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)