Talk:WikiJournal/WikiJournal User Group

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussions may also take place at the public mailing list at: https://groups.google.com/d/forum/wikijournal (reached by emails to
wikijournal@googlegroups.com)

Updates about the medical journal can be found at: Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine

Many journals / one journal[edit]

The WikiJournal project is struggling to take off. Is it wise to split readers and contributors across several journals? Should we merge all journals into one, all-encompassing WikiJournal?

Arguments in favor of many journals[edit]

Specialist journals can be more attractive to authors. Certainly medical researchers I know are more interested in publishing in a medical journal than in a generalist journal (however that's anecdotal).
Retaining a separate WikiJournal of Medicine maintains the outreach and reputation so far built (though this is still minimal).
The "WikiJournal of Medicine" name is consolidated in for example ISSN.org (for the International Standard Serial Number), Crossref (for doi codes), and the registration as a non-profit organization, so it would be a lot of work if we would need to change it.
Journal editors and other volunteers may be interested and particularly knowledgeable only in specific fields.
Articles can be easily categorized per discipline, and the categories advertised so that users can quickly find articles in their field if interest.
Different fields can have different expectations of peer review.
Articles can be easily categorized per discipline and then subject to the appropriate standards for the field.
General journals can struggle (e.g. SpringerOpen closed down).
This can also be said of specialist journals, there are a trillion that closed down.

Arguments in favor of one journal[edit]

The publication rate of the WikiJournal of Medicine is declining (2014: 2 issues, 12 posts; 2015: 1 issue, 4 posts; 2016: 1 issue, 1 post) and the WikiJournal of Science hardly has any contributors either. Merging the two journals (and any future ones) into a single WikiJournal would allow us to collaborate, gather contributors and readers more effectively.
More interested editors to spread the workload (peer review, template work, documentation, etc).
More interested editors to advertise its existence, especially outside of the existing wiki community.
Having only one journal reduces the risk of it falling under the critical mass of editors needed to continue in 10 years (probably the main risk for most volunteer projects, and could easily happen for a WikiJournal servicing too niche a topic).
Having only one journal would greatly simplify the mailing list. Instead of having one list called "wikijournal-of-medicine-l", another "wikijournal-of-science-l" and others for future journals, we'd have a single one called "wikijournal-l", a single and thus larger suscriptor list and more regular emails.

Free talk[edit]

Hi! I very much like the WikiJournal idea, and have a couple of papers I'd like to submit. However, my field is Logic and Philosophy, and there's currently no journal for that, nor is there likely to be, as there aren't many logicians or philosophers around in Wikiversity. However, I noticed that in this very talk page, Piotrus showed interest in a Social Sciences Journal, and Marshallsumter on an Astrophysics Journal. I bet there are many other users who would really like a wikijournal for their discipline where to submit their work. The current approach seems to be: gather a sufficient community and start your own journal, but I think there's a better way. We could create ONE WikiJournal (THE WikiJournal) and make it a generalist journal for all kinds of peer-reviewed papers (appropriately tagged per discipline). Yes I know, many of you love your WikiJournal of Medicine and your Second Journal of Science, but wouldn't you prefer to have one, very active journal, than several, mildly active? Such a journal could quickly become a first-class journal, I believe, and would attract contributors from all corners of the wikiverse, creating a very active and wild community in no time. And if merging the WikiJournal of Medicine and the Second Journal of Science into a single WikiJournal is too much to ask, maybe we could start a journal called General WikiJournal (or something like that). What do you think? --Felipe (discusscontribs) 15:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. As it is, I find this initiative too limited. --Piotrus (discusscontribs) 03:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I have no objection to starting a new journal. But you should know that I encourage you to play with Second Journal of Science by creating a preliminary edition. I created the logo (with the horses) because it was the first plausible one that I found. At the time, it was called the "First Journal of Science", and I chose "Science" because of its entomological connection to the word "knowledge". Anything can be called a "science", even boxing or cave painting. Feel free to do anything you want with the Second Journal of Science. I will be happy to help you with the templates and immediately make you chief editor.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 17:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

This is a key point in the general WikiJournal project. As I understand it, WJM was the first WikiJournal because the WikiProject Medicine (on en.Wikipedia) and the Wiki Project Med Foundation (on meta) are amongst the best organised and populous communities. In general there are two extremes, a single journal called WikiJournal, or many small specialist journals. There may be sustainable models in the middle. The current default has been to use WJM as a flagship/experiment to see if such a journal is even possible then to encourage other specialist journals under the same umbrella (in the same vein as PLOS or BMC journal families). Even PLOS One is science only.

For WikiJournals, I think it falls down to demand (how many authors want to publish) and labour supply (how many editors will help run it).

I don't have a particular answer, but I'm interested in the discussion. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have refereed or reviewed for several physical science journals and could do so here. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 04:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Guy vandegrift: Thanks for the generous offer, I want to accept it but lets see where this discussion leads first. @Evolution and evolvability: Thanks for the background. If I'm not mistaken, the publication rate of the WJM is as follows:

  • 2014: 2 issues, 12 posts
  • 2015: 1 issue, 4 posts
  • 2016: 1 issue, 1 post

So notwithstanding the relatively active medical community, it seems that the WJM is decreasing its productivity. This seems like a powerful argument for a single WikiJournal, would you agree? Maybe when a larger community builds up, we can support more specialist journals. What do you think? --Felipe (discusscontribs) 13:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is my problem with a single journal: Single journal = single editor (or other governing entity). Diversity of thought is essential. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 14:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Looking over this page, perhaps I am not following. Are you talking about a single wikigjournal? Or are you proposing that the existing journals avoid specialization? My belief is that the Second Journal of Science is intended to include the broadest possible range of topics. Back when boxing was pupular, sportswriters would refer to the "scientific boxer". I have always been confused about what does NOT belong on Wikiversity. A short story is literature, not educational. But we teach literature in schools, so shouldn't we allow short stories on Wikiversity? We also teach people how to write a Résumé. I oppose allowing Wikiverity to post résumés, but wonder how we would solve the conundrum of a résumés-writing course taught using Wikiversity. In short, the Second Journal of Science could be that broad journal you are advocating. And if you find a format or them that makes SJS succeed, you can always create a new journal with a different name and let SJS go dormant again.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 14:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@Guy vandegrift: I agree, the SJS could be that broad journal, and I'd be glad to take over and see what I can do. But to me, that's the second best thing to do. The way I see it, the best thing to do would be to merge the two existing wikijournals into a single journal and call it simply "the WikiJournal". The WJM seems to be declining, and the SJS also needs help. Why not help each other? Also, I agree that the word "science" is sufficiently broad to encompass all fields of knowledge (I specialized in philosophy of science, so really, I agree) but for the layman, the word "science" does not mean "all fields of knowledge" and so I think that putting "science" in the title will shoo many clicks, views and even contributions. That's why I think that ending up with a generalist journal called just "WikiJournal" could make a lot of good to the project. --Felipe (discusscontribs) 16:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
About the "single journal = single editor" problem, I agree that diversity of thought is important (should we allow astrologers too?) but why do you think that a single generalist journal is incompatible with diversity of thought? Can't we have a board of editors? --Felipe (discusscontribs) 16:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Four comments:
  1. SJS cannot be merged with the medical journal because one needs to be strictly refereed and the other is currently unrefereed. They are intended to have entirely different reputations.
  2. I agree that the word "science" in SJS is a flaw in a journal designed to be all-encompassing, but an even greater flaw is the template structure. We need a program that can read/write permalinks from a spreadsheet and create wikitext that constitutes the journal. The articles in a wikijournal are nothing more than links pages and permalinks in Wikiversity or one of its wikimedia sisters. A spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) is the ideal platform for keeping track of articles and submissions. I would use Matlab to create the program to do this, but am way too busy for a job that would take me almost a month to complete (I am not a good programer).
  3. You might want to rethink the name Wikijournal because it is used by at least two other organizations (here and here)
  4. Like you, I also thought about organizing the varied efforts, and for that reason concocted the concept of a The guild. The idea of a guild is that journals could evaluate each other in a spirit of both cooperation and competition. On Wikiversity, we place the Template:Fringe on pseudoscience articles, and the same could be done for pseudoscience journals. But the guilds could add an independent layer to that structure. People not happy with the Template:Fringe need to go through the Wikiversity Colloquium and that is a waste of time. But, guilds could be smaller units that make decisions more quickly. The idea is that the "good" journals could allow the bad journals to exist on Wikiversity, but by a quick vote of the editors, exclude "bad" journals from the list of guild members. We chould even allow a separate guild for the "bad" journals.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 17:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

For anyone interested in starting an additional journal, I wrote some advice at WikiJournal/Starting a journal. Even with a low publication rate, I want to retain WikiJournal of Medicine, since I am personally interested in this particular field. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

While journals are not usually named after their university of origin, the title "Wikiversity Journal" as a general journal is still available unless I missed something. Retaining the name "WikiJournal of Medicine" or "Wikiversity Journal of Medicine" as a separate entity is probably preferred not because it's refereed but because physicians usually write for other MDs to read, as a scientist might write for other scientists to read. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@Marshallsumter: As for naming, I think it would entirely depend on what the journal decided to encompass. E.g. two broad journals WikiJournal of Humanities and WikiJournal of Science, or many small journals, or one WikiJournal Open / WikiJournal Plus / etc. There was a discussion a while back about the relative merits of WikiJournal vs Wikiversity Journal here and here, so I think Wiki.J.Med is unlikely to change its' name in the near future. I'd recommend that other journals that start up use WikiJournal of X, to collect journals under the same brand/umbrella. However, it is obviously up the community that starts a journal as to what to call it! The ting to decide first, is what the journal(s) scope would be, since that would define all subsequent discussion. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Besides, the WikiJournal of Medicine name is consolidated in for example ISSN.org (for the International Standard Serial Number), Crossref (for doi codes), and the registration as a non-profit organization, so it would be a lot of work if we would need to change it. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 16:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
So there's no consensus for merging the journals, ok. @Guy vandegrift: Following Marshallsumter's comment, I propose we rename the SJS to "WikiJournal of Science". Do you agree? --Felipe (discusscontribs) 20:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree in that it's best changing its name to WikiJournal of Science. I think it's best to have one single science journal, rather than a main one and one "second". Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I have no objection to changing the name. Any volunteers to do the edits? Keep in mind that the big problem here is the lack of interest in the journal.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 00:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I did review Second Journal of Science/Past issues/004 "Astronomical spectroscopy" and Second Journal of Science/Past issues/006 "Alpha Centauri". Comments, questions, criticisms, and concerns of these reviews are most welcome! Usually the authors are free to respond and edit their articles if the edtor-in-chief or the editor assigned to their article requests this. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science[edit]

New logo for the WikiJournal of Science!

I just finished renaming the Second Journal of Science to WikiJournal of Science. Cheers! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 22:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I also just updated the logo. It's a crude first version, I think future versions should follow the style of the current logo of the WikiJournal of Medicine. --Felipe (discusscontribs) 22:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I think we should do an effort to unify the templates used by the journals. This will allow us to collaborate. --Felipe (discusscontribs) 23:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Nice work! Regarding the templates, there are several options for each one:
  • Create new or adapt from WikiJournal of Medicine to fit the science journal specifically, such as I see you have for Template:WikiJournal of Science menu
  • Have the same template for both journals. If you find a template that you can use with no modification, you are welcome to move it from "Template:Wijoumed..." to "Template:WikiJournal..." (and then, please have a look at its "What links here" to see that it still renders well for the medical journal).
  • It's also possible to have, for example Template:Article info working for both journals (and potentially future journals as well) by adding a journal parameter. Hence, if you enter "journal=medicine" it will render as it does now, and if you enter "journal=science" it will render as you want.
Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 16:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@Felipe Schenone, Mikael Häggström, Marshallsumter: I like uniformity of the new name and logo for WJScience, but we still haven't solved the notability problem. Next semester a large portion of the grade for all my classes will involve wikis. What does the community think about me attempting to recruit a few students to become active editors and turn it into a student journal? I created the journal in order to highlight individual accomplishments on Wikipedia/Wikiversity, but subsequently solved the problem by giving each student a private wiki at wright.miraheze.org. This allows me to grade their efforts and post only the best on Wikiversity. Science is not like medicine in that with a science journal amateurish efforts do little harm. I can't guarantee that I can recruit this cadre of student editors, but it might be worth a try. What do you think?--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 13:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it's a good thing to have student editors, and to accept student works to get things going, especially if it involves moving only the best of it to Wikiversity. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 14:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I also think it's a good idea to bring students in and publish their best work on the WikiJournal, but "turning it into a student journal" is another issue which I think is both unnecessary and undesirable. --Felipe (discusscontribs) 18:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I like the name change. Doc James (discusscontribs) 19:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I'm excited to see this project go ahead! I'm happy to help out with template formatting. I formed the majority of the WikiJournal of Medicine formatting templates. I've tried to organise the markup in a way that can be edited by other template-savvy editors, however it can always be tricky reading the code of a complex template. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I've also created a svg logo for the journal updated the png version. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. I think it works a bit better at different sizes, and scg version are easier to update/edit. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Sweet!!! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 11:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Mailing list[edit]

I think it's essential that we create a mailing list and start gathering a user base so that when we publish a new issue, we can email users about it, similar to what The Signpost does. Any thoughts? Any support? Any objections? --Felipe (discusscontribs) 18:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I had a Task at the Phabricator to have my WMF email fixed so that I can send and receive email via the "email this user" feature on the left menu! It now works! Anyone can now email me this way! If you do not want your private email address revealed simply reply using that same feature rather than clicking on "reply"! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The WikiJournal umbrella[edit]

I've updated the WikiJournal users group to include the French language Journal scientifique libre (Free Journal of Science) that was proposed in 2015. I don't know what the likelihood is that it gains critical mass, or even merges with WikiJournal of Science into a multi-language journal. Either way, I think it is useful for WikiJournals to be gathered together to share information. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 08:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Wright State Showcase logo.png

By renaming the Second Journal of Science to the WikiJournal of Science, this user group clarified the journal's intended scope. And, the clarification created a niche for an new "quasi-journal" that I call the Wright State University Lake Campus/Showcase. I am sole editor and referee, and all my students are required to attempt to publish in Showcase. They do this on, wright.miraheze.org, which hosts private wikis where one and only one individual student writes wikitext on a wiki that cannot be viewed by other students (but I can see the effort in-progress). It is hard to assign letter grades to student efforts if they can "peek" into each other's work in progress. While this is hardly a journal, it is something this group should know about.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 17:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

All right. It may still be possible to use the best articles in Showcase for WikiJournal of Science as well. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 11:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

User group membership[edit]

I am much in favour of experimentation in this area and have done (and continue to do) a fair bit myself, so I welcome the creation of a user group on the topic. However, whenever I come here to find out more about this user group, I am confused as to why there is no way to sign up as a member of the user group. I might well be interested in becoming a member of the WikiJournal Council, but discussing that should probably not be the first step of engagement of new members with this user group. --Daniel Mietchen (discusscontribs) 06:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Daniel! You don't need to sign up anywhere to contribute. In fact, I personally prefer that participants sign up for specific tasks, such as (for WikiJournal of Medicine) reviewers or associate editors. I've notified other Council members about your interest in joining, and I'd welcome your help in any improvement on the overall organization. The main activity, however, is happening in individual journals. Also, if you feel that journal is needed in another subject than medicine or science, you may help in creating such a journal. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 14:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)