Talk:WikiJournal of Science

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search

WikiJSci year summary[edit]

WikiJSci poster

Thank you to everyone for this year at WikiJSci. The editorial board is growing to cover a range of expertise. There have been very useful discussions on our guidelines and possible publication formats, and we have put in place official bylawsFunding for 2018 has been secured (including a small social media advertising budget).

Proposed priorities for for next year[edit]

WikiJMed found that there was a positive feedback loop of having a portfolio of high-quality published articles that leads to submission of other. Therefore here are my priority suggestions for discussion:

  1. Putting out our first issue should be our first priority
    • Solicit further article submissions by invitation
    • Move current submissions through peer review pipeline
  2. Advertising our existence more broadly
    • Posters to put up in departments and institutes (e.g. poster link)
    • Contact additional scientific societies (e.g. ISEV)
    • Soliciting endorsement scientific and open-access groups
    • Outreach via FB and Twitter
  3. Signing up to COPE (ethics draft)
  4. Signing up to DOAJ and other indexing services

Article pipeline[edit]

I hope that we will put out the first issue of peer reviewed articles in the first half 2018. Although we will eventually do continuous publishing, I think that it would be best to simultaneously publish our first set of 4-10 articles together. In addition to the articles currently having their peer review organised, there are at least two submissions expected in January, as well as further tentative expressions of interest.

Looking forward to 2018. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Manuscript: A card game for Bell's theorem and its loopholes[edit]

A card game for Bell's theorem and its loopholes currently resides on Miraheze. I have two suggestions that need to be cleared by my co-author before we can proceed. I think he will approve (when I catch him while he is not busy.)

  1. Move the manuscript into WikiJournal Preprints as an unsubmitted draft. Josh had no objection to placing it on Miraheze, where it was declared as "copyrighted for submission to a journal". I see no reason why he would object placing it on WV provided we don't actually submit to WJS.
  2. This request is more complicated:
Joah and I are at opposite ends of our career. I plan to soon devote 100% of my time to OER, using my pension to help fund this effort. I turn 66 in April and don't need a refereed publication. Josh has taken the bold step of offering to publish in WJS, provided he can be convinced that the manuscript was properly refereed. Josh is not making the more stringent demand that WJS be established in the academic community as a refereed journal (which will probably take years.) When I talk to colleagues on our campus about the WJS, many support the concept but remain skeptical about our chances of success. Josh is willing to gamble on success. He also wants to focus his career on teaching and doesn't need a refereed pub at the moment. Josh agrees with me that a large portion of teaching should be done online, and one of his primary interests is applying concepts of game theory to this effort (which explains his interest in the manuscript). Pending approval from Joah, I will make the following offer:
I have two reviews from a rejection by the American Journal of Physics that I will make available to WJS upon request. Neither referee challenged the mathematical accuracy of the article. They did quibble with my sloppy use of the terms "loophole" and "superdeterminism". I tried to make it clear that I was using these words loosely, and am willing to work with an expert who actually knows what they mean.

Long ago I published an article on Bell's theorem in the Philosophical Quarterly, and it was reprinted in a collection of essays edited by Theodore Shick.ref I am certain that this paper is a much better explanation, and reasonably confident that it is mathematically correct.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 16:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That certainly is a beautifully turned-out piece of work, and to my mind would make a fine WJS article. How do you envision the journal could make use of these existing reviews - supply them as extra material to further reviewers, or use them as actual reviews for this submission? It hadn't occurred to me before to recycle reviews between journals, as it were, but on the face of it there's no reason why not... --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 19:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
At some point in this process, you would need the consent of the "primary" journal because you have no proof except my word that these are actual AJP reviews. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 20:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
WikiJSci could definitely use the peer reviews organised by other journals with the following requirements:
  • Original journal would need to be contacted in order for editors to find out reviewer identities
  • Reviewers would have to be contacted to ask permission to post peer review comments publicly (even if anonymous)
Worst case scenario, the peer review could be reorganised from scratch (potentially with the authors nominating the same peer reviewers as they did to the previous journal). Either way, the article would be thoroughly peer reviewed. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 21:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Someone should draft a carefully worded letter to AJP about "recycling" those reviews of the Bell's theorem paper.--21:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I shall aim to do so in the next week. I shall cc in the two authors of the paper to show the journal that the authors consent to transferring the peer reviews (see Wiley guidelines as example). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 22:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
A third (late) review arrived at AJP and the editor forwarded it to me. Like the other two, it found fault with the language used to explain the analysis, but not with its mathematical validity. This review can be seen at --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 00:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
That appears to be admin-protected, can you move it? --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 12:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Elmidae: I will send you an email with instructions for entering the wiki.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 13:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned WJS in a message I left on a Wikipedia talk page[edit]

Perhaps you should be informed whenever I make an attempt to foster collaboration between WJS and an organization. I will of course inform you of any developments. See w:Talk:Del_in_cylindrical_and_spherical_coordinates#I_agree_with_the_above_and_would_like_to_respond --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 16:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I also linked to WJS on the Miraheze page when I moved the draft into Wikiversity draftspace. Let me know if you want me to do anything differently regarding Draft:A card game for Bell's theorem and its loopholes. I plan to submit the copyright release as soon as the coauthor the Author consent form. He is now on board with officially submitting it to WJS, which should get us out of 0 phase.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 22:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Guy vandegrift: Thank you for the notice. I've added the {{article info}} header template for tracking and formatting. I look forward to the submission form. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Not knowing the proper venue for author responses to referee comments, I created a subpage[edit]

  • See Draft:A card game for Bell's theorem and its loopholes/Guy vandegrift--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 16:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Typically, the authors respond on the same page as the reviewers, however that is usually for the 'final version' of a response, as would be submitted to a journal during peer review. This can either be point-by point, or as a new section below the reviewer comments (example). Having reviewer comments and author responses collated together on one page can make them easier to track. However you're certainly welcome to use a subpage to draft unstructured / in-progress thoughts. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, this is perfect. I will compose my response in a public place and post it on the talk page. I need to communicate with my coauthor and see what he wants to do. It should not take long.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 02:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Email now working[edit]

The contact email is now working, see WikiJournal of Science/Contact. I've emailed the board to discuss which people should have access and be responsible for checking emails to this address. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 12:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Review article ideas[edit]

Looking around for review articles that would be good for transition to en wiki, I think trying to request w:Relaxed selection might be a good candidate. It currently redirects to w:Evolutionary pressure which doesn't even mention it. I found a recent (2009) review of relaxed selection in the wild but could use an update and also a more general treatment (although it also does go over artificial relaxed selection to some extent). Does anyone have any ideas on who to request this from? [1]

Mvolz (discusscontribs) 12:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

  1. "Relaxed selection in the wild" (in en). Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24 (9): 487–496. 2009-09-01. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.010. ISSN 0169-5347. 

Maximum editorial board size[edit]

It's just been brought to my attention that I overlooked a point in the WikiJSci Bylaws that states that "the number of Editorial Board Members of Wiki.J.Sci. should be kept at a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 20"

The WikiJSci board has just expanded to 25, with two more recent applications still open. It is my error for having overlooked the item, so I apologise for that.

We should discuss the options and begin the process of amendment (or alternatively close further board additions and let the number fall back to 20 over time). I think that an upper limit of 20 is to small for the journal, but I would be interested in the opinions of others on what the size limits (inf any) should be. My opinion is that the a larger board provides:

  • A greater scope of knowledge (scientific, publishing and other)
  • A greater professional network to call upon for invited submissions
  • A greater group to spread editorial workload over

As always, these are only my opinions and I am happy to implement the consensus. Apologies again for the oversight! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Here are my an inactive member. (Thoughts later stricken--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 16:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC))
  1. A minimum number needs to exist. One reason for limiting the membership involves the rare occurrence of an serious and consequential controversy. If it is a difficult decision, then both sides have a valid point. But ultimately the decision comes down to a vote, and those on losing side needs to decide whether to break off and form a new journal or stay. Either decision is justifiable and reasonable. But when the vote is made, only those who are either currently active or highly qualified should participate.
  2. Create two organizations One would roughly parallel the open wiki-communities we see on talk pages, perhaps with a structured voting procedure. The other would have an oversight role and make the final decisions. As a person who is neither very active nor highly qualified, I would be happy to join that second organization. In fact, I hate making tough decisions.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 15:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
As noted on the email list, there seems to be little downside to a larger-than-expected board size, assuming sufficient discretion is exercised in admitting new members; and more bodies to spread the editorial work over is good. I would suggest that if possible, we amend the statutes to allow for greater board size, and then keep to that limit. --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 13:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I like Elmidae's suggestion. With no difficult or divisive controversies on the horizon, we could allow the membership to grow a bit engaging in the difficult task of creating some sort an executive committee. Our highest priority is recruitment of people who can "sell" the idea of a wikijournal to colleagues, and "demoting" members this early seems counterproductive. Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs). 16:02, 23 April 2018‎ (UTC)
Additional note: Discussion on the board mailing list also currently favours an increased or uncapped size of board. A key note is that editorial board members gain access to confidential material (e.g. anon reviewer identities) and so applicant vetting must remain stringent. An additional suggestion was that there could be a yearly confirmation from each board member to confirm that they wish to extend their term. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I approve of this proposal by T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo). We need to be sure everybody is vetted. The yearly confirmation will help things a bit. Above all, we need to grow in number so this WikiJournal survives and thrives. If our numbers grow too much, we can always diversify our roles. I, for example, would rather be a writer than an editor. For now, we should retain ourselves as a single unit (the WJS editorial board). --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 01:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not see the point of having a fixed limit on the board size. A few considerations that could nevertheless limit the board size:

  1. It should be proportionate to the number of submitted articles.
  2. Quality should be as high as possible, i.e. we would like to be in the position of choosing board members among many qualified applicants.
  3. There should be room for actively recruited board members, in addition to people who apply spontaneously.

Sylvain Ribault (discusscontribs) 20:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)