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)
Bylaws changes
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion
The Bylaws of the journal are about to be changed to be up to date with the new journal title. Also, board emails will use wjmboardgooglegroups.com (only accepting emails from board members) instead of boardwijoumed.org in order to allow archiving that is accessible for new members as well. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Number of editorial board members
The current bylaws state "The number of Editorial Board Members of WiJouMed should be kept at a minimum of 7 and a maximum of 10.". However, this is an arbitrary number. Scopus guidelines in the matter state that "Ideally many Editorial Boards are between 10‐20 members". I suggest we change the number from "a minimum of 7 and a maximum of 10" to "a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 20". If, in the future, we would become 20 board members, I think further improvement would not be further expansion of the board, but to make sure those 20 members are trustworthy in having access to even confidential work, and be interested in even the small details of the project. Major issues, and when not involving confidential matters, should be discussed publicly, such as here or at the public Google Group of the journal. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Electorate
The following text may also be added:
Eligible voters for Editorial Board Member elections are:
(a) Current Editorial Board Members.
(b) Peer reviewers of Wiki.J.Med. who have completed at least one peer review.
(c) Editors with at least 30 edits to Wiki.J.Med. pages.
Also, I'm not satisfied with the current process of removal of board members. I don't think it should involve more people than the board. I try to imagine what I would personally prefer if I was deemed to be unfit for the position, and I would much rather be dismissed by the board rather than being the subject of a "vote on removal of this person" similarly to the name vote, wherein board members publicly list everything they didn't like about me as a board member. It would feel like a public execution. I therefore suggest:
An Official may be removed by fulfillment of the following:
(a) At least 10 days have passed since an announcement from the Editorial Board to main email lists of Editors and Peer reviewers with the intention to remove a member, including tangible reasons for that intention.
(b) A subsequent majority vote among Editorial Board Members.
Open source journal management and publishing systems
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi all - here’s some information - a starting point maybe for deciding on a journal management peer review - publishing system. I worked for a small publishing office in Saudi Arabia - we did three journals and had to choose systems, so the experience might be helpful in choosing a system for wikijournal.
A few years ago (mid to late 2000s) when we were deciding on a manuscript management and peer review system, the two big choices for commercial systems then and still are ScholarOne (Manuscript Central, MC) and Editorial Manager (EM). Elsevier mostly uses a system called Elsevier Editorial System (EES) that is derived from EM. Many other journals (CDC’s EID for example) use MC, now called ScholarOne Manuscripts, now owned by Thomson Reuters. Other options for journal management systems like Open Journal Systems (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Open_Journal_Systems) weren’t as well developed 5+ years ago. A system like OJS is clearly more compatible with the open access, open peer review and wikipedia-integrated approach of WikiJournal of Medicine. If you have the technical capability, the OJS system is open source and you could run it yourself. These systems include everything — from the submission system and peer review to the the online publsihing (whereas an MC account for example is only the manuscript management and peer review; if you don’t sign a contract with someone like Elsevier, you have to handle publishing).
Open Journal Systems.com (http://openjournalsystems.com/) is a company that runs for the OJS system for you (at a price, somewhat comparable the commercial systems like EM and MC, as you might expect - but - includes everything - hosting for online publication, support, training etc.. I wrote to them, here’s the reply:
Open Journal Systems (OJS) is an open source publishing software that was created by PKP. We provide third party support for the software; hosting, installation, training, support, theme customization, workflow customization, programming, plugin design, etc.
Since OJS is an open source software, it requires regular support; For example, it requires regular upgrade that is essential to deal with security vulnerabilities, and to keep Open Journal Systems secure, functioning, and up-to-date with the latest developments and new plugins. That's why many Universities, like FSU college of medicine (theplaidjournal.com), Findlay University ( http://journals.findlay.edu/index.php/gh), University of Connecticut university ( http://journals.lib.uconn.edu/) , Case Western University (https://paijournal.com/index.php/paijournal), and many academic professionals, research institutions, and independent publishers choose us over their own IT dept because we have the experience and knowledge to deal with OJS.
PKP is located in British Columbia, Canada. Our company is located in Phoenix, Arizona.
Best Regards,
David Green
Co-Founder, CTO
OpenJournalSystems.com
Phoenix, AZ | USA
Phone: 602-527-7080
Email: info@openjournalsystems.com
Skype: OpenJournalSystems
OpenJournalSystems.com is a leading service provider for publishers using Open Journal Systems (OJS).
Thank you for the research into these alternatives! It seems to me that hosting through OJS for $360 per year [11] is the primary choice. Yet, I think the only use for such a system would be for those cases where the author wants to keep their works confidential until publication. Otherwise, authors should add their works directly to the wiki. Even for confidential works, I'd favor using Miraheze where authors can can write confidentially in wiki format. We have a space for the journal there: https://wijoumed.miraheze.org/
We have not added that alternative yet to the Publishing page since we really need more submissions, and wouldn't want to complicate their process now with extra tasks such as creating accounts on external software. Thus, the only reason I would favor such a journal system right now is if its process would be simpler for the author than just mailing their works to us. I know such a system may allow for a more structured peer review processing, but we can handle that by email as well. Is there any other particular advantage with these systems that motivates using any of them soon? Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
One of the journals I did got about 1200 submissions per year. That's a lot to handle manually the way you are talking about. If the submission rate increased that much (it will if you get into MEDLINE/PubMed), then I think you might want to consider something like the OJS. I suspect there's enough tech expertise around WP to handle it without needing the services of OJS.com unless the funds are not an issue. Jtamad (discuss • contribs) 01:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The journal was recently granted funds in order to cover past costs. In addition, we were granted money in order to have a prize competition in order to attract more submissions. All article formats are eligible for the prizes and articles will be decided by a panel of external judges. First prize will be $200, second prize will be $100, third prize will be $50 (all in US dollars). Articles will be judged on scientific content, readability and value to the general public. Deadlines:
1st September 2017: end of eligibility for submissions
1st November 2017: articles must have passed peer review
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
WikiJournal of Medicine is now registered as a non-profit organization in Sweden. Practically, this means that we can apply for organization-type grants from Wikimedia Foundation next year to cover expenses. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
There is now a board discussion on whether we should have at least 2 independent peer reviews for every publication. We have at least one willing "peer review finder", so we can currently achieve this increased level of quality assurance. In any case, regular journal participants may in addition give Editor's comments on potential upcoming and existing articles. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 11:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I received a request from an invited peer reviewer to be able to edit the main text of the article, anonymously. I think we can allow this, but the author should have the say about whether to keep the changes or revert to his/her own version. I think the same should apply if board members and associate editors make any edits to the main text as well. The author should decide about the content, but journal editors can make recommendations, even in the form of wiki edits. Finally, the editorial board can choose to reject the article if they don't approve. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Treasurer and grants
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The treasurer position as described in Bylaws#Section 4. Treasurer is still a vacant position. As it seems in board discussions lately, there is no immediate need for the position, as the relatively few expenses could be payed by me, and we're now applying for compensation from Wikimedia's rapid grants. Eventually, I think, however, that the journal will need a treasurer, who gets charge of a certain amount of funds from the Wikimedia Foundation, and makes sure these are allotted to the journal's expenses. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 11:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
As of now the journal's official url is www.wijoumed.org. The registration of the current domain is valid for another year. However, I would insist on getting the domain www.wikijmed.org (available) instead of the existing one. The latter is perhaps more fitting for the journal. If consensus is found in favour of this change, the change is better done earlier than later. The earlier the change is made lesser would be the requirement to update the listing in the registers like DOAJ, Crossref etc. We can get this domain and start using it while the previous one is still valid. Diptanshu.D (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Good idea, let's register that domain. I would however wait to change things over because this needs some careful planning to ensure all functionalities remain active. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The official URL of the journal is now changed to www.WikiJMed.org. Having a larger scale vote as we did for the official journal title would likely have been a greater effort than the URL change itself. Yet, anyone if free to comment on this change. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Potential upcoming articles
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
With a growing number of potential upcoming articles, the main workload has changed from outreach to handling existing submissions, which in itself is good. However, both the malaria protein article and the GI case study were submitted about two months ago, and still have no completed peer review. Due to this situation, I have changed the Publishing guidelines to make the recommendation of 3-5 peer reviewers mandatory [13]. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Even if the authors recommend 3-5 reviewers, there is no guarantee that this will help find appropriate reviewers. This is one of the greatest challenges for a not so well known journal. Some Editors gratefully use the reviewers suggested by the authors while others don't even look at them or deliberately use different ones. It shouldn't be a problem for authors to recommend 3-5 reviewers but I doubt whether it will be a solution for the problem of finding willing and able reviewers. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
At least we have enough peer review coordinators for the moment. If we still get too long processing time, there is the option to apply for a grant for having a paid peer review coordinator who can prepare lists of potential peer reviewers which we can choose to invite. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Approved peer review coordinators
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
WikiJournal of Medicine can continue to be a member of the Wikijournal guild. However, I removed this box from our WikiJournal of Medicine/About page , because I think displaying the guild symbol in addition to the WikiJournal User Group membership is rather confusing for those who reach the page for the first time. If the guild symbol seems to give readers an impression of quality, we may reintroduce it, but currently I don't think any new reader has even seen the symbol before. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 11:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Presentation
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I noticed the line "Let us know if you would like to use the remaining funds on a similar or new project. Remember, a grants officer must approve this request before you spend the money."
Since COPE is closed for membership applications for an unknown duration, I find the opening of a bank account for Wiki.J.Med to be a more immediate necessity. I therefore added a request to get to use parts of the COPE membership for that purpose instead. It would then increase our prospects of future grants, including membership fees for various organizations. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Potential new board member
Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
We have received an application for board membership from Dr. Prashant Pandya [15]. We'll soon have a vote on this. Eligible voters will be
(a) Current Editorial Board Members.
(b) Peer reviewers of Wiki.J.Med. who have completed at least one peer review.
(c) Editors with at least 30 edits to Wiki.J.Med. pages.
Dr. Prashant Pandya is GM, Program Management at Reliance Life Sciences, Mumbai, India. He has over 18 years of research experience (Academic & Industry) in various fields such as First in human studies, Stem cell research, Phase-II-IV clinical trials, Bioequivalence and QTC studies.
He has monitored and conducted more than 200+ national and global studies and has hands-on experience in the complete drug development process. He is a qualified Pharmacist, certified Project Manager & clinical research professional from Canada with Doctorate work in
Pharmaceutical & Business Management. He was visiting fellow at Stanford University, USA during 2011-12.
1. Please describe how you can be a unique asset to the journal. Feel free to include examples of prior experience in publishing or similar fields.
Prashant : A. I am working as a researcher since last 18 years having experience/ knowledge of several Global drug development studies. I am sure this will add lot of value to WikiJournal of Medicine while reviewing clinical data of any article.
B. I am associated with 5 peer reviewed journals, having good knowledge of reviewing/ editing articles.
C. My Stanford association might help to further enhance value of journal.
D. Over and above, my commitment and dedication will certainly help if you give me chance to join Editorial Board..
2. Describe why or how you engage/wish to engage with the broader Wikimedia movement.
Prashant : I firmly believe, whenever you join any Board, you are directly responsible to support all movement. WikiJournal of Medicine is prestigious journal having several good initiatives and I accept to support and agree to take minor task as a part of duty towards editorial Board member. I am sure, given opportunity, I will further help to uphold WikiJournal of Medicine mission.
Vote
Voting is closed
Citing our bylaws: "An Editorial Board Member is elected when they receive the greatest number of votes among those candidates running after at least 7 days of voting by the electorate as specified in the subsequent section. Eligible voters for Editorial Board Member elections are:
(a) Current Editorial Board Members.
(b) Peer reviewers of Wiki.J.Med. who have completed at least one peer review.
(c) Editors with at least 30 edits to Wiki.J.Med. pages.
(d) Not an individual voting for herself/himself.
I would like to temporarily withold my vote and insist on the following:
Ask Dr. Pandya to open a global Wikimedia account.
Make at least 30 edits on Wikipedia, preferably to a medical article of his choice. He may create one or develop and existent one. He is free to seek guidance from any of us and we would be there to help.
Provide a detailed CV with details of the projects he has been involved in. If he has any publications yet, he should also mention them.
He also has to become familiar with how to set pages on watchlist (with or without email notifications) and has to interact directly with us in relation to any queries we might have.
I would also seek to know his view about Free Knowledge movement, Wikipedia movement, Open Access, Open Science, Open Research, Copyleft and use of Creative Commons license. In this scenario I would like to ask him how he distinguishes the model of WikiJournals (WikiJournal of Medicine in particular) from other existing journal models and what scope of betterment does he see.
Prior to being accepted as an editorial board member, he needs to be accepted as an editor. I would insist him to take up one or more of the open tasks and to carry them out (just as any editorial board member would).
Prior to his acceptance into the board I would also insist him to act as a peer reviewer for one article. This will show his familiarity with scientific literature and the process of peer reviewing. Alternatively, he can offer the details of some peer review that he has done.
I would like to ask the potential Editorial Board member which activities he would like to dedicate himself to if elected, and what makes him an added value to the board for these tasks? In addition I suggest he creates a wiki account if he has not already done so and answer here himself. -Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Mikael Häggström: The current form letter states "I affirm that the article content is not already published in a peer reviewed forum that prohibits further publication." which is a phrasing I find somewhat confusing as multiple concepts are mixed. Do you want to confirm that the information has not been published before (because you would find double publications unwanted), or are you trying to avoid infringement on agreed-upon exclusivity? If the former, I would leave out 'that prohibits further publication' (that would be irrelevant), if the latter I would leave out 'peer reviewed' (if it is a non-peer reviewed forum that prohibits it, you would also want to know, right?). If you want to confirm both, best make it into two sentences, I'd think. Just thinking out loud... Keep up the good work, Effeietsanders (discuss • contribs) 19:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Effeietsanders, for pointing this out! I've now clarified that it also applies to publishers that do not peer review. On the other hand, if that publisher allows for it, this journal may republish it. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Plain language summaries
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Dear all,
at the suggestion of Gwinyai I would like to discuss whether or not we would include in our Author guidelines for future submission the advice and/or requirement to authors to add a Plain language summary.
I think in the spirit of Wikipedia and to make any topic accessible to the widest possible audience I would welcome these. Several big journals already use these e.g. Cochrane, JAMA, Ann Intern Med etc. have summaries for patients. Only sometimes they are written by the authors themselves and sometimes by the Editors/Journal.
I support adding Plain language summaries to the Author Instructions.
I support adding the inclusion of plain language summary in author guidelines. I don't think it needs to be mandatory; I think it can be included as "It is recommended that...". Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Andy: I strongly support the idea of users incorporating their ORCID iD in their userpages. But we need to keep it in consideration that ORCID is linked to real life identity whereas most people edit under pseudonyms. I think that prior to inclusion of ORCId it would be worthwhile to encourage users to register and edit under their real name. I think that it is only then the ice could be broken. Diptanshu💬16:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Huh, that's definitely not common knowledge. Using an orthnym is so typical for ORCIDs I'd never had thought to suggest it! I'll make sure to let people know. Having said that, WikiJMed currently requires publishing under the authors own name. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk12:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Other LG users?
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
As a medical editor on two wikipedias, I work hard not to do research; I've been accused of it. But let's say that I do some research that is published in the Wikipedia Journal of Medicine. How is my research going to make it into the encyclopedia if I am not to include original research into articles?
@Barbara (WVS): A good question. There are pretty much two paths. If the article is a review style article that doesn't include any original research (example) it can be integrated directly as its own Wikipedia page, or merged into a Wikipedia page. This is currently the more common situation. Alternatively, if the article does contain original research (example), the non-OR elements can be integrated into Wikipedia. Once the journal is PUBMED indexed, the article will also be able to be cited in a Wikipedia article as a supporting reference. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk08:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
New question
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
An advanced degree is not necessary. It is rather the quality of the work itself that counts. Submitted works will then be peer reviewed by people who have an advanced degree in the field. Nevertheless, it would be beneficial if an author has at least consulted someone with an advanced degree before submitting the work. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 09:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Removal of board members
In my opinion the board should not be able to remove one of their own without cause and without the involvement of the electorate. Therefore I disagree with the wording here. The current wording gives a small band of board members to much potential control. Doc James (discuss • contribs) 10:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
We did apply to SCOPUS earlier this year, but it was declined, mainly because editors were allowed to self-nominate, as well as the lack of a proper ethics statement. We are now tending to both these issues, with associate editors needing to apply, and an Draft of ethics statement under construction (help is appreciated in finishing it). Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Upcoming Wiki Science Competition
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I inform also here that the next Wiki Science Competition will start soon. In the end I found a lot of jurors that are related to biology or public health, but if anyone of your editors would like to join last minute, (s)he is always welcome, especially if from a missing country or a woman. I did ask to other editors of open access journals to join in the past months, but they did not reply...--Alexmar983 (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Centralised discussion
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In order to prepare for COPE membership, and to fulfill the standards of Scopus, I'm now working on preparing templates for suggested informed consent forms that authors may use for their projects. The drafts are found at:
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Do we want to write a journal-specific Ethics statement, or should we have an overall one that covers all WikiJournals? If we do one that it for all WikiJournals, we can get input from the other editorial boards.
My instinct is to have one centralised ethics statement for all the journals, since most issues like plagiarism, conflicts of interest, code of conduct are the same for all of the WikiJournals. If there are specific issues that affect only one of the journals, the individual journals page could have an amendments/addenda/additions section where further ethics issues are defined. Applying to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) is done for each journal individually until the publisher has more than five journals, at which point the publisher can apply as a single entity. Having a unified ethics statement may make things easier if/when there are more WikiJournals and the the WikiJournal publishing group wishes to apply to COPE.
@Evolution and evolvability: Great, I'm happy to be part of the correspondence too (marielle@umich.edu). I think this will be useful to the Wikipedia readership community as well. (I belong to several Facebook groups around breastfeeding and queries about medication and drug use are some of our most common questions.) There are probably lots of other categories of medication that could use a review too, if there are any authors with a particular expertise. Since she's part of the editorial board of the journal as well, might there be a possibility for it to be published in both places? I know that can be a great incentive for academics to contribute since wikijmed doesn't have much of an impact factor yet. (Like what was done with PloS topic pages) Mvolz (discuss • contribs) 12:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Lisa mentioned that there are a couple of conferences upcoming that she may use to discuss the idea with contacts. She might try submitting a test article, or getting together a group to write a set of articles. I also suggested articles being officially co-published with IBJ (like this pair of articles [19][20]), but that may involve much additional admin. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk12:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion
As per the bylaws of WikiJMed "Editorial Board Members shall serve four-year terms. There is no limit to the number of terms any individual Editorial Board Member may serve." [22] In the editorial board of WikiJMed [23], there are 3 members whose current term ends on January 1, 2019: Mikael Häggström (myself), Gwinyai Masukume (Assistant editor-in-chief) and Lisa Kipersztok.
I think an appropriate first step in a re-election is for the person to actively apply for it. I therefore now add myself below, and advise the other two to do the same if interested in continuing at the positions. I am sure many participants know us pretty well already, but just in case, we can re-introduce ourselves too, preferably by the template as per below. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, as per the bylaws, Eligible voters for Editorial Board Member elections are:
(a) Current Editorial Board Members.
(b) Peer reviewers of Wiki.J.Med. who have completed at least one peer review.
(c) Editors with at least 30 edits to Wiki.J.Med. pages.
(d) Not an individual voting for herself/himself.
Mikael Häggström
Mikael Häggström M.D. (website) Areas of expertise: Medicine, radiology
Relevant experience:
Professional - Currently a resident physician at the radiology department at the NU Hospital Group
Publishing - I am the creator and editor-in-chief of WikiJournal of Medicine, the first WikiJournal. I also have main responsibility for the financials of WikiJournal, and play a key role in domain and email administrations.
Support - Mikael has been thoughtful a diligent in his work with WikiJMed, and has great technical aptitude for the ancillary technical elements (emails, web addresses, issn & crossref registrations etc). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk00:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Support - Mikael founded the WikiJournal of Medicine. Over the past four or so years two new journals have been added to what is now a successful Family. Besides this, his images which illustrate many Wikipedia pages make Mikael one of the most globally influential Physicians of our times. In my view, time permitting, him remaining at the helm would be apt. Ear-phone (discuss • contribs) 15:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Supportstrongly - Without Mikael the project could not have thrived. We would be ever indebted for his contributions. Diptanshu💬17:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Gwinyai Masukume MB ChB, Dip Obst, MSc Areas of expertise: Medicine, Obstetrics, Epidemiology
Relevant experience:
Professional - I am currently a doctoral researcher. Milestones related to Wikimedia scholarly activity include initiating both academic and lay audience articles e.g. in the Lancet Global Health, STAT and several others. I have co-authored/authored 25 PubMed indexed articles including some in the world's leading journals like the Lancet and BMJ
Publishing - I was on the founding board of the WikiJournal of Medicine, the first WikiJournal. I am also the Assistant editor-in-chief with responsibilities ranging from strategy, indexing, peer review, social media engagement, compiling and analysing metrics among others.
Support - Gwinyai is a great asset to the Ed board. He is very critical which helps keep everyone sharp. On the other hand sometimes you should watch that this doesn't run out of hand, but until now we haven't had any problems like that so I am reassured. Also a less positive aspect is your refraining from much on-wiki editing. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Supportstrongly - He has been a great team mate and his insights will continue to be of immense value to the project. Diptanshu💬17:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago21 comments9 people in discussion
Similarly to the previous section, Gwinyai Masukume and I are approaching the end of our terms as Assistant editor-in-chief and Editor-in-chief, respectively. I again re-apply as a candidate, although mainly as Assistant editor-in-chief, and I want all those who are interested to make similar applications. As per the bylaws, "The Assistant to the Editor-in-chief is appointed by consensus in the Editorial Board", but I welcome input from all participants.
Mikael Häggström - as Assistant editor-in-chief
Applying mainly for Assistant editor-in-chief. I am happy to continue contributing as part of the editorial board, but I repeatedly find myself having too little time to make the project evolve and expand. I hardly have enough time to manage the current upcoming articles. I therefore think the project will be better off with someone who does have more time, and I will be happy to be there as Assistant editor-in-chief to guide whoever gets the Editor-in-chief position. I am also happy to continue my responsibilities for the financials, Internet domains and emails of WikiJournal. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 18:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Mikael Häggström M.D. (website) Areas of expertise: Medicine, radiology
Relevant experience:
Professional - Currently a resident physician at the radiology department at the NU Hospital Group
Publishing - I am the creator and editor-in-chief of WikiJournal of Medicine, the first WikiJournal. I also have main responsibility for the financials of WikiJournal, and play a key role in domain and email administrations.
Support Mikael has been instrumental to the project. He does a huge amount of work and I can understand wanting to devolve some duties. I'd be happy to seem him as either EiC or assistant EiC. 'd also support having several EiCs with remit over particular duties of the EiC e.g.: 1) Be notified by email of new article submissions, peer review submissions, and inquiries to contact@wikijsci.org. 2) Contacting potential authors. 3) Monitor the Wikipedia embassy page for submissions. 4) Monitor for new board member and associate editor applications. 5) Check in with peer review coordinators about progress and hurdles in peer review invitations. 6) Liaise with the technical editor if (the budget passes). 7) Assist in annual financial application. 8) Assist in writing annual reports. 9) Assist in indexing service applications. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk00:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Support in whichever role you see yourself fit. I myself also find myself with almost zero time available for this project. On the other hand I don't see anyone else able to take over from you, therefore I would beg on my bare knees that you continue as EiC ! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Supportstrongly - I would have loved to see him continue in the existing post. I really hope that he reconsiders himself for the role of EiC. However, I would support him for the role of assistant EiC if that is what he is willing to run for. Diptanshu💬17:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Applying for Editor-in-chief. I would not have considered applying for the position had there been any other applicant. I would gladly step down from my candidature if Mikael, Thomas or anybody else from the active set of current board members of Wiki.J.Med offers their candidature. The dynamics of interaction in the board of Wiki.J.Med has been inspiring and I would like that to continue. I am not sure if it would remain the same in case there is a new external candidate.
Professional - Currently working as a pediatricneurologist at Institute of Neurosciences Kolkata.
Publishing - Had been an active part of the editorial board of WikiJournal of Medicine. Has collaboratively contributed to a few external publications pertaining to Wikipedia and WikiJournal/WikiJournal of Medicine. Have authored a chapter on 'Neurodevelopmental follow-up in high risk babies' in a book that is still in press. Have reviewed an article in Wiki.J.Med. Currently acting as a peer review coordinator for a couple of submissions to Wiki.J.Med. Have authored the proposed Code of conduct document still to be considered by the board. Have authored articles listed by pubmed. Have made conference presentations (papers as well as posters). Have collaboratively participated in the preparation of the proposed National Open Access Policy of India.
Open - An active Wikipedian since 2008. A believer and enthusiast of open/free knowledge movement and culture. A member of working group of Open Access India. Have been a participant and presenter at multiple Open Access conferences. Have collaboratively participated in the preparation of the proposed National Open Access Policy of India. Have a couple of social entrepreneurship projects in the pipeline, projects that help in collaboratively innovating and to promote scientific understanding. In the concept stage of authoring a book on open culture.
Oppose - With regret. I think that Diptanshu has an excellent grasp of the technicalities of OA journals. However the EiC role also involves leadership tasks and working with others that he has sometimes struggled with. The WikiJournal editorial communities come from diverse cultures and can devote very varied amounts of time - from a 1-100 hours per quarter. During the events that lead to his dismissal, he struggled to see interactions from others' point of view. Before I could support him re-joining the editorial board, I would want to know what he thinks went wrong in the events that lead to his dismissal, what he has learnt and what he would do differently. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk11:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
CommentThomas, following a rash attitude of mine, a chain of events had followed. I must admit that I was overwhelmed at the hostile nature of responses that followed, and that my further reactions went out of proportion as I gasped for a friendlier environment which I failed to generate. I failed to understand why people needed to be hostile to a person who is and asserts that he is amenable to reason. I must admit that I held myself high on moral/ethical values and held those values above community approval. I am not diplomatic and am lured by titles. So, in response to what I found not-likable, I launched a second attack to assert the points that I wanted to assert. I was aware that it could lead to my dismissal and it did. Eventually I went through the Five Stages of Grief from denial to acceptance. The chain of events taught me a number of things. It helped me took at things from different perspectives and to map them with the possible outcomes. More importantly, earlier, I did not bother to become more likable, possibly because I did not know the way. I have grown calmer and accepting and now know much better how to convey a point without offending people and having them by my side. This can only happen if they feel reassured and not threatened. I believe that with time I mature further in this aspect. The EiC position is indeed a position of leadership. It needs people to find me likable and respectable. I believe that I would be able to regain their trust, and yours.
I must admit that the journey since the unfortunate chain of events has been interesting and enlightening. It has made me introspect and understand human behavior better. There is so much I sincerely have gained from it. It has helped me become a better person in real life. Believe me or not, I have grown within myself all the attributes I have mentioned in the Code of conduct document that I have prepared. I sincerely believe that to be the direction where people should be headed. It is not out of an urge to teach others a lesson. I have grown over it. I understand that people yield better if they can find things appealing and convincing rather than if they feel cornered. I believe that now I can convey my points better without being disruptive. Rest assured that my future interactions would lack aggression in any form. I sincerely believe that people would be able to sense the genuineness in my comments and would respond in affirmative.
I am still to pick up an important essential attribute that Laurent pointed had rightly pointed out, the importance of being concise. I hope to acquire that in the near future.
Thomas, I would sincerely hope that I would be able to regain your trust and that your vote changes in my support in light of the changes that I have undergone. Your apprehension about my ability work with others is justified but rest assured that you need not worry about it any more. In case you are not convinced, I would respect it fully and would have no issues with it. In fact, that would make me introspect further on the aspects I still need to develop or improve. Diptanshu💬13:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Thomas, would you please be kind enough to watch the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3IZxHFGFGI which beautifully describes a situation analogous to the situation that led to my dismissal. Indeed I have struggled to see interactions from others' point of view as in the expression of 2+2=22. I am only ready to accept things that are valid. The folk who can hardly dedicate any resources in the best interest of the journal felt irritated that their valuable time was being wasted reading my protest to the alternative way of thinking that was being offered. Rather than mindless expressions of irritation, I urged on discussions of validity. Not a word was spoken on it. I am not fine with that. I prefer to be parametric and discrete rather than expressing opinions of subjective nature. Please care to express if you are fine with the alternative math wherein 2+2=22. Not accepting this solution led to my dismissal. The people who were not happy about my not gulping down this solution got to vote me out. Another good fella felt obliged not to go against the flow. In fact that was the only vote I counted valid. Never mind! Anyway, Thomas, do care to express what stance you would like to personally have on the 2+2=22 situation without being diplomatic. Diptanshu💬19:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Following the recent chain of events as you describe, I do not see that your position can be broadly accepted. Also I think your above answer shows you need still more time to learn to be more concise. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I have expressed earlier that titles do not interest me. I have nothing to personally gain from the entire stuff. Rather, WikiJournal could have benefited from my insights if you people would have been able to think above your personal prejudices. I never accepted to be a candidate in the first place. The only reason that I applied was because there is no befitting candidate for EiC of WJM. It is public opinion is not supposed to shift in my favor anytime soon and by then WikiJournal would have lost much. Diptanshu💬19:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
My previous answer also shows that I clearly understand the significance of being concise and that I have it on my priority list. My response could also have conveyed that in the given situation the cons of being concise might have outweighed the pros of the same and that I might not actually be lacking the capacity to be concise. Diptanshu💬19:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Mikael Häggström - as Editor-in-chief
Due to the the current absence of an alternative candidate that we all can agree on, I should now formally make an application as continuing as editor-in-chief as well (although current bylaws state that "consensus" in the board is enough), taking the exact same material as above:
Mikael Häggström M.D. (website) Areas of expertise: Medicine, radiology
Relevant experience:
Professional - Currently a resident physician at the radiology department at the NU Hospital Group
Publishing - I am the creator and editor-in-chief of WikiJournal of Medicine, the first WikiJournal. I also have main responsibility for the financials of WikiJournal, and play a key role in domain and email administrations.
I will, however, work on outsourcing editor-in-chief tasks to other journal participants, since I find myself repeatedly not being able to perform them all myself in a timely manner. Today, I added a template at the top of the application pages for new editorial board members, summarizing the procedure: Talk:WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Editorial_board. I've also created a template, {{subst:WikiJournal accepted board member}}, that is to be copy-pasted to the bottom of each accepted application, creating a list of the technical tasks that need to be done for getting a new board member aboard, so that these tasks can be distributed among board members.
Those of you who have supported before may simply make a brief support mark if you still agree. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 03:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Support for all previous reasons. As part of distributing tasks, I shall volunteer to send the notification emails for new article submissions, peer review submissions and editor applications. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk11:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Support - Mikael remains worthy as always. However, leadership cannot be outsourced. A true leader ensures the best output from others in the most cordial way while infusing a healthy culture in the process. This remains reserved for the visionary. Other editorial tasks remain anyway under the purview of other editorial board members anyway. So I do not really understand that what exactly is to be outsourced. Diptanshu💬13:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Let me know if you don't agree, but my interpretation of the above votes is that both Gwinyai and I will continue a second term as editorial board members of WikiJMed, and I will continue as editor-in-chief. Unfortunately, Lisa Kipersztok will not be applying for a second term. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 21:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
News sources as citations
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editorial query was raised on a submitted article that the WikiJMed board discussed and I'm copying here. The article cites a number of news sources and the question was whether: Are news sources appropriate in a peer reviewed journal article on an event, or should the WikiJournal version rely (only) on peer reviewed articles, and What should be done for statements for which the only support is news sources? The consensus of the WikiJMed board discussion was:
Where possible, reliable refereed scientific sources would be preferred by far (similar to WP:MEDRS)
However, this article is an unusual case - Rapidly evolving out breaks in a setting with limited infrastructure are very challenging. It was noted that other journals have "relaxed" the usual rules when necessary (example)
If there's absolutely no better source, besides newspapers, to convey a key point/concept, the author could write where relevant in the manuscript e.g. "Media reports state..." to indicate that the source is of a lower level of scrutiny.
The board consensus is to handle subsequent similar situations on a case by case basis (avoiding blanket policies)
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. I recall signing up for the mailing list for this project a while back, but I don't recall ever getting any list-related email. Is there an active mailing list? I just clicked the above link about the mailing list, but it didn't take me anywhere that looked promising. A notification said 'There is no group named “wijoumed”.' Thanks. Biosthmors (discuss • contribs) 00:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Biosthmors: Aha, the list name is changed. We tried to migrate the list of members over to the new list, but there may have been an error. The new list is WikiJMed@googlegroups.com (to be the same format as the other journals) and you can sign up at this link. I'll also see if I can find an archive of the previous list members to test if any others were missed. I've corrected the link in the right hand template, but if you spot it anywhere else, please let me know (or edit directly)! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk01:05, 2 February 2019 (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)
Support -Diptanshu Das (discuss • contribs) 13:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - With regret. I think that Diptanshu has an excellent grasp of the technicalities of OA journals. However the EiC role also involves leadership tasks and working with others that he has sometimes struggled with. The WikiJournal editorial communities come from diverse cultures and can devote very varied amounts of time - from a 1-100 hours per quarter. During the events that lead to his dismissal, he struggled to see interactions from others' point of view. Before I could support him re-joining the editorial board, I would want to know what he thinks went wrong in the events that lead to his dismissal, what he has learnt and what he would do differently. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment Thomas, following a rash attitude of mine, a chain of events had followed. I must admit that I was overwhelmed at the hostile nature of responses that followed, and that my further reactions went out of proportion as I gasped for a friendlier environment which I failed to generate. I failed to understand why people needed to be hostile to a person who is and asserts that he is amenable to reason. I must admit that I held myself high on moral/ethical values and held those values above community approval. I am not diplomatic and am lured by titles. So, in response to what I found not-likable, I launched a second attack to assert the points that I wanted to assert. I was aware that it could lead to my dismissal and it did. Eventually I went through the Five Stages of Grief from denial to acceptance. The chain of events taught me a number of things. It helped me took at things from different perspectives and to map them with the possible outcomes. More importantly, earlier, I did not bother to become more likable, possibly because I did not know the way. I have grown calmer and accepting and now know much better how to convey a point without offending people and having them by my side. This can only happen if they feel reassured and not threatened. I believe that with time I mature further in this aspect. The EiC position is indeed a position of leadership. It needs people to find me likable and respectable. I believe that I would be able to regain their trust, and yours.
