This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This journal as part of broader citation reform
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, I mentioned this project at meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Reform_of_citation_structure_for_all_Wikimedia_projects. It is in a grants space even though I have no intention of applying for a grant. I wish that someone else would apply for a grant and manage this kind of project. That proposal talks about a range of citation problems on Wikipedia, and I believe that if Wikipedia had a better citation infrastructure then people could use it more efficiently for purposes like this journal.
Being able to publish and peer review original research on Wikipedia would be one of the rationales for strengthening Wikipedia's management of citations. Blue Rasberry (talk)14:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I should mention that there is an upcoming article (Diagram of enzymes, substrates and products in human steroidogenesis) that is currently ongoing peer review, and is expected to be added to the journal sometime this week. This will bring the number of articles up to the "magic number" of 5, which is the minimum criteria for applying for an ISSN number. If successful, I can subsequently apply for a Digital Object Identifier (doi) to each article, presumably from CrossRef. Then, usage of Wikiversity Journal articles as references in Wikipedia can be made with standard templates. We can discuss later which template would be most appropriate (perhaps {{cite journal}}). Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I write updates to other members of the editorial board, and I will from now on try to add them here too whenever possible. Here are some updates for mid-May:
A question is raised whether I as editor-in-chief can write a summary of an article, to be part of that article. This can be seen in articles in other journals such as in this article from PLOS. Do you think it is all right?
I recently added the last 5 tasks at our Contribute page, but I haven't forgotten the additional ones including adding contact details to articles, preparing PDF files, adding an editnotice recommending declaration of any conflicts of interest upon editing, and joining WAME. For the indexing issue, I've now gotten names of 2 other people who might help uploading PDFs to our local medical school's page. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 14:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I've started an Editors page at Wikiversity_Journal_of_Medicine/Editors, detailing the editing process up until this stage. Feel free to comment. Regarding asking for peer reviewers, the practice of asking those are involved in cited articles in the work should probably entail having them mention that fact among potential conflicts of interest. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Cited articles as-published
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
A wiki page, simply linked, is a moving target. For on-wiki journal publication, the publication decision (which I have elsewhere described) must refer to a specific version. I thought that this was the case, but, in fact, it isn't. First of all, the table of contents on the Wiki J Med page here has links to the current version, not the permanent, as-published version. It could have both, but the approved version should be the most prominent. It is then possible for anyone to compare that version with the current version.
The table of contents on the resource page has DOI references, which do not link to the permanent version, as approved. They link to the current version.
A permanent link to the peer-reviewed version is located at [1].
This is a URL to the local file File:ELEPHANTYEAR.NOV2013.pdf. This is an image file, text cannot be copied from it, and there is no way to compare this with the current version. This is not a "permanent link."
The issue is not "peer reviewed," in fact, for the long-term goals of Wiki J Med. The issue is "independent publication." The most important link is not to the version as reviewed, because reviewer-approved articles then undergo further editing before becoming as-published.
Thanks for pointing out the disadvantage of having the original PDF submission as the permanent link for the peer reviewed version of The Year of the Elephant. I've now changed it to the wiki-version. The problem with having all incoming links, including DOIs, to the approved versions is that it eliminates the ability to edit any errors. Perhaps it's something we can do after perhaps 1 year after publication, when minor errors (such as this one) have likely been found and corrected already. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
It does not eliminate the ability to edit errors. Mikael, all journals face this problem. To handle it, they issue errata. With the articles being open to editing, there errors may be corrected. Until and unless these changes are approved, by the publisher, they are not "published" by the publisher. First of all, the DOI really should reference a table of contents hosted by the *publisher,* not wikiversity. The publisher is the publisher, not Wikiversity; all this was obscured by using "Wikiversity" in the name, and by confusion over peer-review being the issue with reliable source. Peer review is a tool used by publishers to enhance the quality of what they publish.
With wiki process being used by the publisher in addition to ordinary peer review, quality can actually surpass that of ordinary peer-reviewed publications. But it is essential to nail this down, these are not inconsequential details.
If the DOI link is to the publisher site, which table of contents may also be mirrored here, the permanent links can be managed there (and also be here in the TOC here).
The project you took on is not easy. I think that, faced with difficulties, you punted, you took short-cuts. Setting up peer-review is not a simple matter. I was just reading w:WP:V and w:WP:RS. The key factor is the publisher having a reputation for reliability. There is precedent for this being done by students, with law review journals, in the U.S. I'm willing to bet that they have tougher peer review than non-student journals.
Ordinary peer review plus wiki review *prior to publication* as well as continuous review after publication, can beat the normal publication system for reliability. That's the possibility here, and I find it an exciting one.
Years ago, as I started to edit Wikipedia, my primary interest (elsewhere, in other writing and study) was voting systems. It was frustrating to realize that what appeared in peer-reviewed journals was primitive compared with what was routine on mailing lists with expert participation. But no individual mailing list post was guaranteed reliable, some were horrible. However, the process brought in verifiable original research (i.e., anyone could verify the claims made, it was basically math). So very old errors, made before the field had truly addressed problems with the full tools as they became available, were citable on Wikipedia, but not the corrections of these errors, and the field was extremely slow to respond; those articles had been written by academics with tenure, who, somehow, were reluctant to revise what they had written.
To fix this requires creating a publisher, and setting up peer review that is deeper and more informed than ordinary peer review.
Wikis, by themselves, can't do this. However, they are a tool that can be used in the process. If people will use that tool. This is what I've found, dealing with experts in various fields that are sometimes considered "fringe" on Wikipedia. Wikipedians have the idea that these experts are eager to use Wikipedia to publish their ideas. That is a Wikipedian myth, fostered by the existence of crackpots who do, indeed, attempt to use or abuse Wikipedia. The real experts, the academics, who are under publication pressure like every other academic, have high distaste for Wikipedia and want nothing to do with it, mostly. The experts will publish in two places: they will publish in ordinary peer-reviewed journals, which enhances their professional reputation, and they will write books, which can be sold, so they benefit economically. It is extremely difficult to induce these people to work on Wikiversity. There are rare exceptions.
So you have two paths you can follow for Wiki J Med. You can create a student-managed process, which the law review situations shows can work, or you can create a professionally-managed process (or at least that uses professionals. One might notice that the Wikipedia guidelines suggest "professional" management of the independent publishers.) It could, in fact, be a hybrid. Harness the energy of students! But you will need to move beyond your original ideas. Are you ready for that? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the Wikiversity part of the journal's name, I can indeed imagine a future under a name of its own. As long as it is hosted in Wikiversity, however, it would be confusing to have any other designation. You can leave additional ideas at Wikiversity Journal/Future as separate Wikimedia project if you want to help in changing that situation. In any case, I find that linking DOIs directly to articles has the least astonishment, and it would have to be a very good reason not to link it directly to the latest version of the document.
I do want this to be a project open for all, built on the same spirit of collaboration that created Wikipedia. Every article should have at least one professional peer review before publication, but that doesn't prevent anyone to add additional peer review as well. So in that sense it's a hybrid project. Just as students have started to earn credits by editing Wikipedia articles ([2]) I think the academic world will sooner or later start to recognize projects as this one as well.
DOIs were not intended to point to dynamic content. The "latest version" on a wiki can be edited by anyone. Even if it is protected, it can be edited by any administrator, not just a designee of the Editorial Board. We can manage a level of control with Pending Revisions, but that is still vulnerable to wiki vagaries. A link to a permanent version is as fixed as a web site can be. We can't change it, not even an administrator. Permanent versions can only be hidden from view.
So... what you are describing is not an independent publisher, and it's impossible for it to meet Wikipedia RS standards. "At least one professional peer reviewer before publication" is met by many vanity journals.
"Wikiversity Journal of Medicine" implies that Wikiversity is the publisher. This is confusing what amounts to a service provider with the publisher.
It is indeed possible to have the best of both worlds. But to do that you have to have the other world, not just the wiki world: an independent publisher, responsible, with a reputation to maintain. Wikiversity is not responsible for you, nor are you responsible for Wikiversity. The WikiMedia Foundation, which owns the name "Wikiversity" and the logo, is not responsible for publication decisions; it generally limits its interference to taking down illegal content.
I understand and appreciate what you have done. However, you have also created a bit of a mess. Anyone looking at the Journal and the process and what has been published will see you as leading this, and with articles authored by you. You are aware that this is COI. Unless something is done, that will haunt the journal.
Creating articles, great. Creating articles with quality higher than normal for Wikiversity educational resources, great. However, you had a goal higher than that, the goal is attainable, but ... are you willing to adjust what you are doing? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Even if we have consensus on redirecting DOIs to a more stable target, I don't think it should be a completely separate Internet domain. As such, it seems feasible first in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
I'm aware that having articles of my own in the journal is a conflict of interest, in this case mainly because 5 articles were needed in order to have an ISSN, in order to assign DOI codes. If a good alternative emerges, I may switch to that. PLOS Medicine has stated that it would accept content from Wikipedia ([3]) and would probably accept this work as well. I'm unable, however, to pay the 14,500 USD it would cost to have these 5 articles in Open Access there.
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've added the suggested method for finding peer reviewer in the "Finding peer reviewers" section. With this in mind, and some recent input such as above, I've also removed the "List space" at the "Peer reviewers" page, since we should from now on try to get peer reviews from people who are not at the same time members of the editorial board. Perhaps in the future we can start a list of people who are interested in peer reviewing on a regular basis for particular subjects, when we actually have them. I will soon start sending reminders to already emailed potential peer reviewers for the latest submitted work, since only one has responded (and declined), and then send invitations to other people as suggested. I've also been making a "Who are the editors" and a "Creation of PDF file" section on the "Editors" page. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Mid-June updates
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There's no additional reply from invited peer reviewers on the cervical screening article, so I emailed another two corresponding authors of related works:
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I've been trying out Google sites too for making PDF version of articles, and I find their system of tracking edits is better than using docx, since it shows specific edits more straightforward.
As seen, readers are now directed either to the PDF version or the editable Google doc version, and the wiki version is saved for the record at the bottom.
In this way, articles are first built in the wiki, availing for extensive changes in the content before being accepted. Then, the PDF version is the accepted one, and edit suggestions are made in a Google doc (or perhaps a docx - we can try both for a while) that preserves the layout.
Upon further consideration, the wiki version is preferred over Google doc or docx - it does add complexity to editing, and the ability to track changes is far superior using the wiki. Thus, I switched back to the previous lock at the tubal pregnancy article. I did, however, add a link to the Google doc at the bottom, so if there are only minor changes in the wiki document, the next pdf update can be made by making the same modifications to the Google doc. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 12:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Assistant to the editor-in-chief
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I've added "assistant to the editor-in-chief" as a vacant position at the Editors page. As for now, this person would mainly help out in finding and inviting peer reviewers for our current submissions. If you are interested in this position, email Mikael Häggström at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org or make an entry below with a short presentation about yourself. The position is voluntary. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
To specify the assistant to the editor-in-chief position, I think this should involve "to act in place of the editor-in-chief on the event of his resignation or incapacity". Thus, the person needs to be entrusted with the password at Crossref in order to assign DOI codes to accepted articles, as well as the Godaddy password for the wijoumed.org domain if it needs redirection to another target than the current one in the future. Otherwise, it would involve helping out at the tasks listed at the Contribute page and add further ideas, but these activities are already available for everyone so it wouldn't be specific for that person. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 16:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Peer review systems (copy from recent email discussions)
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I'm thinking about another solution if we end up having more articles needing peer review than our regular project members can work on finding peer reviewers for, and that's having something like a self-service system, where authors themselves email potential peer reviewers, not for their own article but for previously submitted articles in need of peer review. Once a peer review is done, a decision whether to accept or reject the peer review would also be made by us in the editorial board. Thus, anyone who arranges for a substandard peer review just to get her/his own article peer reviewed would thereby need to redo the seeking.
Some journals have authors suggesting peer reviewers for their own work, but I think it confers a too high risk of conflicts of interest. If it turns out that the capacity of ourselves and/or the "self-service" system above are not enough, I'm rather leaning towards also accepting independent peer reviewer services such as Rubriq. This would mainly be a way for the authors to buy time, getting their works published faster, since the no-cost arrangements apparently can take some time. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 12:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I think a peer review of someone in the editorial board is also acceptable. ICJME guidelines say that "Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are usually not part of the editorial staff", which does not exclude this way of performing it. I personally find that finding peer reviewers is a rather tedious work, while performing reviews, on the other hand, is more fun. Therefore, when looking at the future of the journal in the long run, I fear that the task of finding peer reviewers on a completely voluntary basis will not work. Perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation could provide for hiring someone as a peer reviewer finder. I find that appropriate to try if there will be a longer lineup of articles needing peer reviewers, but for now I'm willing to review myself. Surely, there will be a conflicts of interest I have to mention as editor-in-chief, but I think it still contributes to getting a proper idea of the subject at hand. After all, I want readers to question the validity of the article as well as the original peer review, and thereby add to the discussion about the content. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 18:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't rush it, my recommendation. I'm looking at w:Scholarly peer review, the kind of peer review that is desired here. Peer review is distinct from editorial review, and I see that as a crucial distinction. Please don't jump into using close-circle review just out of impatience to get the process moving. Author-selected review is, in effect, used by w:arXiv and the reputation of arXiv is not high as a result. arXiv also has a form of editorial review which is not transparent, and the Wikipedia article on S-PR worries about papers of low quality being accepted, whereas there is the reverse problem; good papers being rejected because, say, experimental results or analysis challenges popular believe in the field, or do we believe such is impossible for "experts."
While a review from someone on the editorial board is possible, that person should then recuse from the approval, and it is still not a great idea, because board members, regularly working together, tend to scratch each other's backs. The editorial board makes executive decisions, don't mix that up with peer review, which advises the editorial board.
WJM can have a backlog of papers awaiting peer review. The decision was to make WJM peer reviewed, not merely wiki-approved. Wiki approval is editorial approval. Not peer review. Further, wikis are not subject to the decisions of external boards. The integrating compromise is to consider both the peer review and the editorial board approval as advice, coming from two different kinds of review. The peer review is by a "peer," someone expert with the subject matter of the paper. The editorial review considers the overall purpose and quality of the journal. It could decide to publish a paper without the approval of a peer, but that would be an editorial decision, and should be presented as such. I.e., the paper is an "editorial," not a peer-reviewed scientific research paper. It's also like letters to the editor. They are often published without a peer review process.
I know a great example of such a letter. A paper was published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal, a chemistry journal, on my Favorite Topic. (Which has a reputation for being fringe or worse). A Letter was published critiquing the paper. The Letter was pretty bad, made a major error in understanding, raised old, obsolete arguments, etc. One of the two authors of the original paper replied, but was joined by a phalanx of scientists, leaders in the field. (Notable people. Much more so that the original two authors.) Why was just a poor Letter published? I think it was the best they received, and it was important to show dialog. The critic complained bitterly that the journal would not publish his subsequent rebuttal. The original paper was, of course, peer-reviewed, normal process.
So ... this is the process I see.
1. Paper written, submitted as a draft.
2. Peer review created. If WJM wants to become a reputable journal, it should have independent reviewers, period. If the author wants to speed up the process, they may agree to pay reviewer fees, but the customer of the review organization would be WJM, not the author, and the review service would be selected by WJM. (Before the reviewer is retained, the author would agree to pay the fee, but would not know what service was selected or have any say in it. And might not know after the fact. WJM wants an unbiased review. A review service would be on notice that if they just knee-jerk approve, they won't be getting any more business from WJM! WJM, with such a system, might exceed the quality of many regular journals, and we should aim for that. If an author does not want to pay, the paper can go into a queue for volunteer approval, but there are potential problems with this. They can be addressed, but this isn't simple, off the top of my head.
3. The peer review process is interactive, it is not just a rubber stamp Approved or Rejected. It continues until the author and reviewer agree on an outcome, or one party (author or reviewer) puts a stop to it. Appeal from a first review is possible, but I won't describe that.
4. Meanwhile, there is editorial review, by the wiki community. This involves, understand, Randy from Boise, who fills a very important function. Randy represents the general readership. WJM is a general medical journal, not a specialist journal. Generally, articles should be readable by the public. (This is my opinion as to the overall editorial policy. Finding review, both peer and general editorial review, for highly specialized papers could be very difficult. Randy will notice things that experts might miss! He also doesn't know the field and will make dumb mistakes, but ... remember, he's not writing the article, this is not Wikipedia. The author is writing the article and remains responsible for the content. Randy is, again, another advisor, who will show the author how well the topic has been explained. The author is not required to please Randy. However, I suggest, the attempt can generate value.
5. The managing editor decides whether or not to present the paper to the Board for publication approval. If the managing editor is involved with the paper, another should be designated to perform this function. The Board will have a process to appeal the decision of the managing editor. Scalability must be considered at the beginning, when it isn't necessary. If volunteer Boards are asked to make too many decisions, they burn out. The job of staff is to sort and organize the material, so the work of the Board is straightforward and simplified. They can do their own research, but normally should not find it necessary.
As part of the presentation process, and if possible, discussion of the paoer content, found in peer review and in community review, would be refactored and summarized to delineate the resolution of issues raised, or identification of unresolved issues, where agreement could not be found. The summary should have high consensus. (Wikis often completely miss this.)
6. Generally, consensus should be sought on the content of papers. An author should have veto power over any changes that attribute to the author what the author does not approve. I.e., substantial unapproved changes to content. Context can be established without the author's consent. This is how Wikiversity handles POV conflicts, by attribution and context.
7. Papers not approved are still "published" on Wikiversity, with notice of the lack of approval. Only if there were a very serious problem with the paper, such as serious ethical violations, fraud, or major plagiarism/copyvio not remediable, etc., would a paper be deleted (generally through Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion]
8. The recommendation from the board is communicated to the wiki, and normally, that's it. The Wikiversity community has ultimate authority to accept or reject Wikiversity material, and how to frame it. If a paper is published and then "withdrawn," it would generally still be readable, at least in page history.
9. After "publication" -- or rejection -- the process discussion should be archived and the cleared Talk page (with just an archive linke) opened for continued general discussion of the paper and the topic. We will probably want to full-protect the as-published paper, changes would require author consent, generally. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I've clarified at Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Peer reviewers that it shouldn't be a member of the editorial board. On the other hand, authors may contract Rubriq for peer reviews if they don't want to wait for months, which it usually takes. I do think, however, that articles can be published despite unresolved issues that were raised in the peer review, but in such cases there should be a mention of that in the journal article, such as in an Editor's note that I just added to the VIA article.Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 13:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I cannot praise the AMA series at /r/science on reddit enough. Anyone who is interested in trends in science publishing should check this out - it is really something amazing.
Consider checking the proposal at meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Reddit Science AMA + PLOS + Wikimedia. I initially suggested it but I would not manage a collaboration between reddit and Wikipedia, even though I continue to believe that there ought to be one.
A company named thewinnower is currently a reddit partner and is assigning DOIs to their interviews. See the announcement on reddit. I wish that some Wikimedia project could be the partner in this position, because in my opinion it is a low-investment, high-impact partnership.
In summary for those who need background context - in that forum, there are daily interviews with whatever scientists have recently published something in an academic journal. The forum is great because of the community asking questions and the depth of the discussion. I have never seen a more effective bridge between the public and scientists. There is no holding back in the sense that the science gets as thick as the audience demands, but at the same time, scientists explain themselves to layman audiences also so the conversations have general appeal.
I am posting here because it highlights an example of DOIs being used in a non-traditional but academic way - they are being used to catalog these crowdsourced conversations. This could be a model for development of this project. Blue Rasberry (talk)18:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Blue Rasberry , for the notification on this activity. Wikiversity Journal of Medicine could possibly also be a venue for new and creative publication formats. A discussion could potentially also be submitted, reviewed and published in the journal. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
COPE guidelines
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
To comply with COPE code of conduct for journal editors: [4], I've made some changes:
I added at the Editorial board page that board members should use their real names. This means no changes for existing members, but we should demand this from future candidates. This also means we don't need to handle editorial board applications confidentially, so I've recommended candidates to apply on the talk page online.
At the Publishing page, I added a section for research articles that "Ethics approval by an ethics committee or institutional review board, or an adequate explanation whether this was done or not, is needed for works involving research on living and deceased persons, biological material from humans or sensitive personal data."
I also added the following points for peer reviewers: "Is patient consent commented?" and "Is there appropriate protection of research subjects, including animals?"
I've now sent a request to ICMJE to include Wikiversity Journal of Medicine in their online list of Journals Following the ICMJE Recommendations. I will similarly request to join COPE as well.
Update: Article about the journal, ORCID, Wikimania
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As an update on what's going on, Gwinyai Masukume and I have written an article about the journal, which is now submitted to Journal of Electronic Publishing. We hope this article will attract additional authors to submit articles to the journal.
The PDF files of articles are currently being updated so that ORCID codes are displayed when present. This will decrease the chance of mixups when authors happen to share the same name.
I will try to make it to Wikimania in Italy this summer, and I hope to see as many people as possible from around Wikimedia projects. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I've added the Second Journal of Science at the main Wikiversity Journal page, since it demonstrates the purpose of that page in being an umbrella for multiple journals.
I think there are two aspects of the journal of science that I think Wikiversity Journal of Medicine can benefit from as well. First, I think peer reviewers should have the option to be anonymous. I used the think openness would only improve reliability, but actually it can alter the free expression of the peer reviewer. For example, the peer reviewer may refrain from making certain remarks out of fear of being personally reprimanded by authors or supporters thereof.
Second, I think Wikiversity Journal of Medicine should also accept re-publication of up to entire Wikipedia articles, if authors seen in the Wikipedia article history can be attributed in an acceptable way. This would provide a peer reviewed version of the article, which would definitely be regarded as more reliable among many scholars. The Wikipedia article would continue to develop, but then there's the option to perform a new peer review later as well, and thereby update the article in Wikiversity. This activity would also attract Wikipedia editors who feel they want more credit for their work, and would help us reach the number of articles necessary for MEDLINE inclusion.
Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 21:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Comments can still be made. Some issues that emerged include:
Can the Treasurer position be held by an Editorial Board Member (as currently stated)?
Would a majority vote of total people in the Editorial Board be enough for removal of an Official, or would require involvement of more participants (as currently stated)?
Should adherence to ICMJE guidelines be mandated by the Bylaws? It is not currently included.
Should amendment of guidelines require a majority of votes from the Editorial Board, or a majority of people? Having the currently proposed system of votes makes it easier to amend the Bylaws.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Last week the journal received an article submission on the plant Sesbania sesban. After some thoughts from the editorial board, the article was regarded to be out of scope for the journal, and was not forwarded to peer reviewers. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 10:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Whether images require being from reliable sources
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I got a longer comment on my talk page which reiterated the inability to use Wikiversity as a reference in Wikipedia. It also suggested that all images in Wikipedia should be from reliable sources rather than being self-uploaded, but I don't think this is realistic given the low supply of images with compatible licensing. Therefore, I think Wikiversity Journal will always be a valuable supplier of author-created images. The entire comment, and my reply to it, is on my talk page. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Publishing Wikipedia articles
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Regarding Wikipedia articles, as far as I know, publishing static snapshots of it them in this journal is already legal by having a clear attribution to Wikipedia. Yet, an important function of such mirroring is to highlight those users that put most effort into creating the article, because it would then encourage users to improve articles, with the prospect of getting formal recognition if it becomes published in this journal. Still, the total number of editors for each article is often huge, so I think we can limit ourselves to the approximately 10 most involved editors as "authors", with the rest mentioned by linking to the Wikipedia article as per our publishing guidelines on the matter. We should also ask those authors if they agree to have their real names displayed. I even think we should exclude those who do not agree (or reply at all to such request), since it does not look as trustworthy when authors do not want to have their names associated with their work. I suggest the use of real author name in any final publication should be added to our criteria for inclusion of articles. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 13:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Update: Bylaws and independence
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I now declared our Bylaws to be official, after email discussions in the Editorial Board have come to an end. Further edits will be made through their Amendment-procedure.
Regarding the WikiProject Medicine page, I added at our Editorial Board page that an entry there for upcoming journal publications may be done "... if the material may be used for a Wikipedia article" instead of before every decision on article publication. As such, Wikiversity Journal is now formally less dependent on comments in Wikipedia. Yet, Wikipedians still decide about how material from Wikiversity Journal articles may be used in Wikipedia. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Any interest in submitting for a listing in DOAJ
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Apologies if this is discussed before, but is there any interest in submitting an application to Directory of Open Access Journals to list this title? As long as the ISSN is registered properly, there should be a pretty good chance of approval and DOAJ titles are listed in most major journal aggregators. Richardjames444 (discuss • contribs) 18:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, yes it's on the agenda to become included in DOAJ, but their application says "A journal must publish at least 5 articles per year to stay in the DOAJ" [5], and we've been too busy lately with setting other things up so far this year. However, the rest of this year will be focused on getting the next issue up, with enough articles to get us into DOAJ. Feel free to help out at any task listed at the Contribute page! Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 22:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Update:Logo
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
For the main page, I think we can have a separate right menu, starting with the technical details as currently displayed, but then also including a very short introduction of the journal, and then displaying the latest news, and perhaps also mentions in the news such as the The Conversation article. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 11:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We may officially intolerate any edits to published articles made without approval from the editorial bord or editor-in-chief. Practically, we can still have a policy of reverting such edits, even if the pages are not technically edit protected. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 11:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Renaming this journal
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 8 years ago28 comments3 people in discussion
Word and PDFs
Hello, I've some experience with layout and formatting of Wiki pages using templates (e.g. the Help:Introduction_to tutorial pages and WP:MCB project). I'd be happy to lend a hand with the templates used to format the journal's pages in general, as well as the PDF templates. Let me know if you're interested. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk05:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Great job T.Shafee! I've now replaced this template with your version at Wikiversity_Journal_of_Medicine/Editors#By "Printable version", as well as the advice on dysfunctional links. You are welcome to share any advice in how to process the document once you've pasted the test into it. I also added the PDF to the main page. I notice, however, that there is one image having ended up to the left of the text on page 14. I've opened the docx file to see if I could fix it, but it didn't turn out exactly as the PDF file in my Word version and online [6], such as having huge line spaces on page 9, which I haven't figured out how to reduce. Any ideas? Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I've now updated the word and PDF versions of The Cerebellum, as well as the formatting template in dropbox, having fixed the issues.
figure position - "anchor" needed to be placed higher up the page
line spacing - this was due to "vertical justification" and can be edited by either:
adding section breaks at the end affected columns - Layout>Breaks>Next_Page
removing vertical justification - Layout>Margins>custom margins>layout>Page vertical alignment (set to either "justified" or "top" and apply to all sections before clicking "ok")
hyperlink errors - can be fixed by Alt+F9 (to show field codes), Ctrl+H (to find-replace "%2520" with "_"), then Alt+F9 to hide field codes again.
Splendid! I added the template and advice to the Editors page, and the PDF and docx to The Cerebellum and the PDF to the main page. Indeed, it would be great to have examples for these major types of work. This is a major indication for updating all PDF versions, but we may also wait until the reasons to do so accumulate (such as eventually changing the name of the journal in each of the files). Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
(PDF & Word) Estimating the lost benefits of not implementing a visual inspection with acetic acid screen and treat strategy for cervical cancer prevention in South Africa
(PDF & Word) Reference ranges for estradiol, progesterone, luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone during the menstrual cycle
(PDF & Word) Diagram of the pathways of human steroidogenesis
Hopefully these act as a good representation of the spread of article types! I'll hold off on doing any more until the possible journal renaming is finalised. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk13:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Very good! I've updated the PDF files for these articles, as well as added updated links to docx versions:
However, for steroidogenesis [7], the svg diagram comes out a bit strange on page 3 of the docx version online. I think a raster version of it, such as jpg or png, needs to be used in the article.
The creation of updated PDF files for the rest of the articles is now added as an Open task.
Interesting, I've tried converting all the images to PNGs and I'm still getting the same misformatting. I think its a text-wrapping issue in the dropbox previews (since the header logo similarly misformats). I'll try a few more fixes and see if I can get it working. At least the downloaded version retains correct formatting, as does the 'Word Online' version. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk01:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I noticed now that the error consisted of image 4 having umped up and put itself above image 3. I'ts strange that it came out normal in your Word and Word Online. Anyhow, I've put it back so that it displays correctly for me as well [8]. I hope it doesn't turn out strange for you in return. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 15:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikiformatting
I've gone though the articles and started centralising the templates that were on the right into the {{article info}} template. This template combines general info, peer review, header info, and wiki-links for and allows centralised control and formatting. I've not changed much of the actual look for now, but it should make controlling formatting and adding new articles easier. Similarly, I've updated the {{List entry}} template to autoformat images more consistently. All of these changes should be back-compatible, so hopefully it shouldn't break any existing formatting! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk11:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
It looks great! Thanks
Feel free to experiment with different looks as well, perhaps in a way that make the articles look a bit more like they do in the new PDF layout?
I've listed those articles still using the previous templates at Open tasks.
I've also updated the {{Wijoumed_top_menu}} a bit to include general journal information. It's currently pretty plain, but colours/alignment/contents can be easily updated. I'll work on figure formatting over the next couple of evenings. As always, I'm open to any feedback, criticism, or suggestions. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk02:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Great work as always! I'm thinking, the right menu in published articles makes the actual article content rather thin if the browser is compressed from the sides. It doesn't take that much to make large images partly being overshadowed by the menu. I think the right menu may become compressed to when the browser is. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 17:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, if you are interested in joining general discussions and decisions about the journal, you are very welcome to apply for Joining the editorial board. If you plan to submit some of your previous works to the journal, it is possible as an editorial board member too, as described on the "Publish" page: "People who submit a work and who are also participants in the journal should not be actively involved in any further processing of the work after submission." Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 18:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
You're completely right about the column width issue. It should be possible to fix with a combination of min-width: and display:flex divs. I'll see if I can get the css to work correctly this weekend. Thanks for clarifying how publishing coi is handled for the editorial board. I'd originally decided not to apply to the board based on having already overstretched my workload of late, but then again, I've found myself putting in time anyway because it's an interesting project! Long story short: I'll put in an application in the next week. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk03:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Great! I hope you received both the emails to board@wijoumed.org which you should now have to your gmail, as well as the invitation to the Google Sites page. Let me know otherwise. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 18:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I've made a {{Article peer review}} formatting template for the peer review. It's base don {{Article info}} so most parameters are just be copied across, with the addition of reviewer and response statements. The aim is to clearly reviewer and author statements, and pre- and post- publication reviews. (See example at: The Cerebellum). It's certainly a more complicated task to make templates for this, because of the varied ways that peer review can go (number of reviewers, response inline or after, multiple review rounds). Nevertheless, I think It'll be possible to make something pretty robust and easy to use. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk00:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I've realised that {{Article info}} can be programmed to behave as a peer review template when on a talk page, so most of the parameters can just be copied across, and the formatting can be controlled from a single template.T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk11:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
On a separate note for The Cerebellum, I wanted to change the corresponding author in the PDF document to: "Author correspondence by online forms to Wright, Skaggs and Nielsen". Still, however, the Word document still shows some flaws for me compared to the PDF version, when viewing it both in Firefox and Chrome, as well as when downloading it and viewing it in Word. These are mainly that the top right text becomes overlapped with the logo, as well as huge line spaces on page 9 and for the final "Conflict of Interest: none declared", but I probably miss some parts too which we may not want if I was to make a PDF version out of it. Could you add the suggested author correspondence format to the PDF file? Preferably, the docx version should be amended too so that it displays as we want for anyone who want to make further text changes. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I've updated the cerebellum PDF and docx. I've also found the source of the misformatting. I think that your version of word is converting the docx into a doc before opening it. It causes wrapping around images to break, which messes up the header, and causes the vertical text spreading that fills up the gaps where images once were. I'll see if I can find a compatibility fix, since it's not ideal to require a post-2010 word version, but it may not be possible to have the formatting be both forward- and backward-compatible. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk01:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Some additional topics are being discussed at Talk:Wikiversity Journal User Group#Outreach, domain, news tab, past issues. For instance, additional open tasks have been suggested regarding the format of the current and past issues [9]. I think this format would make it easier to organize and keep track of previous issues, as well as when updating the front page when we start a new issue.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We have now received several name suggestions for Wikiversity Journal. I suggest that we have a vote on the name among journal participants (that is, editorial board members, as well as those who have signed up as peer reviewers and editors). A name change later would carry much more effort and affect the reputation of the journal. I suggest that each person gets 5 points to distribute among the names, and the name with most points after 10 days of voting gets chosen. Any alternative ideas? Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 18:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Naming election is now open
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An election for determining the future name of the project is now open at: Talk:Wikiversity Journal/Future as separate Wikimedia project. The name of the project will be the entry that gets the most points during an election lasting from 12 (noon) on August 6, until 12 (noon) August 16 (GMT time), wherein each voter gets 5 points. Those eligible to vote are:
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The name voting is now over. The online count gives 20 for Wikijournal and 14 for all other candidates combined, which I regard as a win for the name Wikijournal. It is not yet decided when the name change will be carried out.Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 12:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
And always to be spelled with a a lowercase 'j'? I've noticed a couple of new category names with 'WikiJournal', but it's correct to change those I think? — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 01:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikijournal, WikiJournal or Wiki Journal?
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'd like to welcome Michaël Laurent as a new editorial board member. The editorial board has now reached its maximum of 10 members, but that does not mean that no more people can participate in, for example, the discussions and decisions that are made therein. Once we have someone who can be our email list administrator, we can have an email list where all project participants can participate, in addition to talk pages online. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 14:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikiversity Journal guild symbol
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I assume you intended to say "be this" (image to the right). It was inspired by the "Wikiversity Journal Logo" (to the left) with the yellow depicting the sun instead of the light bulb. My idea was that the logos would both represent one and the same guild, and that only all quality journals would be allowed display this guild sign. I will go into the image file description and make this clear.
@Mu301: please join this conversation because I know you are concerned about quality control. If you go to About the guilds, you will see that I propose that we decentralize the question of quality control by establishing guilds that consist of two or more journals. I am all in favor of the Wikiversity community exercising quality control over what does into mainspace, but the "guild" idea offers an alternative means of control. The guild's aren't intended to undermine the usual discussions concerning what goes into mainspace, but to facilitate those efforts by giving advice. I am confident that the WJ (Wikiversity Journal) guild will only permit qualified journals to join, and hopeful that we can help streamline those long discussions that occur whenever the issue comes up "does this belong in mainspace?".--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
It was proposed that even the current volume should be a separate page, and used as a template in the "Current Issue tab". I have no objection to this format, but at the same time I think the current format works fine as well. Thus, I moved these "Open tasks" to this discussion page for now:
Move the last two volumes (current and previous) to the respective pages (already created and listed under Past issues tab). (needed since 11 July 2016)
Prepare the current issue in its respective page. On the page for current issue use {{volume x issue y}} to pull the contents from the respective page. (needed since 11 July 2016)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
An issue with increased participation is that the email lists that came with the domain names (wikiversityjournal.org and wijoumed.org) have limited amounts of recipients. For the wide-reach@wikiversityjournal.org, we only have space for 1 more participant. I suggest that we get our mailing lists through https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo. This would hopefully also allow for having a moderator review emails to us from people who are not themselves on the lists. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 17:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I now added at Open tasks to become an email list administrator, as well as the duties it would entail. Until we have such an email list, posting on this page in addition to emailing the editorial board (boardwijoumed.org) is probably the most reliable way to reach journal-wide. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh yes, and good luck! --Slashme (discuss • contribs) 07:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
wikiversityjournal.org or make an entry below with a short presentation about yourself. The position is voluntary. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Old logo
New logo
wijoumed.org) is probably the most reliable way to reach journal-wide. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)