Talk:WikiJournal User Group/Open tasks and discussions

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page contains discussions of matters that are probably still in need of either an action or further discussion, but have not received additional replies over several months. Please archive relatively finished discussions (to Talk:WikiJournal User Group/Archive 3).

Contents

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. YesYhave 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; WikiJSci now eligible, as well as WikiJMed

Additional 'soft criteria'

  1. YesYinternational nature of editorial board and authors; Highly multinational board and authors
  2. YesYmembership of DOAJ, SciElo, etc, or indexing by Scopus, etc; Indexed by DOAJ, GScholar and Informit. Scopus application in progress
  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)

Forgot to make a note here earlier. I contacted fairopenaccess.org in Dec 2018. They notified me that their work is for converting subscription journals over to Fair Open Access, and that FJN (freejournals.org) is the relevant place for OA journals to apply. This is useful in at least focussing us back on on prepping an application for FJN since WikiJSci now hits the minimum existence and publication number requirements. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The response from the FJN regarding WikiJournals is:
"I will have to decline for 2019, but this does not prevent you from reapplying in future. It is too early for us to tell how this journal will turn out: the nonstandard nature of the editorial board and the relatively small amount of original research are definite concerns for the more traditional members."
Reposed with permission. So we may reapply as the journals continue to grow, but it may be quite dependent on number of original research articles, which is currently not a focus of the journals. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 20:00, 10 August 2019 (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)


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: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikijournal-en
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)


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)

Discussion[edit]

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.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd7UOiidYOAzkBfAVBe8eWwE5mbmvRF6wR3NDfTgnj0dDdBFQ/viewform
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 <das.diptanshu@gmail.com> 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 https://phys.org/news/2018-10-bose-einstein-condensate-space.html (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)


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)


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) de-collapsed/de-truncated Diptanshu 💬 13:34, 23 April 2019 (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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]
  • (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[edit]
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[edit]
  • 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[edit]

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 @googlegroups.com email address with a @lists.wikimedia.org 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 @googlegroups.com email address be replaced with a @lists.wikimedia.org 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 @googlegroups.com 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 wjmboard@googlegroups.com 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[edit]
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[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 https://publons.com/media/academy/videos/tips/M4_Ethics_Hames.mp4 (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 , 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.

Harinder

Conflicts of interest: None declared

Response

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.

Regards

Diptanshu

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)

Discussion[edit]

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)
Thomas, just to check whether you had responded somewhere else and I did not know. Or may be it was missed. Or may be it is still on the radar. It is ok if you are occupied with other things. In an email to select private recipients you had said that responses to my queries are not ignored. I would also like to believe that in another email thread to private recipients my call for action involving this issue was not conveniently ignored. Diptanshu 💬 12:02, 22 March 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)

Discussion[edit]

  • 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)


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 partnerships@publons.com 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 https://publons.com/journal/59718/wikijournal-of-medicine 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)


Creating WikiJournal preprint[edit]

1[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)

2[edit]

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)

3[edit]

I try to submit, filling the "authorship declaration form", but I cannot; the link to "http://form.wikijmed.org/" 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)

Changes[edit]

@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 "http://form.wikijmed.org/" 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. //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1715614/. 
  • 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)


Up for debate: four modest proposals[edit]

The proposals[edit]

I have written an essay on the lessons of the ongoing WikiJournal experiment. The essay concludes with the four proposals reproduced below. I would be interested to know other people's appraisal of the WikiJournals so far, and their ideas on future evolutions. The proposals:

  1. Do not duplicate articles: do all the work on the original Wikipedia article, do not have a WikiVersity version. Aims: reducing complexity, saving work, and not confusing authors and reviewers.
  2. Make authors optional: Wikipedia articles could be submitted by editors, reviewers, or others. There could be a process of nomination and votes to decide which articles to prioritize, possibly coordinated with disciplinary WikiProjects. Authors could also be optional for revising the article, as anybody can do it.
  3. Focus on reviewers and their work: the main outcomes could be the reviews themselves rather than the Wikipedia articles. The collection of the reviews and comments could be published as an article, with its DOI and PDF, and a title of the type "Review of the Wikipedia article on X". Anonymity would no longer be an option for reviewers. If this leads to a version of the Wikipedia article that satisfies the reviewers, that version can be published too. Otherwise, just link the review from Wikipedia for future reference.
  4. Be relaxed about official recognition: being recognized as a full-fledged traditional academic journal is not vital. It is more important to remain experimental long enough for finding what really works.

Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 20:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Considerations from the May 2019 WikiJournal meeting[edit]

  1. Do not duplicate articles:
    1. Some view Wikiversity as a sandbox for Wikipedia so duplication is superfluous (particularly for articles submitted from Wikipedia) whereas others want permanently different versions at WikiVersity that can be more technical without being nixed by WP editors (particularly at WJM, WJH).
    2. Could possibly inter-wiki transclude if sister project.
    3. May not harm peer reviewer response rate (Wikipedia more recognisable ‘brand’ than WikiJournals).
  2. Make authors optional:
    1. We could have experiments about that: select a few existing Wikipedia articles and try having reviewers and editors work on them directly (‘contributors’ but no traditional ‘authors’).
    2. Aim to avoid the problems with the BMJ-organised peer review of Parkinson’s disease (comments from 2016 not fully addressed)
  3. Focus on reviewers and their work:
    1. Giving DOIs to reviews is an emerging practice in scientific publishing and we could do it as well.
    2. Moreover we could give more prominence to reviews on WP talk pages, especially when the suggested changes are not implemented.
  4. Be relaxed about official recognition:
    1. Official recognition seems indifferent to reviewers, but some authors will not contribute before the journals are on PubMed, Scopus, etc.

Experiment[edit]

I have created a page for an experiment along the lines of the proposal. It would be good to have some feedback from the community, and more suggestions of candidate Wikipedia articles. Then I will ask for an official go-ahead, i.e. acceptance of the terms of the experiment, and commitment to publish the reviews as advertised. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 20:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to the results of this pilot. Afterwards I'll be interested to see a side-by-side comparison in how reviewers react to different types of invites. The concept of putting the peer review and reviewers more in the spotlight may also be more broadly applicable to other articles. e.g.: should reviewers be listed in the wikidata items and/or XML metadata for articles? Should the number and/or names of reviewers be listed on the article itself? It is also relates to discussions about how to handle anonymous/pseudonymous wikipedian authors as corresponding, named authors. (For ease of reference, here's a link to the meeting notes). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 13:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


Declaration on Research Assessment[edit]

Further to an earlier thread on the IOI project, It might be worth signing support for the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). From what I can see, the principles it's laying out are well aligned with the general thinking here (full declaration), including:

For publishers

6. Greatly reduce emphasis on the journal impact factor as a promotional tool, ideally by ceasing to promote the impact factor or by presenting the metric in the context of a variety of journal-based metrics (e.g., 5-year impact factor, EigenFactor [8], SCImago [9], h-index, editorial and publication times, etc.) that provide a richer view of journal performance.

7. Make available a range of article-level metrics to encourage a shift toward assessment based on the scientific content of an article rather than publication metrics of the journal in which it was published.

8. Encourage responsible authorship practices and the provision of information about the specific contributions of each author.

9. Whether a journal is open-access or subscription-based, remove all reuse limitations on reference lists in research articles and make them available under the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication [10].

10. Remove or reduce the constraints on the number of references in research articles, and, where appropriate, mandate the citation of primary literature in favor of reviews in order to give credit to the group(s) who first reported a finding.

DORA declaration

What are people's thoughts? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The declaration is reasonable overall, except points 10 and 16 which tell us to favor citing primary literature over reviews. This goes against common sense and Wikipedia's rules. Due to this fatal flaw, I Oppose signing the declaration. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 01:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The declaration prefixes the prioritisation of primary literature "...where appropriate". Does that not sufficiently address your concern? Prashanthns (discusscontribs) 04:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
No, the text is clear enough, and the repeated insistence on primary literature vs review articles means what it says, unless you think that the words "where appropriate" make points 10 and 16 meaningless. For a more detailed discussion of this aspect of the DORA declaration, see my 2013 blog post. Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 08:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
As an editor of - within my field - a high impact factor journal I have always had some reservations about the DORA. I had not considered the point above about the citation of primary sources over reviews but, on consideration, I do not agree with it and I can see why it is in the DORA - to lever editors and authors away from, respectively, publishing and citing reviews which are well known to be the articles which contribute most to JIF. The DORA just seems anti-JIF with few positive suggestions (except point 6) and, as with all JIF criticisms, no suggested alternative. I also think it fails to acknowledge the value of JIFs which are, at least, an indication of quality in that journals that are included in the Clarivate JIF list have met some fairly important quality criteria. I tend towards Oppose due to above and because it tells us little we don't already know and will have zero influence in the Far East, South East Asia and selected parts of Europe - such as Italy. Rwatson1955 (discusscontribs) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
While I like the general thrust of the declaration, I concur with Sylvain regarding points 10 and 16. These appear problematic both in a journal setting - review articles are vital tools for the research process, and discouraging people from creating them by taking away their cites seems counter-productive; and in a Wikipedia setting - there's a direct mandate here to use secondary rather than primary sources, and a review will always be preferred as a source over a primary research paper. Therefore, I don't believe adopting this declaration as it stands would be a suitable move for us. --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 16:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The only part that seems controversial in the section for publishers is the second clause, "and, where appropriate, mandate the citation of primary literature in favor of reviews in order to give credit to the group(s) who first reported a finding." Given the preference for reviews in Wikipedia over primary research I would interpret the second clause as not applying in our case (i.e. it is not appropriate to do this when it goes against the rules/ethos of our project). With this interpretation, I support signing as I do not see how the second clause affects us as a project. The only reasons I see for not signing are political, i.e. being seen to support something that does not apply to us. Edwbaker (discusscontribs) 14:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, if "where applicable" can be interpreted thus. We would have to make it clear, however, that we intend exemption from these specific clauses - presumably in whatever place we would record acceptance of the rest. --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 23:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)