conduct of the Board of Trustees
1. Work professionally - Essential. But do parameters need to be defined? Can ALL parameters actually be defined? But is it verifiable? May be.
1.. ..respectfully, ..according to the highest ethical standards, ..strong relationships - Verifiable parameters? Are parameters defined for each of them?
4. Act with care - Is care a verifiable parameter? Very important clause nevertheless.
I think that it would be really good if the parameters of a 'Code of Conduct' are verifiable but that is rather a secondary consideration. Nobody is trying to pull down somebody else by citing that they have not adhered to this clause and here is the parametric proof that you are not compliant. Rather, a Code of Conduct forms the common platform on people would stand together to work in unison. Point me if I am wrong. Diptanshu 💬 04:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Introductory comments by Mark
  • Thank you for your work on this Diptanshu--and for sending me an email asking for my feedback. (That's an effective method for soliciting feedback or peer review.) :-) ... QUESTION: I have read COPE's Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, in the past and I read it again today. You indicated that COPE requires that we develop our own Code of Conduct, in addition to agreeing to follow COPE's Code of Conduct. Is that correct? I ask because I could not find such a requirement on the COPE website.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Introduction to Questions raised by Mark

I don't think any of these questions represent areas of urgent concern, but I figure it's better to ask questions when they occur, as opposed to relying on my memory. ;o)

My questions are about the text in italics. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mark, I will try to address the issues as best as I can. Diptanshu 💬 14:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
1.2 Code of Conduct of the Board members ... 4. Commit to transparency. ... Make all Board records available publicly, unless they should be private.[edit]
This item is identical to the discussion at Talk:WikiJournal User Group#Public citability of board discussions. To avoid unnecessary duplication let further discussion take place as a part of the point below.
Where do we (or where will we) differentiate between public and private records? In other words, how do I (or any participant) know that a record should be public or private?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
My proposal is:
  • A Wikimedia mailing list be created specifically for the participation of the board members of the respective WikiJournal. The membership would be restricted to the board members only. However, as in meta:Affiliations Committee#contact-us, outsiders would be able to write directly to the group. Outsiders would be free to view the discussions as in this, this, or this, with the proceedings fully transparent visible to public as in case of that of Wikimedia board.
  • The ease of participation of the board members will remain exactly the same as on current date. As of today, they participate by writing emails to and responding to emails from a google group email. After the updates, they would do it in exactly same way by replacing the email address with a email address.
  • The board email id on googlegroups would remain active but its use would be limited to only the issues which come under the purview of the confidentiality guideline which is still to be formed.
  • Unless submission related issues or issues like double blinding specifically require the issues to be confidential, all other issues are to remain public. However, explicit guidelines on confidentiality requirements are still to be defined. Diptanshu 💬 14:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree that we should aim for greater transparency. The majority of board emails pertain to organising peer reviews and possible author invites, which will have to remain confidential for the time being. However strategy / ideas / policy etc discussions can be moved on-wiki as much as possible. Possible downsides of introducing another mailing list are that the wrong ones end up used accidentally. It would lead to three mailing lists per journal plus one for wikijournals as a whole. A better solution may be greater use of the journal discussion pages for strategy and summary of email chain discussions. A downside is that wiki discussion pages are aweful to use, however we may be able to get FLOW installed (either on selected pages on Wikiversity or if WikiJournals become a sister project. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Dear Thomas, I appreciate your point that having yet another mailing list might be a burden. Rather, what I propose is that:
  • The current board-specific email list email address be replaced with a email address. This is to act as the default list.
  • This will initiate a confusion about what to do with the sensitive/confidential emails. In that case, only those can be posted on the board-specific email address, or some other fresh email list that has 'confidential' appended to the name. That should clear any confusion about where to post what.
  • A policy document can be prepared about what exactly is to be deemed confidential, and what not. Let us reserve it for now.
  • The mass email list pertaining to wikijournals is an announcement list as of now and there should not be any confusion with that. So far, WikiJournals have not been able to strategically utilize the involvement of enthusiasts who are outside the board (that includes the associate editors).
  • I am unaware of 'FLOW' and would have to look it up. However, people here prefer mailing lists and therefore that might not be a substitute but a value add-on.
In short, if executed properly, I doubt if there would be any confusion at all. Mental bias to stick to the existing system is an entirely different issue altogether and my proposal is unable to cater to it. Diptanshu 💬 04:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
WJM Board email list 2018
Dear Thomas, with the year coming to an end could you please give us the exact figure on number of discussions that have taken place in the year (a month by month figure would be more preferable but can be avoided if inconvenient). This can easily be done by opening the homepage of the board specific google groups and counting the number of threads manually (assuming each thread to be an independent discussion). I guess that there would be many. I would be glad if you could also give us the figure about how many among them relate specifically to submissions (assumably confidential) and their editorial consideration. In case you are busy, may be you can involve some other board member who is not so taken up at the moment. Delegating the task should not be hard. Do let me know in case you think that I am asking for too much details. Diptanshu 💬 07:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
From 2018-05-30 to 2019-01-19 there were 78 email threads on the WikiJSci board mailing list. 34 contained confidential information, 16 contained information that was summarised and made public on the relevant discussion pages, 14 contained information that could sensibly be publicly summarised but wasn't, 14 contained trivial notifications (such as new notifications of new editor applications). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 06:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The boards are currently aiming to meet via conference call once per month (with a likely reduction in frequency later in the year). Minutes of these meetings are being published here. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) for the information on the nature of email transaction between the board members of Wiki.J.Sci in the given time span. This is slightly different from what I had asked for. I had asked how many of them concerned article submissions while you have listed what you have considered confidential information. Nevertheless, that indeed gives an idea. I am providing herewith the screenshot of search results for from my own mailbox showing the list of email transactions between Wiki.J.Med board members between 15 January 2018 and 21 December 2018. The list of sender and participants has been clipped because some members might not like to have the information revealed. This list of the topics of 100 emails is marked to show that only 6 of the emails (6% - marked in red) are pertaining to submitted articles and that 9 others (9% - marked in black) can loosely be considered confidential. In fact, it needs to be considered what exactly is to be classified as confidential and how exactly they can be left out if the list if the list were to be public. If the issue regarding the revelation of the public identity of the board members can be sorted out, and if double-blinding of identities of both the authors and reviewers is accepted and arranged for, with the participation in discussion on submitted articles being limited to board members only, it may perhaps be discussed/argued whether even the threads concerning editorial decision on the submitted articles can occur in a publicly listed group. Regarding the handful of emails that contain sensitive information, I think they would be rather easy to deal with if we have guidelines in place. Diptanshu 💬 11:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) Could you please elaborate the details of the nature or segregation of the items that made the 34 emails confidential. I mean to ask what exactly did they contain. Also, could you specify how many of these were related to specific submissions and for others that do not meet this criteria, what sort of information did they contain? Diptanshu 💬 13:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
1.3 Code of Conduct of the Editors in Chief ... 4. Maintain transparency. Keep processes open unless confidential.[edit]
As above, we should provide some differentiation or explanation here, or perhaps reference another document that explains which processes are confidential.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
As per discussion for the preceding point. A separate guideline indeed needs to delineate which issues are confidential and which are not. Diptanshu 💬 14:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Quality control: Issue raised by Mark
1.2 Code of Conduct of the Board members ... 6. Maintain standards. Have quality control measures in place.[edit]
Do we have these now, or do we need to develop them?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
We have some. A lot many need to be developed. This Code of Conduct guideline is an attempt to do the same. More is needed. Diptanshu 💬 14:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Quality control is more in the field of the editorial guidelines and publication ethics. I think that this document should focus on interpersonal interactions so as to avoid duplication, but should definitely include the relevant links. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
YesY Done Sounds good to me. :O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Civility guide[edit]

I think it is probably reasonable to have some sort of civility guide, since WikiJournals are trying a very community-driven way of being a publishing house. One thing I think will need to be reflected is that participants are volunteers, and their time availability will vary as will their primary area of engagement. For a journal, there are vital or time-sensitive tasks so it is sometimes necessary to compel someone else to act. However this should be in proportion to the context. It will also be good to reduce participant burnout. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Record of trimmed bits
Record of trimmed bits[edit]

There are a few items that I think are over-specific for a CoC, or more relevant to bylaws or publication ethics. I'll list them here in case people prefer to re-include them in the CoC. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Develop mechanisms for authors to appeal editorial decisions
  • Apply for funding when needed
  • ...including the Conflict of Interest Policy (was in section also listing following publication ethics policy)
  • Adopt systems for detecting plagiarism
I didn't notice that anything had been trimmed, so that tells me it was a good trimmin'. ;-) (What you (T.Shafee) write makes sense.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Concerns regarding self-serving nature of the draft[edit]

While there is a need to further strengthen the code of conduct, I cannot support it at this moment on the grounds that it was laid out by the editor who was found to be rude and incivil towards other WikiJournal participants. It's quite ironic that the person suggesting to amend the code of conduct was the same individual who was already found, by WikiJournal community, to have violated Harassment and discrimination of the existing code of conduct. I fear that a lot of his involvement is self-serving. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

OhanaUnited, there is nothing personal about ones' contributions to collaborative and open access projects. So, I humbly request you to avoid judging it by who proposed the improvisation and whether the improvisation is actually credible. If you are apprehensive that this improvisation is 'self-serving' you need to justify how exactly it could serve my personal interests instead of that of the greater WikiJournal. I would humbly request you to be practical and to be able to look at the greater picture. Diptanshu 💬 12:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
OhanaUnited, thanks for beautifully illustrating an example of the significance of double blinding (screening the name of the author and reviewer during the review process). You affirm that your review has been affected by your anticipation about the author. @Mikael Häggström, Evolution and evolvability, Fransplace: please take a note. Diptanshu 💬 12:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
OhanaUnited, you are perhaps worried about conflict of interest (COI). In fact, you might not realise but your act of opposing the proposal also counts as a COI since you were a major contributor to the act of labelling me, proposing my removal and also in voting for it. I understand that you are only trying to be over-cautious and have nothing against me or the proposal. Moreover, I am no longer the only author of the document. Please check the edit history of the document and you will find that the document has been evaluated by two independent credible editors and they have cumulatively made more edits to the document than I have. You too are free to review the document (I strongly insist) and make amends that you feel justified. But please do not summarily reject the proposal based on a parameter outside those of concern. You might not realise but it could count as discimination (judging a book by its cover is an act of discrimination and should be avoided). Diptanshu 💬 12:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Avoid accusatory language[edit]

"Avoid accusatory language" is a case in point: If someone, just to pick an example repeatedly harasses other participants, then it is necessary to point out the inappropriateness of that behavior. Putting "avoid accusatory language" would give the person who is misbehaving a chance for wiki-lawyering against such justified censure. And putting "accusatory language" in the same category as "hate speech" makes thing that much worse. Similar "Avoid any intention to harm, derogate, or destroy someone's creation, prestige, reputation or self-esteem. Avoid statements that are not constructive or can be hurtful." - that conflicts with the need for clear words, and for setting boundaries, in case of someone misbehaving. And contrary to what is written here, I believe it is an important function of the board to step in on occasions where it is necessary. Markus Pössel (discusscontribs) 22:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear Markus, in case you wanted to indicate that I have tried to 'repeatedly' harass other participants, I would humbly request you to provide the evidence (here) that such a thing has happened at all. I am not aware of such a happening. My words had been harsh to one participant at one point of time but on realising that I did apologise and that too with full ingenuity. What I was not ok with is that it had given the justification to certain members to be rash to me on such a ground. My reluctance to accept this made things worse. I did notice a number of irregularities on the part of a number of board members and I did not want that to go on. That was the impetus for me to create a 'Code of Conduct'. I was certain that had such a 'Code of Conduct' been in place, those members would not have been able to show those unacceptable behaviors and no fuss would have resulted. I may be wrong but I have felt a certain degree of aggression in your words. Perhaps you can soften down a bit (more).
Markus, I would request you to spare 3.22 mins of your time in checking the Reviewing Expert tip video (if the video does not play, you can click the download button on the lower right). It stresses upon the use neutral non-accusatory language while reporting probable misconduct. It is possible that some of the existing editorial board members are unaware of this ethical consideration. Diptanshu 💬 14:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
While my example certainly was inspired by cases I have witnessed, including but certainly not restricted to several inappropriate e-mails from you, I was making a general point that I believe to be valid. Please do not try to make this about you personally; that would be quite inappropriate in and of itself. Markus Pössel (discusscontribs) 15:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Inappropriate e-mails from me? Please care to furnish them. I did include you in the recipient list when I sent out emails to eminent external persons when I requested them to review the 'Code of conduct' document that I had prepared. The emails were also copied to the EiCs and they would know if there was anything inappropriate in those emails. Please care to substantiate your claim. Else, this is accusatory and therefore unsupportable. @Mikael Häggström, Evolution and evolvability, Fransplace: please take note. EiCs, please care to clarify your stand on the act being accusatory. If it is ok with you, I would care to ask COPE if it sounds ok to them. Diptanshu 💬 15:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
"[I]nappropriate e-mails" refer to those e-mails that played a part in the run-up to your proposed removal from the WikiJournal of Medicine (WJM) editorial board, in short: to the same incident that you yourself have referred to elsewhere in this discussion. But again, I was making a general point, not addressing your case specifically, and would welcome any comments you have on my more general argument. Markus Pössel (discusscontribs) 22:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The proposed removal did not occur due to me sending any inappropriate emails to you but since discussing it would deviate from the original issue in discussion, I would leave the issue. All I would add is that any amount of inappropriateness you detect on a participant's behaviour (speaking generally) does not give you the right to be accusatory. There are better ways to convey the point you want to raise.
Coming to the issue of why a code of conduct is needed, I have already discussed it in response to a question raised earlier by Mark. If you have any issues, please raise it there. If you need to know if the participants need any code of conduct at all, I guess the answer does is obviously an yes. Let me add that the commotion that lead to my removal would not have resulted if a Code of conduct was in place (and if people followed it). In the given event, my act of responding authoritatively to Kai (based on her tone which I considered inappropriate) gave others the freedom to respond authoritatively and in unsupportable ways. I have seen their attitude to continue and this affects the overall culture at WikiJournals. Having a Code of conduct (and people following it) will ensure that people act in ways that are supportable in accordance to the culture of WikiJournal and Wikimedia movement. Diptanshu 💬 01:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it is best to discuss the issues of a CoC separately to the board dismissal case. As to the inclusion of an 'accusatory language' clause, I think that it would likely be counterproductive to discourage people from pointing out harassment when observed. I think that a more useful approach is to focus on the reporting framework as in e.g. the Mozilla CoC framework. As to the dismissal, I think it has been discussed in sufficient depth to know where the different participants stand on it. I hope that a CoC that outlined expected behaviour would prevent such cases arising in future, and at least provide a framework for dealing with it (expanding on the existing reporting system that was used). The dismissal was determined to be the result of your actions in emails, not to the those of the others involved. Any further discussion of that element can be done in a thread separate to his to prevent the perception that a CoC is being written to exonerate you. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Thomas, let me give a representative scenario. If I said 'you are selectively avoiding addressing the issues I raise' I would have been making accusatory comments, same as 'I accuse you of selectively avoiding addressing the issues I raise'. Now, the evidence has not yet not been considered in such a case and so if I jump to conclusions I could possibly be wrong. Instead, if I say, 'I am apprehensive that the issues I raise are not being answered', I have raised the point but have not been accusatory. Your response and/or evaluation of evidence would be enough to clarify if the claim is valid. Using accusatory language automatically creates an impression that the prior assumption is true/correct, especially because the person making the assumption is assumably credible, and because people are usually busy, they start looking from the point where the assumption was made, essentially stepping into the bias and taking it forward. The Wikipedia principle 'Assume good faith' or my proposed 'avoid accusatory language' work in the same direction to avoid the negative bias that gets inadvertently introduced. An accusatory perspective says 'guilty till proven innocent'. 'Assume good faith' or my proposed 'avoid accusatory language' says 'Innocent until proven guilty'.
Use of accusations also have a defamatory effect. This defamation might not 'always' be acceptable. Furthermore, there should have been no problem if accusations essentially meant that they were correct. Most often accusations go without evidence base and promote mob-like behaviour in the process. The accusations need to be investigated first and there remains a chance that the accusations are found to lack a sound basis. If still it is felt that it is ok to be accusatory, WikiJournal and/or its accusatory participants should remain prepared to be sued. Use of accusations thus can give rise to the possibility of things backfiring. I think that you would accept that the given event has created additional botherations for you or the other board members that you would possibly have not faced had it been otherwise. In fact, you can face even worse if it is felt that it is ok to 'accuse'. I stress upon the role of 'fact finding and not fault finding'. Diptanshu 💬 13:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Forgive and forget[edit]

Split from previous point to respond specifically to this issue... "Forgive and forget" falls into the same category. Why? Creating an atmosphere in which participants can participate in discussion without fear of harassment could require that, say, a serial harasser be banned for a prolonged period of time or, if the behavior persists, indefinitely. Actions have consequences, and an indiscriminate "forgive and forget" would enable serial harassers to persist in their misbehaviour. Markus Pössel (discusscontribs) 22:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Markus, you might have realised but I have faced repeated unacceptable behavior from a number of board members following one unacceptable action of mine (for which I have already made amends and have humbly apologised). Perhaps you have not realised but I have taken care to promote an interview wherein more than one of the board members who exhibited such unacceptable behaviour were contributors. I did it by 'forgiving and forgetting' because that was in the best interest of the project I love. It was dismal when I did not see the same on their part and when they continue to act in hurtful manner. It is interesting that they rather choose to call me a 'repeat harasser' without even being able to reflect upon themselves. This should not be the case. Forgive and forget is an accepted principle on Wikipedia. I think the considerations should be the same here. Diptanshu 💬 14:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Please do not misrepresent the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Forgive and forget is an essay, that is, the personal opinion of one particular editor. As it stands, it is neither a Wikipedia policy nor a guideline, and there is nothing to indicate it is a generally "accepted principle," as you claim. I am also dismayed to note that your work on a Code of Conduct seems to be, to a significant degree, an attempt to impose guidelines that you will then specifically use to attempt to vindicate yourself vis a vis board members whom you believe to have wronged you. I am still waiting to hear a convincing reason why we should spend time on, and introduce, a Code of Conduct; this would be an example of a particularly unconvincing one. Markus Pössel (discusscontribs) 15:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I admit that I was wrong in stating Forgive and forget to be a policy. However, as I know, although this principle or rather essay, is authored by a person, it is followed by many. I think that it is inline with Wikipedia principles and helps in averting a battleground mentality. I could be wrong. Diptanshu 💬 02:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Take responsibility[edit]

Split from previous point to respond specifically to this issue... I could not find most of the statements of the "Take responsibility" item, which is supposed to be either from the Wikimedia Foundation or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, in either source. Please remove the misleading underlining, and restrict the underlining to those parts that are indeed found in those sources. I also find putting the exhortation to participate and volunteer as much as possible in a Code of Conduct unusual, to say the least. The degree of participation of an individual contributor will depend significantly on his or her external circumstances. We should not censure those who, due to their external circumstances, have less time than others. This wording comes close to that kind of censure. What I would like to see added, on the other hand, is an exhortation to keep things brief, and to respect others' limited time. Precisely because time is limited, voluminous e-mail discussions, e-mails that are not strictly necessary or are sent to a broader target audience than necessary should be avoided. Markus Pössel (discusscontribs) 22:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Markus, thanks for taking the time and pain to read through the document, for critically evaluating it, and for taking the time and pain to write down the issues. Before I answer your concerns I would like to hear the opinion of @Chiswick Chap, Markworthen, علاء: on the issues you have raised. However, in case you have missed, in addition to Take responsibility which is the 4th clause/point of Code of Conduct of WikiJournal participants (the scope of which automatically extends to the editorial boards as well as the EiCs), there is Be accountable which is the 13th clause/point of Code of Conduct of the Board members. Diptanshu 💬 13:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Participate in as many discussions as possible[edit]

Split from previous point to respond specifically to this issue... In fact, on the part of the board Code of Conduct, "Participate in as many discussions as possible" is counterproductive for a similar reason. On the contrary, people should not participate in discussion just for discussion's sake. They should participate when they have something to say. This is not about who can chalk up the highest word-count in discussions. Markus Pössel (discusscontribs) 22:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Markus for pointing out. I did not mean that members would participate in a discussion just for discussion's sake. I just meant that they should participate in as many discussions they found relevant to their scope. Could you please help in rewording it so that it can effectively convey what I meant? Diptanshu 💬 14:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Support all stakeholders in the Wikimedia projects[edit]

Split from previous point to respond specifically to this issue... In some respects, the current Code of Conduct seems much too broad. E.g. "support all stakeholders in the Wikimedia projects" - why, when this is about WikiJournals? That seems to be *much* too broad for what is needed for the WikiJournals. This kind of unrealistically broad scope actually weakens such a code of conduct. Markus Pössel (discusscontribs) 22:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Markus, your point is valid. Please help in suggesting a better representation that can be accepted. Inviting others to put in their inputs. Diptanshu 💬 14:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Ensure freedom of expression[edit]

Split from previous point to respond specifically to this issue... When it comes to "Ensure freedom of expression", I am not sure why this is brought up in this particular context. Serving as a bulletin group, or newsgroup, is not a purpose of the WikiJournals, and certainly not a purpose of the supporting infrastructure of mailing lists and discussion pages. Markus Pössel (discusscontribs) 22:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

External review[edit]

Review by Dr. Harinder Pal Singh Kalra   Vice Chair, International Steering Committee, UNESCO-facilitated Global Alliance for Partnerships on Media and Information Literacy (GAPMIL); Member of the Advisory Board, Open Access Indonesia (OAId); General Secretary, Indian Association of Teachers of Library and Information Science (IATLIS); Governing Body Member, Indian Association of Special Libraries and Information Centres (IASLIC); Member of the Working Group, Open Access India (OAI); and Professor and Head of the Department of Library and Information Science, Faculty of Education and Information Science, Punjabi University, Patiala 147002 Punjab (India)
This review was submitted on 2019-01-16, and refers to this previous version of the article

The Code of Conduct developed by you is broadly ok, but a few points are suggested for your consideration:

1. At a few places, there is some repetition and the points need to be simplified, particularly in the Code of Conduct of the Board members

2. The sub-headings should be "Code of Conduct for ---" rather than "Code of Conduct of ----"

3. The order of sub-headings Code of Conduct of [for] --- should be in reverse order, starting with --- Editors in Chief, then ---- Board Members, and then ---- Participants.

4. There should be a mechanism for reporting violations of the code.

5. In spite of all the issues raised in naming of WikiJournal, I think the term Wiki in the title of the journal is inappropriate, more so because it is the starting word. Other ways need to be explored for informing one and all that tech and other support for starting this and other Wiki journals came from the Wikimedia Foundation.

With best wishes.


Conflicts of interest: None declared

Dear Dr. Kalra

Thank you for taking the trouble to review the document. I am forwarding your response (along with) to the editors in chief and other associated persons for their consideration.

Thanks again for your cooperation.



Thank you to Kalra for these notes. We have now also engaged the WMF community safety team along with a working group from the joint editorial boards to produce the next draft of a CoC over the coming months (meeting notes). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Public citability of board discussions[edit]

The board members of the respective journals serve an important purpose of taking strategic decisions on issues pertaining to the journals. This is identical to what board members of various organisations do. Under normal circumstances, the board members meet from time to time and each time the 'minutes of meeting' are documented so that they can be publicly cited. The board discussions on WikiJournal boards is therefore equivalent to the 'minutes of meeting' of the board discussions of a public body and therefore need to be citable. However, on WikiJournal boards the discussions take place through closed googlegroups and the contents of such discussions are not publicly citable. So, apart from the participants of the discussions (the board members) nobody else knows if the decisions were neutral or biased. If need be, there is no clear policy about how such discussions can be cited if necessary. I had earlier proposed that the discussions be shifted to a wikimedia mailing list of which only the board members of the respective journal would be part, but the board members have not been eager to do so since they have become used to a particular way of communication. Perhaps they failed to realise that just the email address for sending the mails would change, the rest would just remain the same. However, there are certain issues that need to be kept in mind before a strategic decision is made. I will mention them below.

  • Wikimedia way - Wikimedia groups are essentially open and collaborative. WikiJournals being hosted on Wikimedia platform, the same should be applicable to them. Transparency pertaining to the board discussions is therefore very essential unless a specific confidential issue is being dealt with. Even in such a case, there should be a clear policy on the matter.
  • Confidential issues - For issues wherein it might not be appropriate to disclose sensitive information publicly, a tag of confidentiality may be attached to the subject of the respective threads and they may be selectively posted on the closed googlegroups till additional features are developed to meet the purpose on Wikimedia mailing lists (possibly would require the status of a sister project first).
  • Real names vs pseudonyms - In contrast to Wikimedia usernames which can be pseudonyms, usually the board members are needed to furnish their real names and credentials. Nevertheless, if they want, the real identity can be kept confidential. In such a case, regarding the public citability of the board discussions, a clear policy needs to be delineated about norms of referring to each person.
  • Change of names - In case a person subsequently wants to be known by a different name, the same may be approved publicly by the EiCs, making sure that the new name does not overlap with that of an existing user.
  • Accountability - Each member must be accountable for the statements they make. Theirfore, their statements should be obligatorily attached to the name of the person (may even be a short-name or abbreviation, but uniquely defined for the person beforehand). I think that one person should not be able to use multiple names but a clear policy needs to be defined.
  • Rights - The respective persons are the authors of each statement they make on the board discussions at the respective WikiJournas. Open licensing is supposed to apply to each such works of authorship when it occurs on the Wikimedia platform. So, I doubt if they should be allowed to restrain any statements made on WikiJournal boards from being publicly cited. Nevertheless, as stated in the previous statements, the statements made by a particular person should be attributed to the respective name/pseudonym that person is pre-decided to bear.
  • Citability and 'other' people in question - Irrespective of other arrangements, a board member should be able to cite their own communication if they need to. If the discussion involves other people, using their pre-determined name should automatically clear the requirement of any permissions from the respective persons. On the other hand, if a board member needs to cite the communication of some other person, they should be free to do so as per the reasons above.
  • Archivability and future availability - The decisions and discussions of the board members today should be archivable so that future participants and/or board members may be able to look up the discussions if need be. This may only be partially feasible if the discussions remain outside the scope of Wikimedia platforms.

I welcome a discussion and policy determination on the matter. Diptanshu 💬 18:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


I agree that participants should post online whenever possible, and I'll try to do so myself. It is also possible to link to email entries in the public groups. Board emails, on the other hand, will practically need to be assumed to be meant for the recipients only, and confidential to even other email lists. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 10:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Mikael, if the abstract of a paywalled article is available to be read freely, I would need to ask whether you would consider such a publication to be Open Access. I guess that the answer would be a no. In such a case, I hope that you would understand that the operations of WikiJournal (boards) in the present condition cannot be considered as transparent as in Open Access. In other words, it does not seem to share the philosophy it embodies.
Mikael, could you please explain how the operations of the editorial boards is supposed to be different from the operations of the Wikimedia Foundation board? Contrary to your belief, they are committed to transparency and their operations are clean and auditable by any external person. If you think that the board operations need to remain under a veil, and if you feel that board members should not be held accountable for what they do and say, please care to justify your stand. You may perhaps differ with me, but I feel that the discussions on WikiJournal boards essentially comes under two categories, ones that contain sensitive information of some sort, and the ones that do not. In case of the latter I see no reason for those discussions not to be transparent. I think that public accountability would ensure that the board members behave responsibly and that would be in the best interest for the project. A clear policy can be defined (can be an internal policy) about what can be considered sensitive information and not to be shared publicly. I am apprehensive that without public accountability the WikiJournal project would lack the credibility to eventually become a Wikimedia sister project.
In the rare event that an editorial decision is challenged (which should be permissible in accordance to the guidelines of COPE), Mikael, if the board discussions are non-transparent, how would you let permit the matter to be escalated to the next level, whatever be the next level?
Mikael, I see no board participation in the above discussion. Could you please explain the reason? In case you feel this discussion to be unimportant for the operation of WikiJournals, please feel free to say so. If you would think the discussion not to be unimportant, please clarify why the board members are not with you in this matter.
Mikael, I assume that you have made the above comments in your personal capacity and not in your official capacity. Please care to discuss with the other EiCs (and may be the boards as well) and provide a joint stand on the matter. Feel free to answer the other questions (as above) in your individual capacity. Diptanshu 💬 17:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@Doc James: and @Ozzie10aaaa:, I would like to hear your stand on the matter. Diptanshu 💬 17:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mikael Häggström, Evolution and evolvability, Fransplace: In case Mikael is currently unable to answer the above, the other EiCs can definitely answer. In case they too cannot, perhaps their assistants can take up the task. Diptanshu 💬 13:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Just a note to say that this is still on the radar. It may be a while to get round to whilst other aspects are being discussed first. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mikael Häggström, Evolution and evolvability, Fransplace: Perhaps the matter is still on radar. Perhaps it is not. I do not know how to make sure. So I thought of asking. By the way, irrespective of whether the matter is on radar, I would like the EiCs to jointly try to answer the questions I had raised for Mikael (as above). Diptanshu 💬 06:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I do not doubt that the EiCs (and the rest of the boards) are busy but I am keen to learn what exactly keeps them busy? In this section T.Shafee has indicated that "The majority of board emails pertain to organising peer reviews and possible author invites, which will have to remain confidential for the time being." I might be wrong but as I understand, there are a handful of submissions, each of which are being dealt with by a particular peer-review coordinator. This should leave most other board members free to participate in the discussions here (on-wiki). But I see very limited activity. May be that they are participating in other discussions (not directly pertaining to specific submissions) within the closed google group(s). In such a case can these discussions not take place transparently on a wikimedia mailing list as I have indicated in that section? Diptanshu 💬 06:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Excepting the answers to the questions above please let further discussion occur at Talk:WikiJournal User Group#1.2 Code of Conduct of the Board members ... 4. Commit to transparency. ... Make all Board records available publicly, unless they should be private.
Thomas, could you please try to answer the questions I had raised for Mikael. I would be glad if you try to answer ALL of them. Diptanshu 💬 13:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Bylaws review by AffCom[edit]

Hi all,

As part of the review for becoming a thematic organization, the Meta:Affiliations Committee got some questions or concerns regarding our bylaws: WikiJournal User Group/Bylaws. We need to address the following:

(1) Article IX allows the board to amend the bylaws as it sees fit without participation/approval by the broader membership (and, indeed, without any requirement to notify the members at all). This potentially allows the board to completely change the governance model (e.g. get rid of elections and make the board self-selecting) with no warning or way to prevent it. How would you address this?

(2) Article IV, Section 4(e) automatically makes all registered Wikiversity users who edit WikiJournal pages members. There is no provision for a user meeting that criterion to end their membership (either voluntarily or because they leave the project); in practice, this will mean that the membership will include an ever-increasing number of former editors, which will make quorum requirements based on a percentage of membership (e.g. Article IV, Section 4(b)). How would you systematize this issue?

(3) There are no procedures for how any of the member-initiated processes (e.g. Article IV, Section 4(b), Article VII, Section 3, etc.) actually work; in other words, how do members make petitions, who receives them, who is responsible for initiating the corresponding votes, etc. How would you address these?

(4) It appears that the legal organization applying under the WikiJournal name (802511-9275) is distinct from the legal organization which runs the WikiJournal of Medicine (802505-7095), but it is unclear what the legal relationship between these organizations will be and which one would actually be recognized as a thematic organization. What is your say about this?

(5) The are currently three Journals under Wikijournal: Medicine, Science and Humanities. It's not clear or specified in the bylaw to what extent of knowledge category the entity aims to operate in or whether it is an open ended ambition. Do you have any thoughts/principles on this?

It thus seems that we need a few changes to the bylaws. Once we know how to phrase them, I propose that we hold a vote to amend the bylaws such as follows:

Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 17:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mikael Häggström: Thanks! I'll also try to go though this/next week, since it may also be sensible to A) simultaneously address some of the recent ideas reasise in the sections above and B) unify the journal bylaws in the same way that the ethics statement is unified so that there is only one version to update and avoid accidental or minor deviations. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Responses and amendments to WikiJournal bylaws[edit]

(1) Transparency of amendments[edit]

At ARTICLE_IX_-_AMENDMENT, change to "These Bylaws may be altered, amended or repealed and new Bylaws may be adopted by a majority of votes of the Administrative Board, counting at least 20 days after a written notice has been given to the following forums with intention to alter, amend or repeal or to adopt new Bylaws:

  • The internal email list of the Administrative Board
  • The main public email list of WikiJournal
  • The main online Discuss page of WikiJournal

Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 17:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

As a former member of the editorial board of WikiJournal of Medicine, I have felt that the board members (as well as other participants) should adhere to a Code of conduct and that the internal discussions of the board members (unless they are specifically confidential) should be publicly visible and citable. I have raised the issues Talk:WikiJournal User Group#Code of Conduct and Talk:WikiJournal User Group#Public citability of board discussions (as above) and feel that these issues are especially relevant in the context of consideration by the AffCom. Diptanshu 💬 19:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Ten days can be quite short. Should we decide major changes to our bylaws in a hurry? What if someone is on holiday? Why not allow say for 30 days or 1 month? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree 10 days may be a rushing it a bit, but at the same time, 30 days may be rather long if we happen to find a serious flaw in it. Perhaps 20 days is the most appropriate? Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 13:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(2) Quantifying electorate[edit]

The practice of eligibility to vote by account activity is similar to that of the Board of Trustees by the Wikimedia Foundation (Board_of_Trustees#Information_for_voters), but in time it will indeed be very difficult to keep track of their number in order to calculate percentages mentioned in IV.4b regarding when a new election shall be held:

  • "An election shall be held if supported by a majority vote of all Administrative Board Members or by a petition supporting a new vote from greater than 20% of the total people in the groups specified in paragraph (d) combined."

I suggest we remove this paragraph, since we do (yet) have a multitude of candidates just waiting to get into the board as soon as there is a chance. Rather, we make a new election upon the submission of a candidate as described in the subsequent section, and thus the current 4b paragraph currently has no purpose.

Also, while we are doing a revision, I suggest that we remove the maximum number of administrative board members, similarly to what we did for individual journals.
We should also specify the preceding section (Section_3._Appointment_of_journal_representatives, to say by a majority of votes instead of majority vote.Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 17:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mikael Häggström: Article VII section 3 also needs to be revised to "by a majority of votes". OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that it already says so. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 08:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree to remove the maximum number of board members. Some journals have thousands of Editors and this seem very much in the wiki spirit. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

(3) Petitions[edit]

At Article VII, Section 3 I suggest that we add "...after at least 5 days of voting, following an entry at the the main Discuss page of WikiJournal by any registered Wikiversity user. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 17:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(4) WikiJournal vs Individual WikiJournals[edit]

WikiJournal User Group is the project that should be recognized as a thematic organization. I'll think of ways to phrase the legal relationships between the projects. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 17:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I propose that the thematic organization WikiJournal be labeled as the 'publisher' of the WikiJournals (respective journals) viz. WikiJournal of Medicine, WikiJournal of Science, WikiJournal of Humanities, (or the subsequent journals to be included eventually,) each a different entity in itself. The thematic organization WikiJournal is operated by the WikiJournal User Group which includes all the participants of WikiJournal, in some form or another. Diptanshu 💬 19:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I think further distinction between WikiJournal and its individual journals is warranted at:
  • ARTICLE_I_-_NAME: Second sentence being changed to: "Individual WikiJournals" are subject-specific journals accepted by WikiJournal., and implementing this wording across the Bylaws.
Also, I suggest the following content at Section_3._Organization:
A) WikiJournal is the publisher of Individual WikiJournals
B) WikiJournal is responsible for uniformity of editorial procedures, as well as for the technical infrastructure of Individual WikiJournals.
C) WikiJournal administers the financials of Individual WikiJournals, unless having approved an Individual WikiJournal to handle some or all financials independently.
D) Each journal in the WikiJournal group may have its own legal organization. Each journal in the WikiJournal group may have bylaws of its own, as long as they are compatible with these bylaws.
E) (Unchanged:) A journal in the WikiJournal group has full powers over all its pages and editorial proceedings. Before having adopted bylaws, the consensus among active journal participants decides in matters related to that journal.
Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 15:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Name of publisher or overall project[edit]

I agree with these ideas and I like Diptanshu's proposal to use WikiJournal as the "publisher". --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Currently WikiJournal User Group is listed as the publisher of each journal (e.g. in ISSN and DOAJ) in addition to it being the community of users. Is there a benefit to changing that to WikiJournal being the publisher? 'WikiJournal' also might be used as a general descriptor of using a wiki to publish an academic journal, so if we need an entity distinct from the WikiJournal User Group, then something like WikiJournal Publishing Group might be more appropriate (equivalent to the NPG). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk
Although a vote back in 2016 made it very clear that we will call ourselves WikiJournal [1], it is still possible to have extensions thereof for the overall project. I can see at least 3 somewhat separate aspects of WikiJournal, depending on what external relations we are referring to:
  • The registered non-profit organization, currently registered as WikiJournal. This is what I am using when declaring income to the Swedish Tax Agency.
  • The project as part of Wikimedia Foundation. Currently, the project is officially named WikiJournal User Group [2], but with these changes of bylaws we are moving one step closer to becoming a thematic organization, with the option to choose more freely what name we want. So, we should also consider what will eventually look best at Meta:Wikimedia_movement_affiliates#thorgs.
  • The project as a "publisher", since it is presumed in for example external indexing sites that every journal has a "publisher". This made more sense when journals were usually represented by some kind of scientific society, but is still a necessary formality.
I think we should have one single name for all the three purposes above, where the Wikimedia Foundation one will take effect after we become a thematic organization. For the "publisher" part, expanding our name to WikiJournal Publishing Group would make a more clear distinction between then overall project and individual journals. Yet, the publishing activity is already given by the "Journal" in "WikiJournal", so WikiJournal Group would be enough in making that distinction clear. Still, I prefer simply WikiJournal since I think simple is better, and I think it works well for all the three listed purposes. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 11:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
WikiJournal seems to me simplest and best, as Mikael says. Chiswick Chap (discusscontribs) 12:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I favor WikiJournal for all uses, not only because it's simpler and easier to remember, but also to further establish the "brand". The arguments given above offer some reasons for using different names, but I see no compelling reason yet. Until then, I think that multiplying names confuses more than it helps avoid confusion. At least it does for me! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 13:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I too favor WikiJournal. It is simple, direct and to the point. Siarus1074 (discusscontribs)
I would agree with WikiJournal for the simplicity. Smvital (discusscontribs) 05:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I also prefer to keep it simply as WikiJournal. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Good points. I support the simplicity and flexibility of 'WikiJournal'. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
This legal question might have already been addressed, although I could not find it searching a few different ways. Have we applied for a Trademark for "WikiJournal"? If not, do we need to do so? Wikiversity is a trademark. Should Wikiversity be the publisher?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  - Mark D Worthen PsyD, The situation is that since the project is hosted on Wikiversity, all trademarks need to be applied to by their legal team. We requested that they did that (as far as I can recall about a year ago), but they were not willing to do it then. After these bylaws updates, we should go ahead and make WikiJournal a thematic organization, because I think that will be enough to convince them to register WikiJournal as a trademark. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 17:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

(5) Scope[edit]

I intend to reply that we are an open-ended ambition, in that participants may start journals in other subjects if they deem the current ones not covering their area of interest. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 17:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes but there should be some approval process for new journals, perhaps also a proposal with 30 days of discussion and then a 30 days voting period? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed it is necessary to specify the procedure, but I think we should be able to do it faster than 30 days. It is still possible to protract the process if we think it is necessary. So, I suggest an expansion of Section_2._Inclusion_or_rejection:
  • Inclusion or rejection of journals to be part of WikiJournal is decided by a majority of votes of the The Administrative Board of WikiJournal, counting after at least 20 days have passed since a public notice of the election has been made at the talk page of the main page of WikiJournal.
Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 23:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


ARTICLE III.1 Journal selection criteria is currently slightly different to the "pillars" listed at meta:WikiJournal User Group. These should probably be synchronised. I think that the version in pillars is the better of the two, since 'openness' and 'copy allowance' are combined in a way that is more normal for defining OA and 'engagement' better describes the aim of 'editability'. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I also added to those pillars that we should require two peer reviews per article in order to set a uniform standard. The journal criteria will thus be as follows:
  • No cost for authors to have their works published
  • Open access for anyone to read, adapt, and distribute without cost
  • Peer review of all articles before publication, by at least two knowledgeable persons for the subject at hand
  • Transparency, with peer reviews and article discussions being open for everyone
  • Engagement, with anyone free to share ideas, contribute to, and edit the journals (but changes to an article's meaning require a new peer review)
Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 07:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Bylaws of individual WikiJournals[edit]

I've made a template of the bylaws of WikiJMed that can be adapted to WikiJSci and WikiJHum as well: WikiJournal User Group/Individual WikiJournal bylaws. I've implemented this at WikiJMed: WikiJournal of Medicine/Bylaws. It will thereby be easier to amend the bylaws across journals. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 16:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Vote counting for board members[edit]

Since we appoint board members individually rather than as a one great vote for the entire board, we should adapt the bylaws accordingly at Section_3._Appointment:

  • An Editorial Board Member is elected by a majority of votes, counting after at least 7 days of voting by the electorate as specified in the subsequent section.

Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 03:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The alternative would be "...receive consensus from the electorate after at least 7 days of voting" to reflect that there is also commentary and discussion? In practice, I think that the actual implementation of either wording functions the same. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
While comments and discussions practically serve as a major process in accepting board members, I think it is best to keep the bylaws to strict vote count, since we then have a system to fall back on in case we do not reach an agreement. Practically, comments and discussion then still function to give a better informed vote by the electorate. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 07:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Quantifying electorate[edit]

Just as the section for WikiJournal above, I suggest that we remove the following section at WikiJournal User Group/Individual_WikiJournal_bylaws#Section_3._Appointment: "An election shall be held if supported by a majority vote of the Editorial Board Members or by a petition supporting a new vote from greater than 20% of the total people in the groups specified in paragraph (d) combined." Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 16:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


Since WikiJournal will be dealing with the financials, and the relevant paragraphs are given in its bylaws, I suggest these sections can instead be changed to the following:

Section 1. Organization
A) WikiJournal is the publisher of Wiki.J.___.
B) WikiJournal is responsible for uniformity of editorial procedures, as well as for the technical infrastructure of Wiki.J.___.
C) WikiJournal administers the financials of Wiki.J.___, unless having approved Wiki.J.___ to handle some or all financials independently.
D) Wiki.J.___ may edit all its wiki pages, including those describing editorial procedures, without the need for approval by WikiJournal.
Section 2. Dedication of Assets

The property of is irrevocably dedicated to charitable purposes and no part of the funds allotted by WikiJournal to shall ever inure to the benefit of any Editorial Board Member or to the benefit of any private individual other than compensation in a reasonable amount to its contractors for services rendered.

Section 3. Dissolution

Upon the dissolution or winding-up of , the resultant assets remaining after payment, or provision for payment, of all debts and liabilities of shall be distributed to WikiJournal. If this is not possible, the resultant assets shall be distributed to Wikimedia Foundation.

Section 4. Loans

No loans shall be contracted on behalf of the and no evidence of indebtedness shall be issued in its name unless authorized by a resolution of the Editorial Board.

Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 16:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Minimum and maximum board size[edit]

This is not directly related to the new comments, but I would still like to propose that we remove the section on board size for WikiJHum and WikiJMed:

  • "(a) The number of Editorial Board Members of Wiki.J.Med. should be kept at a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 20."

We did this for WikiJSci, and I don't think we miss it. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 16:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Details in name[edit]

Also, while we are at it, I think at ARTICLE I - NAME that we simplify This organization shall be known as to The name of this organization is. I also think we can remove the sentence "If the project moves to a separate sister site, the board may vote on the option of changing the name", since this is basically a remnant from when we moved it from "Wikiversity Journal" to the more definite "WikiJournal", and leaving it doesn't prevent us from still making such a decision in the future if we ever wanted to. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 16:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Community safety[edit]

Since we have the unfortunate incident recently, it is no longer a brainstorm exercise but a practical need to come up with community safety policies. Given our global reach and user base, there could be different interpretations and expectations on what is and what isn't acceptable. A code of behaviour should be established for all participants of the journal (on wiki pages, mailing list, etc.) and not just limited to those who are in the administrative board. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: you just echoed my thoughts. In case you did not notice, I have already suggested this at Talk:WikiJournal User Group#Code of Conduct. Feel free to participate in the discussion and to get a Code of Conduct implemented. This is really important. Diptanshu 💬 19:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Amendment notice to the boards[edit]

When the ARTICLE VIII - AMENDMENT of the ByLaws of the respective WikiJournals was formulated, anybody could send an email to (or equivalent). It is no longer the case. So, the clause is no longer valid. An alternative method to reach out to the board members should therefore be suggested or the clause should be amended suitably. Diptanshu 💬 20:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I still think an internal board email still needs to be the moment that initiates the vote "countdown". After all, it is the board that is to hold the vote, so there's practically no point in initiating an amendment without engaging board members. So, anyone who has an idea to improve the bylaws can make an online wiki entry and/or email a board member to bring it to the rest of them. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 23:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, I do think it needs to specified that the execution of amendments counts after the notification:

  • "These Bylaws may be altered, amended or repealed and new Bylaws may be adopted by a majority of votes of the Editorial Board, counting after at least 10 days after written notice is given to with intention to alter, amend or repeal or to adopt new Bylaws.

Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 02:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

I will now go ahead and make the updates to the Bylaws pages, and then I will notify AffCom. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 16:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Associate editor and board member applications[edit]

As the journals mature, there is some conversation about updating the requirements for applicants, which have so far been kept broad as the journals start out. WikiJMed has begun requesting that board applicants without previous editorial experience first join as associate editors and assist with organising a peer review (alongside and existing board member) before being moved to the board. It would be good to have clearer and standardised criteria.

Benefits: Vetting process for applicants before gaining access to important board passwords etc. Spread workload in peer review coordination and reduce processing delays.
Drawbacks: Some board applicants might be valuable for contributions other than their ability to assist in peer review organisation. There is no guarantee when an article within their sphere of expertise will be submitted.

Possible options:

  1. All applications assessed on a case-by case basis but with some further guidelines as to the difference expectations for applicants
  2. Board applicants without previous experience as an editor at another journal must first assist organisation of a peer review as an associate editor  
  3. All board applicants must first assist organisation of a peer review as an associate editor

This could be synchronised for all journals or vary if the different journals have different consensuses. Opinions and ideas welcomed.
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


  • Updating the criteria would indeed be good, board applicants without previous experience could in general start as associate editors, but I think we still should not have hard criteria, and retain the ability to decide in each case. For example, if we could persuade a well-known researcher to apply, we may not have her start as associate editor just because she does not fulfill this or that requirement. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 08:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Sylvain Ribault. A great current example is Alaa Najjar - "I am currently a Steward, a Bureaucrat, Sysop, Checkuser and Interface-admin on Arabic Wikipedia, Sysop on Wikidata, Sysop on Arabic Wikibooks and Sysop on Arabic Wikinews. I serve also as an OTRS member. Made more than 340k [three hundred and forty thousand!] edits on Wikimedia wikis." His breadth and depth of Wikimedia knowledge and experience alone will be a huge asset, plus he's finishing medical school, plus he's multi-lingual and very active in the Arabic Wiki-community, ... and more. Finally, I believe that most of us will ask for help when we need it so I seriously doubt, at least at this stage, that we need to worry about, for example, folks with a strong Wikipedia/Wikimedia background running amok.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Sylvain Ribault that we should not have hard criteria, but retain our ability to choose someone directly as board member. Practically, I thus think sentence at the WikiJournal User Group/Editorial_board#Join is appropriate (rather than in bylaws), such as "Board applicants without previous experience as an editor or editorial board member at another journal are often chosen to begin as associate editors, assisting for example in finding peer reviewers for submitted articles. If you are not willing to start out in any other way than as board member, please state so in the application. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 16:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
This seems like a good compromise, although "if you are not willing..." sounds a little combative. Perhaps "If you do not wish to start as an associate editor, please explain your reasons". Rachel Helps (BYU) (discusscontribs) 18:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Good idea to have some criteria. I guess the ultimate criterion is that you bring an extra asset to the board. What that is, can vary. Could be either be outstanding academic merit, outstanding wikimedia merit, or a combination of both? I think we should also encourage diversity; we should try recruiting more women for example, or editors from parts of the world that are underrepresented. Perhaps also good to have either associate or full editor applicants indicate whether they would accept to serve also in the other role. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I also second that it'd be good to push for a diversity increase. In addition to reaching out to personal contacts, we could identify some communities interested in open access / outreach / public communication to get in touch with. We could also possibly contact editors from journals like SAGE Open Med and BMC journals to let them know about us. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • As a Board member with limited previous experience, I approve of this adjustment. This has been a great learning experience and I hope that I'm contributing enough. I do worry with some of the larger decisions that a more senior core group that I'm simply not yet qualified to offer insight or feedback. smvital (discusscontribs) 10:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The roles of an editor aka editorial board member need to be parametrically defined. The scope would include acting as a peer-review coordinator. Among the tasks of the board members this is where the bottleneck lies. The choice of an editorial board member should be independent of this bottleneck of ours and solely based on whether they can otherwise be considered worthy of the position. It should be acknowledged that since WikiJournals (or at least Wiki.J.Med) cannot find a better way to recruit peer-review coordinators, it would like to obligatorily entrust this residual task upon any fresh applicant who otherwise does not have any other option in case they are eager to join the board. This way can be funny but effective but will essentially deprive the board of the scope of other forms of contributions that the given applicant could otherwise have made during the same period of time. Whether they would have actually contributed depends upon how well and parametrically the tasks or roles of an editorial board member are defined. Since the task of at least one peer-review coordination is to be considered obligatory, an ethical consideration comes into play and it therefore should not be implied that the rest of the roles (as defined) are essentially voluntary. The purpose of defining the roles would be to parametrically define that is obligatory and what is optional. Diptanshu 💬 19:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Instead of doing it this way, my proposal would be to make it obligatory for ALL new board applicants to coordinate at least one peer review after they are accepted into the board. Diptanshu 💬 19:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Additional note: It cannot be essentially done before their acceptance into the board as the process would simply introduce a bias in favor of the applicant as they have already undertaken a peer-review coordination by that time. Similarly, the proposed process of upgradation of an associate member to the position of a board member establishes the applicant's capacity to undertake this role while seriously undermining the siginificance of other roles of that applicant or a board member. Diptanshu 💬 19:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@Stevenfruitsmaak: on a side-note, could you please guide me as to exactly which portion of the above long statement of mine could be truncated in favor of a concise statement? I would really glad if you could offer me your valuable insights. I am eager to learn the art I have apparently been unable to master. In case you do so, please make sure to do it as a new topic (while shifting this statement of mine into the respective topic) as the scope is different from that of the ongoing discussion. Diptanshu 💬 20:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mikael Häggström, Evolution and evolvability, Fransplace: Could I seek to know the EiCs' current stand on the matter and why making it obligatory for a new board member to undertake peer-review coordination of at least one upcoming article would not serve the purpose? Diptanshu 💬 07:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
My current stand on this is that obligatory requirement of a new board member to coordinate a peer review (within some specific time period?) as part of the onboarding process has several holes: 1) There is no guarantee that an article sufficiently within their expertise is submitted, Different editors have different time constraints, 3) different editors have different specialties to add to the board discussions (e.g. outreach knowlesdge, contact networks, social media experience, not for profit organisation strategy, deep Wikipedia knowledge). Further definition of the range of possible board roles may assist people in volunteering for them. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Double blinded vs open system of peer review[edit]

WikiJournals have a system of public peer review which is highly supportable. An open peer review system is where both the author name and the reviewer name (in case of non-anonymous reviews) is displayed during the review process. A couple of simple amendments to the peer-review process can help us in double blinding the process. This is important as there remains a possibility that the review process can get biased due to exposure of the identity of the author or reviewer. In case these neither of these are openly displayed till the review process is complete, or till publication, this source of bias can be avoided. This process is known as double blinding. Thus labelling the author as 'Anon till publication' while the identity of the reviewers too is witheld till publication (unless they choose to be anonymous reviewers anyway) will therefore make the review process Double blind peer review. I think that this is easily doable and supportable. @Mikael Häggström, Evolution and evolvability, Fransplace: please give it a thought. Diptanshu 💬 20:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

YES! We boost our credibility, and we'll be indexed by MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, etc. sooner if we implement a double blind review process. - I modified my opinion. Please see below.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
WikiJHum is experimenting with it for the Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani article and WikiJMed for the Microlissencephaly article. So long as authors are able to anonymise their work and confirm their identity to the editorial board via the authorship declaration form, it should be possible to organise double-blind review. It can make peer reviewers harder to recruit, but it has plenty of clear benefits, so authors could make their own choice. Implementation would require an minor update of the authorship declaration form and an updated wording for the confidentiality clause to make it clear that confidentiality should be afforded when requested. Non-wikipedian authors would have to be reminded that they would need to pick a pseudonymous username. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it it a good thing to allow double-blind peer reviewing, although I think transparency should be the recommended process. I've added a note about this at:
I've also added a "name" entry in the Authorship declaration form. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs
Should the double-blinding be optional or obligatory? I propose that it be made a part of the standard procedure and not optional. Unless this is done, we would be unable to use the label double blind open peer reviewed. However, the user may be provided an option to choose to not to go for double blinding. In that case, the respective article would be marked with a category that implies that double blinding was not done for the given article. Diptanshu 💬 18:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Double blind peer review looks like a needless if not harmful complication. Publishing reviews, and possibly reviewers' names, is already supposed to reduce bias. I would not want double blind peer review at WikiJSci even as an option, but if some people are motivated to do the extra work, why not let them try. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 17:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Sylvain Ribault: You seem to indicate that there is a possibility of harmful complication involved. Could you please specify what exactly you suspect could go wrong? Furthermore, I feel that there is possibly an error in considering if some people are motivated to do the extra work, why not let them try. It is not the people motivated by the benefits of the process who would be taking up the extra work. It is the peer-review coordinators and the editorial board members who would just need to ensure that the identities are not revealed during the review process. After the review is complete and when the article is published, everything would be the same with the name of author and reviewer in place (in case of articles with anonymous reviews). Diptanshu 💬 13:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I also strongly support double-blind peer-review, Diptanshu! It will improve the credibility of the journals and increase the capacity for indexing. I don't think reviewers would be less likely to volunteer. I'm not sure why things would become less transparent when the author's identity is removed. The highest ranking journals implement blind-peer review as a way of preventing the chances of bias. My only concern would have been around process but if it isn't too difficult to implement I would favour over it becoming standard rather than optional. --Fransplace (discusscontribs) 04:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC) ↓

Thank you for your post Sylvain Ribault. You reminded me to ask myself, "Is there any research on this topic?" As you mentioned, there is, and it is informative. There are no clear-cut answers. There does seem to be moderate consensus that ...

  • double-blind peer review should be an option, as authors who are younger, female, and people of color might receive less biased decisions with double-blind review;
  • with double-blind review, peer reviewers are able to discern the author(s) of a paper some of the time (roughly one-third); they guess wrong with some frequency; and it depends on the field (narrow vs. broad), and the extent to which authors in a given field post working papers on sites like SSRN (Social Science Research Network) and the extent to which reviewers search the Internet trying to discern the author(s);
  • post-publication peer review seems increasingly popular, although not adopted by many leading journals yet (we already have that built in to our model, I think);
  • there is also some support for "open review", although I don't know if there's as much empirical study of open vs. single- vs. double- blind review models.

After reading the articles listed below, I am not as confident that double-blind peer review is the best option. I do not think it should be required. Our greatest strength might be post-publication peer review (although I'm not sure to what extent that is part of our model). I can see an argument for Open Peer Review, in which everyone knows who submitted an article, everyone knows who reviewed it, and everyone knows what the reviewers wrote and what the author(s) wrote in response.

At this point I favor giving authors the option to choose between Open Peer Review or Double-Blind Peer Review. I do not favor single-blind peer review because it is not fair to the authors.

Here are some citations from various perspectives (not an exhaustive list by any means):

  • Bennett, K.E., Jagsi, R. and Zietman, A., 2018. Radiation oncology authors and reviewers prefer double-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(9), pp.E1940-E1940.
  • Chung, K.C., Shauver, M.J., Malay, S., Zhong, L., Weinstein, A. and Rohrich, R.J., 2015. Is double-blinded peer review necessary? The effect of blinding on review quality. Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 136(6), pp.1369-1377.
  • Darling, E.S., 2015. Use of double‐blind peer review to increase author diversity. Conservation Biology, 29(1), pp.297-299.
  • Double-blind peer review. Nature Biotechnology. 2015;33:213.
  • Guo, Y., Xin, F. and Barnes, S.J., 2018. The Fiction of Double-Blind Reviewing: Evidence From the Social Science Research Network. International Journal of Business Communication, p.2329488418803655.
  • Kiliç, S., Baredes, S., Gray, S.T. and Eloy, J.A., 2017. Making the case for double-blind peer review in otolaryngology. The Laryngoscope, 127(9), pp.E332-E332.
  • Okike, K., Hug, K.T., Kocher, M.S. and Leopold, S.S., 2016. Single-blind vs double-blind peer review in the setting of author prestige. JAMA, 316(12), pp.1315-1316.
  • Osterloh, M. and Kieser, A., 2015. Double-blind peer review: How to slaughter a sacred cow. In Incentives and Performance (pp. 307-321). Springer, Cham.
  • Pinholster, G., 2016. Journals and funders confront implicit bias in peer review. Science, 352(6289), pp.1067-1068.
  • Rennie, D., 2016. Let’s make peer review scientific. Nature News, 535(7610), p.31.
  • Teixeira da Silva, J.A. and Dobránszki, J., 2015. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in research, 22(1), pp.22-40.
  • Tomkins, A., Zhang, M. and Heavlin, W.D., 2017. Reviewer bias in single-versus double-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(48), pp.12708-12713.
  • Vercellini, P., Buggio, L., Viganò, P. and Somigliana, E., 2016. Peer review in medical journals: beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process. European journal of internal medicine, 31, pp.15-19.

  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The option for double-blind review (author anonymity) been added as an option in the authorship declaration form by Mikael. Perhaps we can see what the demand from authors is over the next year or so and revisit the question? Since telling peer reviewers that we prefer their identity to be open in the contact email and reviewer form, the rate of reviewers requesting anonymity is down from 72% in 2017 to in 17% 2018. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Mikael and Thomas, I doubt if it serves the purpose. Although the option of author anonymity till acceptance of the article is an encouraging step, it will not increase the credibility of the review process. For example, you are not adding the checkbox for I would like the article to be published in unreviewed state. Giving this option would possibly encourage many authors to opt for it. So, are you willing to go ahead with it? If not, the double blinding can not be optional. It is either there, or not there, no middle path please. Diptanshu 💬 13:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Mark, for the resources on the subject, and for the comments of all. I agree with Thomas that we should leave the option open and review the issue once we see its effects. I think the option is highly appreciated by authors who are concerned of bias in regard to willingness of others to review the article, as well as the remarks in the reviews. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 16:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Mark for your inputs and resources. I would like to mention a simple scenario of a bias that can be eliminated by single blinding the name and affiliation of the author. If some professor has a grudge against a particular institute or student, they might deliberately harass the author during the review. This is well exhibited during book reviews wherein certain reviewers deliberately pull down ratings of really good books just because they do not think good about the respective author. Double blinding by also witholding the name of the reviewer helps by avoiding deliberate aggression or alike flowing in the reverse direction as they (the authors) respond to the comments of the reviewer. Thus, 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)
I agree that if the author's identity is kept confidential until publication, then so too should the reviewers until publication (authorship declaration form updated). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Great! Diptanshu 💬 12:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mikael Häggström, Evolution and evolvability, Fransplace: Could you please specify if double blinding has been accepted as a standard journal policy for the WikiJournals? I do not see it reflected on the sub-title of the headers of the respective WikiJournals. Diptanshu 💬 13:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Optional double-blind peer review is supported by the boards and will be implemented next month. A working group is preparing updated wording for the authorship declaration form and peer review pages. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation blog post - Five ways academics can contribute to Wikipedia[edit]

The blog post does not mention WikiJMed or our other journals, but gist of the post is entirely consistent with the WikiJournal mission. This a great post to share on your favorite social media platform! And remember to also Like, Share, Retweet, or Vote Up colleagues' social media messages about this Wikimedia Foundation post.

Five Ways Academics Can Contribute to Wikipedia

  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Shared on my timeline as well as on relevant groups related to Wikipedia, Wikimedia, Open Access and Open Research (moderator approval pending for most as of now). Diptanshu 💬 20:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


I've only just realized this, but you can put subpages after the,, and URLs e.g:

Can be useful for URL shortening to the main pages. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Great to know. :O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know about this feature! Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 17:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I've been contacting our domain host about an error that's been popping up recently, were a random 5-letter subpage is appended. Others have ben experiencing the same thing (examples here). They don't have any answer other than "clear your cookies" which isn't really a solution. Still hunting fix ideas. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 07:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability: It looks like someone solved the issue OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: Aha, good find! I'll ask on the colloquium as to whether this (or similar) can be implemented. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I've asked about the issue at Phabricator here. There was a suggestion to direct the domain name directly to the relevant wikimedia server (though this is beyond my abilities) but might be one step closer to an intermediate fix until we can move away from godaddy as a DNS host. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Reviewers relations to editorial boards[edit]

I've clarified at WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement#Disclosure_and_Conflict_of_Interest that conflicts of interest includes prior relationships between people of different roles (authors, reviewers and editors) for a submission (and not just author-editor relations). Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 04:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Template for new board members[edit]

I added a template at the top of the application pages for new editorial board members, summarizing the procedure. Example for WikiJMed Talk:WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Editorial_board. I've also created a template, {{subst:WikiJournal accepted board member}}, that is to be copy-pasted to the bottom of each accepted application, creating a list of the technical tasks that need to be done for getting a new board member aboard, so that these tasks can be distributed among board members. It also emphasizes that any current editorial board member can execute the acceptance of a new board member. This is in accordance with our bylaws, and I find this very useful for WikiJMed where I find myself not being able to always tend to these matters in a timely manner. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 04:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

As something to consider, we could also combine associate editor and editorial board applications onto the same page for each journal, so that there are only three pages to track, rather than six. the different position applications are now colour-coded and clearly indicated as to which type they are applying for. Could be combined with Board member re-elections to keep everything together? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I've managed to get the template to transclude whatever points are written in the Editorial guidelines so that we only have to keep one location updated! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Great thanks, Thomas! Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 07:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Using Publons to resolve the bottleneck of finding reviewers[edit]

The primary bottleneck WikiJournal faces as of now is in the process of finding and coordinating with peer-reviewers for the submitted articles. @Mikael Häggström, Evolution and evolvability, Fransplace: Please go through this video about how to gain access to Publons partner dashboard free of any charges or by paying a fee. I would also request you to write to expressing the interest of WikiJournal to partner with Publons. WikiJournal can register as a publisher while the individual WikiJournals can get listed as journals. The entities Wikiversity Journal of Medicine need to be merged with that of WikiJournal of Medicine while entries of the rest of the WikiJournals are created. Of course you would need to register as editor, publisher or reviewer prior to that and mention that you are a board member while you complete the process. The process can significantly ease finding peer reviewers as more than 500,000 reviewers are registered on Publons. You can easily find prospective reviewers in the respective fields from general to specific like cardiology or more specific as in atherosclerosis. I would hope that the grant request can be updated by including the fees after requesting a quote from them. Diptanshu 💬 12:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I had contacted Publons and following my request they have merged the entries of Wiki.J.Med to Diptanshu 💬 02:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mikael Häggström, Evolution and evolvability, Fransplace: Just seeking to know if the item above has received any consideration over the last one month. If the board members have been busy coordinating peer-reviews this should have proved handy. If they have not been involved in coordinating peer-reviews but consider the issue to be concerning, they could still participate. In short, I find no reason why this item would not receive any participation. Diptanshu 💬 06:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Process checklist for removal of Board members[edit]

Hello all, I was reflecting on previous posts and I realized we do not have a process or a checklist to follow for when Board members are no longer on the Board. This would be good to have an outline for such a process for closure and security, regardless of why the person was removed. This would include checking a certain list to see the access each person had, and where (i.e. social media accounts). What do you all think? Best, Jackiekoerner (discusscontribs) 18:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Indeed we also need the equivalent process list for adding a new editorial board member! I've added what I think are the relevant points here: WikiJournal_User_Group/Editorial_guidelines#Adding_and_removing_editorial_board_members. Anyone can edit it if I've missed anything. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes! Love it! Thanks for starting this. Jackiekoerner (discusscontribs) 16:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer reviewer second view of article[edit]

As Mikael just did an update of the tracking number system for articles in review, I realised that we've been asking reviewers by email whether they want to see the article again after authors have responded to their comments. I've now fixed this by adding a tickbox to the end of the peer reviewer form. That way if reviewers only had minor comments they can opt to not require contact again (to slightly reduce email load and increase processing speed). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

"Journals" and "Resources" tabs missing on mobile view[edit]

I noticed that the "Journals" and "Resources" tabs are absent from the mobile version of the template page. It's also noticeable at the resource page. What can be done to fix the issue? --George Ho (discusscontribs) 04:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@George Ho: Huh, it used to work. It's an issue with using any kind of collapsible element to make a dropdown menu. In mobile view, they are always expanded and overlap, obscuring other elements. So, in mobile view I added a function to hide them and instead show them as a heading (which basically acts as a collapsible element in mobile). I'll have another look at the {{WikiJ top menu}} templates at it and see what has changed. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 06:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I've now had a go at implementing a workaround on WikiJMed pages so that the links will appear on mobiles even though they aren't dropdown menus. It's not particularly elegant, but it's just about functional. If I don't spot any problems during the next day, I'll add it to the others. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 13:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I've implemented the same solution at {{WikiJ top menu}}, {{WikiJMed top menu}}, {{WikiJSci top menu}}, {{WikiJHum top menu}} so that links are available on mobile. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Ha! I've now implemented the solution properly without the workaround. We now have the option to place any text inside <span class="nomobile">...</span> and <span class="onlymobile">...</span> to control what text in shown on either interface. In the case of the menus, dropdown menus on desktop and just links on mobile. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Right now, I don't see those tabs on mobile view as before. BTW, what to do with the "About" tab, which links to a Meta-wiki page? --George Ho (discusscontribs) 22:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... Now I can see those tabs. Though they aren't dropdown menus, them being buttons would suffice for now. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 02:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The template should be stable now. I think they'll have to be plain buttons for now on mobile view, since I think all collapsible elements don't function on mobile. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
It has also been pointed out that the author list was misformatting on mobile. I've now also fixed this by the same method of <div class="nomobile">...</div> and <div class="onlymobile">...</div>. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

My adventures when creating WikiJournal preprint[edit]


First, I opened WikiJournal_Preprints, entered preprint title, pressed "Create pre-print" button. Second, I edited article info, found "Create" button, saw popup "Edit this page", pressed it, and got warning "Do you want to leave this site? Changes you made may not be saved."

Oops, I am sorry, to my shame I fail to remember what I did exactly. I only know that I got such three screens (below). And anyway, I felt I do not know how to proceed. Finally I found a way through; but I was astonished to see unexpected and unknown screens with a lot of buttons that I do not know how to use. At some moment I saved the preprint, and "created" it again (that is, did the creation procedure from the beginning but gave the same preprint title, not knowing what will happen then). I am afraid that another author may feel alike; this is why I post it here. Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 10:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


Another problem: in the Contents of "WikiJournal Preprints/Can each number be specified by a finite_text?" I see "1 Article information", "2 Abstract" and then "3 Introduction". I did not expect the first two items to be sections, and now my text contains "see Section 5" instead of "see Section 7", etc. Should I accept this strange numeration of sections? Or maybe it happens only on preprint, not article? Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 10:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


I try to submit, filling the "authorship declaration form", but I cannot; the link to "" does not work. A temporary problem on that site? Why not a local copy here? Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 11:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I suddenly found at Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group/Archive_3#Adding_"Preferred_journal"_to_the_authorship_declaration form a link to "authorship declaration form", namely here, and filled it. Is it OK or not? Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 21:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


@Tsirel: Thank you so much for this case study in the current submission system! It has pointed out several issues. Some I've been able to fix immediately and others will take a little thinking.
  1. This is the most worrying. I'll try going through it a few times to see what can be improved. It should load the visualeditor as default since I think that's easier to use than markup for new users, but it can deinitely be made clearer. I've been meaning to make some short screencapture video walkthrough, so I'll try to get around to that over the new year break.
  2. Because of the way mediawiki currently works, we use {{hidden_h2}} to make 'invisible headings' so that those sections can be collapsed when viewing on mobile. I've now hidden them from the desktop view in . In mobile mode, sections aren't numbered anyway so the numbering shouldn't be a direct issue. For the moment. I've asked over at MediaWiki support if it's possible to omit a heading from the TOC, or have it un-numbered. For the moment, I can implement a workaround by to override the default numbering (see example here), but it requires manually numbering the sections.
  3. Fixed - You're right that the "" link is supposed to just redirect to this form, but is broken. It must have happened within the last two weeks but I don't know when. I've made a template {{Authorship_declaration_form}} that can be used to quickly change the link in whatever pages it appears in and currently links straight to the form so that should work now.
I'll post back once I've some more done. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, it was the visualeditor! I never tried it, this was the problem. Yes, any kind of walkthrough would be very helpful. About section numbers, I just browsed my articles in various math journals and did not see even one case of unnumbered sections. Is it the same outside math? Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 05:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I think, the walkthrough should mention (at least) two cases: either the author builds gradually the preprint inplace, or he/she did so outside (in sandbox, or offline) and wants to copy it hereto. Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 05:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Good idea to have different walkthroughs for the two different circumstances. I'll make the first one over the next month and post it here for feedback before doing the second. In biology/chemistry/medicine, section numbering varies: Example with numbers, example without. A spot-check of the 20 journals with highest h5 metric gave 16 that lacked section numbering. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Lacked section numbering... Does it mean that authors never refer another section (nothing like "as shown in Section 4")? Or do refer, but via section title? Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 06:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I guess referring to other sections is less common outside of mathematics? It's certainly common to refer to the figures and tables in other sections, but rarely the sections themselves. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Then, one more trouble. For me it is usual to number everything (equations, lemmas etc.) within sections (as "3.5" where 3 is the section number). This time I number only exercises. Without section numbers, they should be renumbered globally. Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 06:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Questions regarding editorials[edit]

The year is almost over. Last year we published an editorial and it was not a peer reviewed one. With the year coming to an end, I assume that similar editorials will be published in one or more of the WikiJournals. I would like to post a couple of open questions to consider. The first is: whether an editorial need to be peer-reviewed. Since the logistics of WikiJournals is slightly different, perhaps we can give it a thought. The next question to consider is whether editorials need to be signed by respective authors.

Feel free go through the articles:

  • "Should editorials also be peer-reviewed?". American journal of human genetics 43 (6): 982. December 1988. PMID 17948598. PMC 1715614. // 
  • Smith, Peter J.; Alexander, G. Caleb; Siegler, Mark (June 2006). "Should Editorials in Peer-Reviewed Journals Be Signed?". Chest 129 (6): 1395–1396. doi:10.1378/chest.129.6.1395-a. 
    • "Editorials: To sign or not?". The Scientist Magazine.
  • Denker, Sheryl P. "To Sign or Not to Sign: A Slice of Transparency in Peer Review". PLOS Blogs Network.

@Mikael Häggström, Evolution and evolvability, Fransplace: Whatever policy is decided upon, I would urge the EiCs to clearly document it on the WikiJournal User Group talk page (here) as well as on the Publishing guidelines page (as on WikiJournal of Medicine/Publishing or its equivalent page for the rest of the journals). Diptanshu 💬 18:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Obligation of the EiCs[edit]

Since the WikiJournals are based on volunteer participation, I seek to know whether the editors-in-chief (EiCs) should have any obligation to respond to emails addressed specifically to them and whether the same also would apply to issues on-wiki raised for their kind consideration. I think that it is customary (but not obligatory) to respond to emails even if it consists of a single line indicating that consideration of the matter may take some time. Alternatively they can indicate that the matter is not concerning enough to demand EiC attention, or that the EiCs are unable to attend to the issue in the given circumstance. I think that being an EiC has its obligations and the freelancer or volunteer model does not really apply, it is just that the time-commitment (but not the overall commitment) of an EiC can vary since they are volunteers after all, and that they have other engagements in their personal or professional life. Let me know if I am wrong. Diptanshu 💬 07:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Rather off-topic... but I recall my experience on Citizendium in 2011-2012; there it was a time of decline, and disproportionate attention was paid to procedural matters, not to content creation. Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 10:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Dear Tsirel, your concern is justifiable but there are a few points that I would like to add. In contrast to Citizendum or Wikipedia, the editors (or rather editorial board members) including the EiCs do not 'create' content. The content here is created by authors. The editorial board simply ensures quality by ensuring compliance to policies and by ensuring proper peer-review. The policies are especially relevant in the context of WikiJournal to ensure proper community dynamics.
I am familiar with the EiCs of the first two WikiJournals. I have no doubts to their ingenuity and well-intendedness. My only concern is that possibly they are finding certain pertinent issues increasingly intriguing and therefore they are possibly avoiding those issues. There are possibly issues that they cannot justify rationally but still choose to hold onto. I am apprehensive that this is only making things worse. Diptanshu 💬 09:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes. But I meant that editorial board members contribute to content creation when they organize refereeing, make editorial remarks to articles, etc. And in addition, they discuss procedural matters. Boris Tsirelson (discusscontribs) 11:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

XML generation[edit]

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)

Budget update[edit]

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)

Plan S RfC[edit]

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. 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 . 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 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?[edit]

  • 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?[edit]

Machine-readable COI and erratum metadata[edit]

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.[3] 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 [4]. 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[5]). 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] [6] 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,[7] 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[edit]

"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.[8] 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[9] 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)


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. Retrieved 27 January 2019. 
  2. "Retraction challenges" (in en). Nature News 514 (7520): 5. 2 October 2014. doi:10.1038/514005a. Retrieved 27 January 2019. 

Version submitted to Plan S feedback form[edit]

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

version submitted to Plan S feedback form
  • 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?
  • Wikipedia has problems with hard-to-identify conflicts of interest in academic papers (see 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

  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. // 

Notes on Plan S compliance criteria[edit]

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)

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

Research Preprints[edit]

I've submitted the information on WikiJPre to

  • Homepage:
  • 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 (

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 T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Interested in Joining the Administration[edit]

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 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)