Talk:WikiJournal of Science/2016-2017

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search

Wording of this sentence

Was reading about this since this seems quite intriguing, and came across this sentence (in this section):

But since most contributions will also wiki resources and articles, others will have the opportunity to later modify your work

Since I don't necessarily understand a lot about the "First Journal of Science", I'm going to let you deal with this sentence. Thanks :P ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

People think of a Journal as somewhere that they send a manuscript; the journal publishes it and that is all. In this case, its better to think of the journal as sitting in mainspace where anybody can edit it. What FJS does is captures a version of that evolving manuscript in the history page and "publish" it.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 08:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I forgot the sentence "be"...Thanks!

Sorry for being a wet strawberry

So I can submit a nomination to add The periodic table, so this project can be submitted on the front page of the First Journal of Science. If so, then that is really exciting! It would be awesome to gain more attention on this project, especially knowing how it can be really useful (especially for people around my age with the "wonderful journey" of Elementary to High). Again, sorry for being a "wet strawberry" and coming up here and asking so "early". Thank you! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 02:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I have to warn you that we might not accept it, and also that it will need some editing if we do. To nominate it just replace the boilerplate text with a link and sign your name. I just rejected two of my own submissions and yours might suffer the same fate. And, I know journal editors always say this, but I am being 100% sincere when I say Thank you for your submission!--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 02:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
My page won't suffer the same fate, because I haven't submitted yet ;-P I know it's still going through work (as I have been contributing to it lately, also notified mu301 about the page (he seems to also be helping). And no problem! I'll make sure to stop by here to nominate it once its finished from its "reconstruction" (haa..)) phase. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 02:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I have not decided whether to support that submission. If you submit, I will explain both sides of the issue. It has nothing to do with the quality of your work, but whether a periodic table is an appropriate submission. The argument in favor is that it be permalinked and immune to vandalism. Do you know if the table on Wikipedia is page protected? If not, then we have to at least consider it. I will insist that you remove all the cute talk--that's for talk pages, not refereed submissions.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 02:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

On the question of declaring certain sections "off limits" with yellow highlight

Like an editor of Балканска зора, I usually wear a bow tie to remind students that I want projects that will be accepted for publication in First Journal of Science.

The wiki way is to allow editors to be bold because all edits are reversible. But certain acts on Wikipedia are irreversible and strictly forbidden. Two that come to mind are harassment and the deliberate placement of untrue statements, even as a joke. Factually incorrect articles permanently damage Wikipedia's reputation for reliability in the mind of each person who detects such errors. Likewise, the acceptance of one misplaced article permanently damages the image of the journal. And the rejection of an article that belongs ruins our reputation with the contributing author.

It is important to distinguish between a "democracy" the noun, and "democratic" the adjective often used as a synonym for egalitarian. It is also important to distinguish between the idea of a journal on Wikiversity and the actual resource in namespace. Decisions regarding the content First Journal of Science or Wikiversity Journal of Medicine are made by a small board or perhaps only one person. On the other hand, the idea of a journal is as democratic as the First Ammendment. The editor-in-chief of the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine wrote this that tells readers exactly how to make journal just like his. His actions and my words indicate that we both strongly believe that Wikiversity needs to host journals. My motive is based on belief in Wikiversity as a democratic entity, not democratic because majority rules, but because we all have an equal opportunity to create a journal. With a bit of practice, I could set one up for somebody in about an hour.

We should all know that about this failed proposal for a peer-review journal to allow/encourage academics to write Wikipedia articles to start a journal a few years ago. I have not analyzed what went wrong, but perhaps it's because they took a "top-down" approach. Certainly the phrase a peer reviewed Journal suggests that scenario. Wikiversity needs many journals because we have many individuals, all equal, who have different perspectives. A Wikiversity journal should be a place for a small group of individuals with similar perspectives without regard for what the majority wants. Ironically, a collection of disparate journals managed like little dictatorships is a very democratic idea. So please don't touch the highlighted prose. If you don't like it, start your own journal. I will tell you how.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 03:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Category

Shouldn't there be a category for this? Like Category:First Journal of Science ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, why not.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 18:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Great! It has been created! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Why the editors page is protected

The WikiJournal_of_Science/Editors page is protected because minor edits to the catalog of submitted manuscripts might not be noticed, but would greatly disrupt the process. 01:17, 23 January 2016‎ Guy vandegrift (discuss | contribs)

It is completely unclear

What it is that one may do, to be involved with this initiative. Clarification, where? Le Prof ([[User:Leprof_7272, at English Wikipedia). Leprof 7272 (discusscontribs) 02:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Needed here are

…scope and function documents such as the typical "Instructions for Authors" pages at journals. I include here one specific to biological chemistry (therefore bridging physical and biological sciences), and the other the premier general science journal, Nature. Here are those two instruction page examples, from JBC, and from Nature. Minimally, this journal needs a clear statement of the types of science, and the types of articles, it intends to publish. Another ready source of such example documents on the scope and type of journal that is planned would be the PLoS series of journals. Bottom line, no one will take this effort seriously, if the bare necessities of information that serve to define the journal, and its function, are not in place. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (discusscontribs) 02:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: Thanks for the links, they will be very useful! I agree, there's still much to do before this becomes a proper project. So far it's work in progress, no more. However, it's difficult for me to define things like the scope of the journal when a discussion such as this one is going on. Would you mind taking a look and leaving your opinion? --Felipe (discusscontribs) 02:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

A minor Grouch

I would have corrected the spelling of Grouco Marx, but w:Groucho_Marx doesn't have the quote, so it seems pointless. On the other hand,
I xquickly located it elsewhere. I'll change the link to this, but if Guildmasters prefer to keep links in-house, it can be reverted or deleted.--Alkhowarizmi (discusscontribs) 10:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Neuropsychology and Neurosciences

I wish to start a new journal titled WikiJournal of Neuropsychology and Neurosciences. --G10sinha (discusscontribs) 19:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello G10sinha. I would recommend combining your efforts into the WikiJournal of Science. It is just starting out (much newer than WikiJournal of Medicine) and includes all biological, physical and chemical sciences. Having a broad scope will be useful to start off with for ensuring enough articles and editors to run it. If you're interested, you could contact User_talk:Sophivorus and/or User_talk:Marshallsumter, who are the main editors for it, I'm sure they would be welcome additional editors to expand it. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello G10sinha. I agree with T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) that it would be best to combine efforts into improving WikiJournal of Science, since Neuropsychology and Neurosciences fits well into that field. Many aspect of them fit well into WikiJournal of Medicine as well, and I appreciate your interest! I'll have your studies of interest in mind upon future submissions that need peer review. Also, there are many ways to contributeto the journal. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Naming election is now open

An election for determining the future name of the journal activities in Wikiversity 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:

The science journal should start with the chosen name as well, but I guess there's no rush. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 12:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Review process

Does the journal intend to implement an academic peer review process for articles? Currently they are editorially reviewed, but it would be good to know what the journal intends for the future. The difference between editorial review and peer review could strongly affect how the journal evolves in the future. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I once wrote messages on a number of talk pages on Wikipedia science articles. I also placed several messages on Astronomy and Physics pages, see for example w:Special:Permalink/745249374 and w:Special:Permalink/699771579#How_do_I_post_this_announcement.3F. Only one person responded, and he declined to review any more articles. I also got zero submissions. With this lack of community interest, I saw no way to go forward. Perhaps you could try a similar campaign with the new name, but I doubt it would work. So, I have decided to try the following: Force my students to contribute for a grade, and do it on private wikis, so they have personal responsibility and control over their efforts. Instead of a journal, I will "showcase" the best efforts on a Wikiversity page. Perhaps this is a better way to trigger that trend towards open source academic proceedings that we all are trying to create. See wright.miraheze.org and Wikiversity Roster and a "mock" edition of the showcase.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 00:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
It took Wiki.J.Med a while to gain momentum too. I think that the low response that you experienced is from two sources.
  1. I think that editorial review can seem to many observers like a less-thorough version of GA and FA, whereas external peer review can offer something above these. I think that if you were able to get external peer reviewers for a couple of the articles in the zeroth issue, it would demonstrate to people why contributing might be worthwhile.
  2. I think that some of the avenues that you promoted through might not be the most viewed. Posting notices to some of the bigger science, maths and engineering wikiprojects (Full list). I intend to post a message to WP:MED, WP:PHARM, WP:MCB, WP:GA, WP:FA, and WP:PR about Wiki.J.Med at the end of January. I'd be happy to write something similar for Wiki.J.Sci and post it to the science/maths/engineering-related wikiprojects to solicit both additional editors and submissions (even special interest groups such as birds, aviation, trains, or cyclones might be interested).
What do you think? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we need to be patient. About 8 years ago I looked at Wikipedia articles with a view to use them as teaching materials, and the articles weren't very good. Most (but not all) Wikipedia articles have improved dramatically. I think Creative Commons progress is always going to be much slower than those funded either through capitalistic or government-sponsored education efforts. To continue the analogy, CC wikitext writing is like "communism", a disaster in the economic world, but remarkably viable in the realm of creative endeavors. Hopefully, the new format and name will eventually bring the science journal up to speed. I don't expect it to happen quickly, and I expect most efforts to fail. But we can't worry about failure, can we?--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 15:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I've put together the advert for use on Wikipedia at Template:WJS_advert_2017_Jan. I'll start transcluding it to relevant science WikiProjects' discussion pages tomorrow. It's based on a similar one that I made for Wiki.J.Med. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi fellow board members Guy vandegrift, Felipe Schenone, Marshal Sumter and Michael Umbricht!

We need to decide whether WikiJournal of Science currently offers peer review of all submissions. Otherwise, it would need to be renamed "Preliminary WikiJournal of Science" until it's ready to offer peer reviews. This part of the Bylaws will after all make sure that WikiJournals follow a certain standard. However, I am not able to find and invite peer reviewers myself for WikiJournal of Science, since there is more than enough to keep me busy already at the medical journal. On the other hand, I can assist with renaming the pages if we choose that option. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 13:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

So far all submissions to WikiJournal of Science are being reviewed or have completed reviews by some four volunteer reviewers. Two with completed reviews are awaiting input from authors before final decisions on acceptance are made. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 04:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good! It thus seems WikiJournal of Science can continue without needing any "Preliminary" added to its title. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 10:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Can submitted articles be posted elsewhere?

I might be interested in submitting some articles, but before I do, I would like to know if submitting an article to the journal will prevent posting of the article on Wikipedia until after the journal is published. The article I am currently working on is in sandbox at Wikipedia:User:Spinningspark/Work in progress/planar (transmission line technologies). Would this be a suitable article for the journal? If it is, do I have to hold off posting to mainspace for now? As a corollary, would you accept recently created articles from Wikipedia? Ones I have recently created are air stripline and transfer function matrix. What about ones that have been significantly improved? Elastance and Historical comet observations in China were both rubbish pages about to be deleted but are now essentially new articles written by me.

Getting technically competent reviews of these sort of articles is very difficult on Wikipedia. I do hope that this journal becomes a regular thing and succeeds in attracting quality reviewers. SpinningSpark 12:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Although I'm not on the editorial board of Wiki.J.Sci, the medical sister journal handles completely new articles attributed to just the author, and existing/overhauled Wikipedia pages by attributing to the author(s) who submitted with an "et.al." that links to the full list of anyone who's ever edited the Wikipedia page. The journal publishes as CC-BY-SA by default and treats Wikipedia as a compatible preprint server. Wiki.J.Sci is still finalising its structure, but I suspect (/recommend) that it will follow a similar model. (ping editorial board users Guy vandegrift, Mu301 & Mikael_Häggström). Hope that clarifies somewhat, whilst Wiki.J.Sci's publishing details are finalised. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
SpinningSpark, as a minority of the editorial board of 3 people, I would even recommend that you add your work to Wikipedia first, or at the same time as submitting it to this journal. This journal is still early in development, so it is difficult to say how long time the peer review will take. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 05:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible interest in submitting science videos

Hello, I've just had a meeting with someone who might be interested in submitting short maths and science explainer videos for Peer review by Wiki.J.Sci. The videos are created by teams of science students and animation students for their university coursework. Examples include Integration in Cruise control and Matrices in Forward kinematics. Some have obvious Wikipedia articles that they could be inserted into, but all should be relatively well made and have references. There is also apparently a backcatalogue that have never been put online. but could be submitted as a gallery article (equivalent to Wiki.J.Med's Blausen_Medical_2014). any opinions? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I've looked at Integration in Cruise control! It's nicely done! How easy is it for the team to alter or add to the presentation? For example: there were some terms mentioned right near the end for mathematical functions to smooth the final approach in the controller to effectively reach 100 km/hr, but they need a short explanation. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 14:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability: Amazing! Saw the vids and they're excellent. I love the idea of adding videos to the Journal, not just for variety, but also to add a little color and sound! I think it's an excellent proposal, so please say yes, let them submit the videos so that we may properly review them. Cheers! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 10:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is that the original video files are editable so that peer reviewer comments can be addressed. Corrections and updates would either be done by the original students, or by subsequent students who would be added to the author list. I'll pass on the information to the academic who organises the course. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Updating some pages

Hi all, I'm planning on updating and formatting some of the Wiki.J.Sci pages over the coming weeks based on Wiki.J.Med templates. If anyone has ideas/preferences for layout and features, let me know. I've built an initial unified submission page (WikiJournal Preprints) so that authors can submit articles via the same system for the different WikiJournals as they start up. Down the track, if the WikiJournals becomes a full Wikimedia sister project, I envisage a general landing page somewhat like this. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, but I urge you to keep the design, the user flow and also the wiki syntax as simple as possible. Most users will not be wiki experts and may be scared away by a difficult interface. Thanks! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 21:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
So far I've aimed to make the formatting of WikiJSci and WikiJMed look relatively similar (equivalent to that seen between journals from other publishing houses, e.g. PLOS bio vs PLOS med). Visual distinctiveness can be added later. There are still a few redlinks (e.g. bylaws) but these can be added as the journal grows (likely based on those developed for WikiJMed). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, a general update of the templates has been done. I've aimed to keep the majority of the information unchanged, however I'll likely create targeted info pages for WikiJournal_of_Science/Editors and WikiJournal_of_Science/Authors, since they will probably need different information. I've also centralised the subpage talk pages of WikiJournal of Science to all point here for more consolidated discussion (comments moved across as was done for the WikiJournal User Group talk pages). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I've implemented most of the infrastructure present in Wiki.J.Med. Even though it makes the site more complicated, I think it is necessary to attract contributors (especially those not accustomed to wikis). The templates also hopefully make several tasks slightly more automated, e.g. editorial board and associate editor applications (I suggest adding this and this to watchlists). This is important for SCOPUS-compliance when the journal applies for it. I've also formally applied to be on the editorial board. Finally, I've sent out some emails to scientists who might be interested in joining the editorial board in order to grow the journal. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 14:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, the category system is now populated so that pages should be trackable. I've also placed a draft set of bylaws for discussion over the coming weeks. There are a few final bits and pieces to tidy, but i think that most of the infrastructure is updated. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 07:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Early history of the journal

Moved over from WikiJournal of Science/About
Extended content
Timeline
Original name and logo
In a broad sense of the word "science", these neolithic cave paintings represent one of the first known sciences.

The original name of this journal was "First Journal of Science", chosen somewhat whimsically. The word "First" was in the spirit the practice in small towns in the US to designate churches and banks as "First", "Second", ..., and the intent was to invite other journals to form on Wikiversity. The word "First" was also selected because the journal is not a research journal, but focused on those "first" introductory courses often taken in the first two years of college.

The word "first" caused confusion, so the name was changed to "Second Journal of Science". This name was chosen primarily because it was an easy substitution for the templates, and also because Wikiversity's "first" journal is Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. The omission of "Wikiversity" in the name was deliberate: From Wikiversity, the link [[First Journal of Science]] makes it obvious that this is a Wikiversity journal. On Wikipedia or Wikibooks, the link would be [[Wikiversity:First Journal of Science]], which can be taken as an "onofficial" name for this journal.

If a guild emerges that requires a standardized name for this journal, two names come to mind: [[Wikiversity:Journal of Science Letters]] and [[Wikiversity Journal of Science Letters]]. The name Wikiversity Journal of Science Education should be reserved so as to also include articles on how to teach science. Such articles are not envisioned for this journal. It is fortunate that we have two similar names from which to choose, because the guilds should be decentralized as much as possible. This will permit the construction of two all-encompassing guilds, while allowing small informal guilds that include journals with names like [[Second Journal of Science]]

First name change

The original name of this journal was the Second Journal of Science. Back then, the concept of a guild as proposed so that journals could self-regulate themselves in a manner more efficient than the usual (long-winded) wiki-way of making decisions. The guilds would have little or no power beyond that which they earn by maintaining their own reputation. But, by having a few editors and referees making the decisions wiki wiki, it is hoped that less time will be wasted. In contrast with the situation on a Wikipedia article, where much thought must be given to the exclusion of information, the editor who is seeking to publish focused and readable articles must make snap judgments. To compensate, we many journals just like this one. To paraphrase Groucho Marx, the original (Second Journal of Science) refused to join any guild that would accept it. But the intention was to apply for probationary membership in a well-respected guild, if such a guild existed.

Two important communities govern the behavior of Journals hosted by Wikiversity. Most important is the Wikiversity Journal User Group, which for all practical purposes is the governing organization. However, if this user group were to ever misbehave (unlikely), or if no resolution to a dispute can be made, the next step up is the Wikiversity community itself. Wikiversity supports virtually all student efforts, and for that reason tries to accommodate low-quality efforts whenever possible. In contrast, reputation is an important factor with journals, and hence the need for some sort of "guild". With this name change, the old "Second Journal of Science" and the WikiJournal of Medicine have formed a de facto guild.

Second name change

In 2017, the journal was renamed to WikiJournal of Science to keep it in line with the WikiJournal of Medicine and give some naming coherence to the general WikiJournal project.


Guy Vandegrift

I've moved over a longer description of the journal's early history here from WikiJournal of Science/About, which now contains a more condensed summary. However I thought it should definitely be stored somewhere obvious for record, so I placed it here. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Expansion

To avoid duplicate posting, I've made an entry about some of the next steps that I think would be good to take on the WikiJournal user group talk page. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 08:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Great progress, and welcome to the board! Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 21:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)