Talk:WikiJournal User Group

From Wikiversity
(Redirected from Talk:Wikiversity Journal)
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussions may also take place at the public mailing list at

Developing WikiJournal project at[edit]

Integration of content from[edit]

I agree with the points made by Diptanshu.D and Doc James above. Philip, after discussing this with other WikiJournal User Group, we are not prepared to make an outright merge, since there are obvious differences with the aims of these projects. We are not prepared to make any exception for the aim of having peer review for journals in the group. With merely editorial review, the project would essentially add almost nothing to the world, since there are already Wikipedia articles with protection, with the "editors" practically being those who discuss the content of such protected pages at each WikiProject, such as WikiProject Medicine. I'd rather see users contributing to Wikipedia articles than putting effort on non-peer reviewed journals. Also, as mentioned we have several options for domain name and technical hosting when we feel we are ready to push for a Future as separate Wikimedia project. Still, Philip, you are very welcome to join the project and help build for example the WikiJournal of Science or a new title of your liking. It is possible to integrate articles of yours from your project, but it's important that they have a clear statement for each article without independent peer review that these are drafts yet to be peer reviewed. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 14:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Philip: After an internal discussion Mikael has already informed you of our decision. If you want to transfer your contents to ours, you would need to meet the quality standards, be it now or in the future. There can be no deviation from this. I do not suppose that you should be concerned about when our project becomes a Wikimedia sister project. Please note that Wikimedia is the Foundation that runs projects like Wikipedia whereas Mediawiki is the software it uses. These two are entirely different entities and please do not confuse between those two.
As Mikael has pointed out, you are still welcome to put your inputs into our projects. But quality standards would remain a pre-requisite. Diptanshu.D (discusscontribs) 15:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Mikael, Diptanshu.D! I don't see "obvious differences with the aims of these projects" ... There are only few articles in English WikiJournal (that can be easily archived and marked as non-reviewed articles ... or even deleted until it meets requirements) ... and that't it. At least English WikiJournal is completely ready to realize idea of the journal according to Wikimedia principles and mission. As for Russian edition (because it has the most number of articles) I can just do the same with articles. So I don't see any obstacles the join and use it as peer-reviewed journal. I can't understand what can be done else from my side!!! If you decided to develop WikiJournal under another name or whatever. Well, it is just your decision. Just let me know if we work together on the project and its idea or not. If you still insist all published articles at to fulfill the requirements on its quality and be peer-reviewed. Well, i don't mind ... but it will take time, may be 1-2 years ... I don't know. --Fokebox (discusscontribs) 16:08, 19 March 2017‎ (UTC)
Dear Philip: differences, if any, can be settled if we are willing. I assume that we are. But commitment to quality remains an issue. I would hope that you would think alike. We were skeptical particularly due to three reasons. Firstly, the humongous grant amount made it sound fishy, especially because it was done prior to community involvement. Secondly, your reservation about the peer-review system acted as a barrier. Thirdly, we cannot set up two parallel systems. If we are to merge, has to be integrated into the same system on which rest of the Wikimedia projects reside. Your reservation about this was another major factor. If you are willing to resolve these I do not see any major problems. You have already shown solidarity by making the licenses compatible. Your tone sounds friendly and we would like to be friendly as well. If you are ready to donate your domain to WMF and if you are ready to embrace the peer-review culture, I do not think that there is any major issue.
I respect all the efforts you have put in so far. But your efforts have been more in the lines of a magazine. I am certain that you would like to improve upon it if there is a chance. All over the world journals are known to be more reliable and authentic than magazines since they adhere to quality control and peer review. If are willing to adopt this culture, we can happily get going. The time delay for peer-reviewing the existing contents on English and Russian version should not be an issue. Diptanshu.D (discusscontribs) 01:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear Diptanshu.D, please be kindly informed on following:
  • Pardon me for including the group to the grant, now I have excluded it as an interested group. And I apply for me personally for further developing the project.
  • I cannot donate the domain and cannot be a volunteer at this point, 'cause there is a personal interest, while creating developing the website.
  • I don't mind the project to be reviewed. As Wikijournal multi-thematic journal some categories are not necessary should be peer-reviewed. The journal is not strictly scientific, academic, but is open for all users who would like to publish an article as a journalist. But at any case all articles should be reviewed and authors can be informed to improve articles on some points. Please also be informed that It is quite difficult procedure to become peer-reviewed journal in Russia (Russian edition of WikiJournal). There are several steps to obtain such status that includes registration of the company, obtaining the status of Mass-media, obtaining the license, obtaining the special status at State authority as a source of peer-reviewed articles. Only after such procedure universities, academics, scientists will be interested in publishing of their peer-reviewed articles, in other case there won't be any interest in publications. (I don't know the same procedure in Europe, the US and other countries.)
  • Wikijournal status remains free, independent, international, multi-thematic and multi-lingual, open access peer reviewed online journal for scholars, journalists and all registered users.
--Fokebox (discusscontribs) 08:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear Philip: Your idea of journal is different from ours and Mikael has already pointed that the scope and objectives are different. Your idea is actually about a blog or magazine. People can get to form free blogs at a number of locations like blogspot or wordpress. We are not trying to develop a blog or magazine and would not like our contributors to the same. We feel that contributing to Wikipedia is a better idea. We would not accept anything that does not meet the criteria of an academic or scholarly journal. Your idea does not fulfill that criteria. In such a case I wonder what you really have worth offering. Had you offered to donate or sell your domain to Wikimedia that could have opened the scope of a merger. But since you are not open to that option we find no value in your project and therefore are not interested in a merger. After an internal discussion we had anticipated this possibility and hence Mikael had communicated to you. Please note that we can easily do without your domain but are apprehensive that you would be abusing the name WikiJournal. Diptanshu.D (discusscontribs) 09:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Diptanshu.D, In this case I can just offer to create subdomain where you can completely publish peer-review articles. And there is significant difference between blogs and journals/magazines--Fokebox (discusscontribs) 10:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear Philip: I find your proposal unsuitable. If you mean to hand over a subdomain, that seems rather stupid. If you mean to keep the subdomain on your server it remains even more unacceptable. In any case we cannot allow anything devoid of peer-review if we are to be involved. Finally, the purview of our involvement in peer-reviewed journal activity is not limited to science alone. Even history, commerce or journalism related journals would all need to be peer reviewed. There can be no deviation from this. Diptanshu.D (discusscontribs) 17:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear Diptanshu please note, I don't mind that articles should be peer-reviewed at Wikijournal. But I think it creates barrier for authors to publish some materials. Let's imagine if I publish information on Lens review and how and is it neccessary that such article should be peer-reviewed? --Fokebox (discusscontribs) 18:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear Philip: Even in case of a lens review, peer review is essential. After the author makes a submission it is the responsibility of the editorial board or peer review coordinators to find subject matter experts in the field. In this case it could be other lens reviewers or photographers or alike (ones who are experienced with lenses). These people need to be invited to read and evaluate the article and to make sure that the facts and presentation are proper. We have a criteria of at least two independent peer reviewers reviewing each article. They may evaluate the article anonymously or under their own name. After going through the article they provide their inputs about how the article could be improved further. These suggestions could be factual or in terms of style of writing. The suggestions could be essential or optional. The author has to act upon the inputs and unless there are any further inputs the article is now considered by the editorial board whether it is fit to be published. So, irrespective of the field or topic, peer review is considered essential in maintaining quality of a journal article as well as the integrity of the journal. Diptanshu.D (discusscontribs) 10:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear Diptanshu, well I don't mind to have this procedure and to have completely reviewed wikijournal even all my own publshed articles. I confirmed this several times before and still don't understand why you don't want to join/merge articles and what should be done else from my side.--Fokebox (discusscontribs) 13:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Diptanshu. Philip, you mention several steps to have official status as a peer review journal. Being registered and indexed among scholarly journals does indeed give the journal additional recognition and credibility, but is it not a pre-requisite to run it. Rather, it can be done gradually as the journal grows.
You do indeed deserve recognition for the personal investment, so if you donate the domain to Wikimedia, you deserve a mention in its history as the registrant of the domain.
I'm glad that you are willing to have a completely reviewed wikijournal! This is what makes wikijournal unique. Taking an article about the lens for example, there is already a Wikipedia article on that topic which everyone can help writing, and where WikiProject Physics can be regarded as an editorial team that discusses what to include.
I'm now checking with others in the board what would be the next step if we are to merge. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 21:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Mikael I think that there isn't need to donate the domain. I can only give technical access to the server to set up or install extension, updates etc. The domain remains under my personal control, but from my side I garantee access to website for all.--Fokebox (discusscontribs) 22:11, 21 March 2017‎ (UTC)
It would need to be donated for the site to become a sister project. As we are looking at becoming a sister project merging with your efforts would not allow that I fear. Doc James (discusscontribs) 09:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree the we cannot use the domain unless it is owned by Wikimedia or by the WikiJournal organization. Philip, the next step you need to take for an integration is that each article that is not peer reviewed must be clearly marked as such. Also, you should change the status of your grant proposal to "withdrawn", but you are still welcome to suggest specific additions for our next grant to Wikimedia Foundation. For example, you mention expenses for "legal organization". However, you need to specify what legal entities you are thinking of registering with, and what their fees are. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

What a merger would look like[edit]

There are a few key requirements for the WikiJournal User Group (and consequently if a merger occurs) in order to be successful:

  1. Become a sister project within the Wikimedia Foundation - This is is a major task and involves satisfying the Sister Projects Committee that the project meets a number of requirements (similar to requirements for thematic organisations). Otherwise it is better to remain a user group / thematic org within the umbrella of the WMF.
    • Wikimedia supportive mission & Thematic mission - Must offer something unique (not covered by other projects). The peer reviewed academic content does this via external expert review. The danger for opinion pieces such as product reports, location reports or how-to guides is that without some form of review they might be more suited for Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, or Wikihow (non WMF).
    • Legal structure - Bylaws need to be developed to ensure clear scope and operations of the project.
    • CC BY-SA (or compatible) licensing - Done for both WikiJournal User Group and
    • No advertising - Done for both WikiJournal User Group and
  2. Each journal becomes indexed in appropriate academic locations (e.g. pubmed, PMC, google scholar, medline etc) - This will have to be achieved by each journal separately, whether they are medicine, humanities, science or otherwise. It relies on output of quality-assured contents and adherence to strict standards.

Possible bylaws solution

  1. Draft official bylaws for how the journal publishing group would operate (WikiJournal_User_Group/Draft bylaws). I would recommend using the WikiJournal of Medicine/Bylaws as a starting point as currently our most advanced attempt at such a system. This has the add benefit of us laying out in a single document the mission, vision and organisation of the project.

Possible non-peer reviewed content solutions

  1. 'Clean slate' (Like WikiJournal of Science). When the second journal of science was slowly converted into the WikiJournal of Science, previous articles that had not been reviewed were archived (the 'zeroth' issue) and added to the list of articles to be peer reviewed. If they pass peer review, then they would be added to one of the subsequent issues of the WikiJournal of Science.
  2. 'Preprint server' (Like A specific section of the site where articles that are not yet peer reviewed are kept. This section would make no assertion of accuracy for contents. This would be the same as Category:Pre-prints_not_yet_included_in_WikiJournal_of_Medicine.

Possible identity solutions

  1. We need to draft an example 'landing page' so that we have a clear idea of what it may look like. I will put together a draft main page based (somewhat) on

The above represent only my own thoughts on possible solutions, but others are free to suggest alternatives that I've not thought of! All of these things need to be addressed regardless of what specific domain ends up being used or whether a merger goes ahead. Having these draft documents will help us to all be clearer about what we intend (to fully avoid any possible misunderstandings) and if any clashes remain. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 07:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: have you considered asking for a test wiki at Phabricator? That would enable us to start drafting pages inside a wiki-environment to mimic what it might look like when it moves to a full wiki. Green Giant (discusscontribs) 20:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Regarding non-peer reviewed content, I think we can continue to haft a Draft: namespace within the same wiki. The most important is that they are clearly marked as drafts. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 11:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Centralisation for WikiJournal User Group discussion[edit]

We currently have discussions about the WikiJournal project across three locations:

Since the 'formal' WikiJournal User Group page is at Meta:Talk:WikiJournal User Group, I think that we should move centralised discussion from here to there to be in line with other user groups. If people agree I'll merge the current talk page contents and archives into Meta:Talk:WikiJournal User Group, redirected from the other pages.
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it is important to centralize the discussion, but I prefer this to be the location. I don't visit my watchlist at the Meta wiki very often, so it might take a week before I notice there's any new talk page entry there. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 07:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
agree w/ Mikael Häggström --Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 13:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that discussion about the general WikiJournal project should take place at Meta, and discussion about the English WikiJournals should remain here (until we migrate to --Felipe (discusscontribs) 16:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that Meta is the right place. However, as of now (till the migration to is complete) the ongoing discussions can remain here. Diptanshu.D (discusscontribs) 18:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

That's fine by me. A proper cross-wiki watchlist can't come soon enough! I'll redirect everything here for now. We can revisit the issue later in the year. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I've replaced the other talk pages with redirects here. I've also moved the old Wikiversity:Talk:WikiJournal/Future as separate Wikimedia project to an archive of this page, since it's a more sensible location. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I've done a few renames (basically renamed WikiJournal/WikiJournal User Group to WikiJournal User Group). The redundancy seemed useless, ugly and confusing. I hope you'll all agree it's better now. In any case, we're on the path to migration so it'd be temporary, but it's nice to know that we only have three main pages now, and they are named more or less consistently: WikiJournal User Group, meta:WikiJournal User Group and meta:WikiJournal. Also, the WikiJournal page can now be devoted to the generalist journal proposed here (when and if consensus is achieved). --Felipe (discusscontribs) 20:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Good work. I've also added a top banner so that new readers can more easily find the main discussion pages of relevance. It's a bit of a visual clash with the Wiki.J.Med discussion page but will do for now. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikiversity Main Page Section[edit]

It seems to me that while WikiJournal is at Wikiversity, it should be highlighted with a Wikiversity:Main Page entry or block. Any thoughts from the user group? -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 17:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I would support this. I think it would be ideal to highlight both the WikiJournal User Group page, and WikiJournal of Medicine. One of the main challenges for the expansion to additional topics (e.g. making an issue 1 of WikiJournal of Science will be promoting the existence of the journals to attract submissions. Where in the main page do you thin would be appropriate? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
There are several options. We could add Journals in the upper right topics box. We could shorten news. We could shrink the heading and daily quote. For me, the current Community box is wasted space and could be replaced, or combined with Development. I'd say be bold. We should also redesign with mobile in mind. The current Main Page mobile view is extremely disappointing. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the right topics box seems like a very good spot (I assume it's the one titled "Explore Wikiversity"), with a WikiJournal or WikiJournals list entry which shows the included journals when expanded. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 05:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I made some sandbox edits of how Template:Portal Nav 0.5 would look like with the addition of
<categorytree mode="all" depth="0" namespaces="WikiJournal">WikiJournals</categorytree>
, but it renders as:
, without any expandable options. Does anyone know how to get it to work? Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 11:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Currently, you would need to use:
<categorytree mode="all" depth="0" namespaces="WikiJournal">WikiJournal</categorytree>
Category:WikiJournals is empty. If you decide the category should be WikiJournals, let me know. I have bot code that can rename categories and edit all of the member pages. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, it's actually the following, because there isn't a separate namespace for WikiJournals:
<categorytree mode="all" depth="0">WikiJournal</categorytree>
Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Dave Braunschweig, for clarification! For now, I think the expandable menu should show
- WikiJournal of Medicine
- WikiJournal of Science
Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 12:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

YesY Done - You'll need to monitor the Category:WikiJournal category. If something is added to the category, it appears in the expandable menu. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 04:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal or WikiJournals[edit]

Now that we are about to make the overall organization a formal one, we need to decide whether it should be named WikiJournal or WikiJournals. This was not really brought up during the name election. I hope we can simply form consensus about it here, but if necessary we may need to make a vote about it. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 11:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I support WikiJournals, because it reflects the fact that it's an organization based on multiple journals, with separate subjects and administrations. When we make it an official organization, that s helps to distinguish it from the editorial boards and bylaws etc of individual member journals. If we didn't have that s, we would need more complicated structures for distinction, such as the WikiJournal Umbrella Organization or the WikiJournal Union. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 11:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Typical WP practice is to use singular. But no strong feelings. Doc James (discusscontribs) 12:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I support WikiJournal. It stands as a generic term and a composite should probably be a singular entity. Nevertheless, when referring to a number of them in the catergory, we can use the term WikiJournas at places where applicable. There are two entities to consider. The first entity, the output essentially is a WikiJournal. The second entity is the group of people behind, may be the publisher, governing body or something of that sort who run the show and with whom transactions (not necessarily monetary) can be made. We can have WikiJournal Council, WikiJournal Publishing Group and WikiJournals Guild as prospective names for the governing body. But I am willing to listen to what others might have to say. Diptanshu.D (discusscontribs) 12:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
singular form is best--Ozzie10aaaa (discusscontribs) 12:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The WMF sister projects mostly use singular (but wikibooks is already an exception), so I think either will be fine. For trademarks, it might be best to register both? Even for e.g. the overarching organisation board/council/committee, either the WikiJournal editorial board / WikiJournals editorial board would work. I suspect for actual operations we will need several longer titles to refer to the different facets (e.g the group of journals, the users generally interested, the overarching editorial board etc) as Diptanshu mentioned. I think that these operational names should be decide with reference to how other journals structure themselves where possible. Examples include and T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm now convinced WikiJournal is the optimal official name. It doesn't exclude usage of several variants as mentioned. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 12:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support WikiJournal per Diptanshu. If at a later date it is found necessary to separate the subject specific areas, it can always become WikiJournals. Green Giant (discusscontribs) 20:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


Also, we need to define the most important "pillars" of WikiJournal(s), which we should require all journals to fulfill. I think the most important ones are:

  • No cost for authors to have their works published
  • Peer review of all articles before publication
  • Editability directly online, by anyone, but changes to the meaning of any text or media generally needs a new peer review
  • Transparency, with peer reviews and article discussions being open for everyone
  • Open access for readers, without any cost
  • Copy allowance, with freedom for anyone to copy and redistribute published material

Feel free to comment and/or rephrase. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


I prefer that we require WikiJournals to have peer reviews publicly visible. Yet, the peer reviewers themselves may remain anonymous. However, the biggest disadvantage is that it may scare off potential peer reviewers. Advantages include the possibility for readers to see how the article has improved. It also provides verifiability of the peer review process, and if a reader finds questionable content in the article, that reader can check whether that content was commented on in the peer review. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Allowing reviewers to be anonymous should be adequate compromise for reviewers to feel comfortable being as critical as necessary. Indeed wikis are very good for creating anonymous/pseudonymous user accounts. We could even generate user accounts with random 10-digit names and assign them to reviewers who wish to be anonymous, e.g User:reviewer_1957280988. The benefit of the transparency outweighs the risk of scaring off reviewers. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I think reviews should be done by registered Wikimedia accounts but there are some limitations. The user doesn't have to use their real name (as you can guess by my username) but I am concerned that some usernames might not seem as "respectable" e.g. would the wider world be happy with a review carried out by someone called "Green Giant"? On the flipside I would disagree with any reviewing done by anonymous IPs simply because of the long term vandalism I've noted on Wikipedia and other wikis. I'm not against general editing by anon IPs (some of whom are fantastic) but I think the danger of vandalism diverts time and resources. I'm guessing that once an article had been reviewed and promoted, it would be locked from general editing (except for spelling errors etc)? Green Giant (discusscontribs) 20:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Copy allowance[edit]

I think it would be best if our default license was CC-BY, except for cases of using existing Wikipedia content (CC-BY-SA) or authors request. The CC-BY license allows a lot more flexibility and compatibility for reuse, and is far more common in academic publishing. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 18:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
This has now been implemented. All previous publications retain their existing license, however subsequent publications will be CC-BY by default unless the author requests otherwise or they re-use CC-BY-SA content. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
When you talk of CC-BY, I'm assuming you mean the latest version, but can I suggest that there should also be an option to allow dual-licensing with CC-BY-All and GFDL? That would give the maximum freedom to readers, short of putting it in the public domain, which should also be an option for authors? I agree with the comment about CC-BY being widely used but I don't think journal articles should be limited to just one copyright option. Green Giant (discusscontribs) 20:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Another couple of issues I wanted to raise are to do with images (as Commons is where my largest number of edits takes place). I'm guessing that nobody wants to write purely text articles so Commons files will probably be permitted but what about non-free images? I don't have examples to hand but what about images that are free in the US but not in other countries - would they be forbidden? If not, is it too early to raise the question of an exemption doctrine policy (which the WMF requires of any wiki hosting non-free media)? Would it be too restrictive to insist on free media only? Sorry for a flurry of questions. Green Giant (discusscontribs) 20:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
An answer for say WikiJournal of Science is to ask permission for use of an image. The source or creator may agree as long as certain conditions are specifically stated with the image. This is common when publishing book chapters or conference proceedings, for example. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Adoption of bylaws[edit]

I've made a draft of bylaws at WikiJournal_User_Group/Draft_bylaws, incorporating the pillars above. Please make any comments about the content soon, so we can subsequently go ahead and form consensus on adopt them. After that, we can elect the board. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 17:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mikael for drafting the bylaws. I have taken the liberty to rephrase the Article I paragraph. I would insist you to reconsider whether two terms, one for the journal and one for the governing body or organisation should be used. I suggest the use of two terms. You have already used the former term (WikiJournal Board) in the terminology. Apart from WikiJournal Board, the terms WikiJournal Council or WikiJournal Guild could be considered. In addition to this, I think that Article III requires expansion. The scope of inclusion under Wikimedia needs to be mentioned and defined. Diptanshu💬 17:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I would prefer avoiding the term WikiJournal Board as each of the WikiJournals would have a respective board. So, it is perhaps better to avoid an unnecessary confusion between the two. Furthermore, the procedure for application for inclusion of a new journal needs to be concretely defined. The minimum number of interested contributors, the approach and things like that should be defined. The application process could be made a two stage process where in the second stage the WikiJournal governing body sets checkpoints to be fulfilled before a green signal can be given. The scope of incubation and mentorship or guidance of the new enthusiasts by the board members of the existing journals (at that point of time) should also be mentioned. I think that this obligation should be there. Diptanshu💬 18:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Although we at Wiki.J.Med mediate the activities through a closed google group, I think that the WikiJournal governing body or each of the boards for each of the journals should have an individual mailing list, the participation in which would be limited to the board members. This will ensure that the communications are archived on Wikimedia servers and full transparency would be maintained. Diptanshu💬 18:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Mikael for making the amends. The following improvisations come to my mind:
  • Article III needs to be expanded. Subsections need to be introduced.
  • The procedure for applying for formation of a new journal in this group.
  • Choice of subject, non-overlapping nature preferred.
  • Minimum number of interested participants willing to start and work upon the journal.
  • The procedure of formation of an independent board for the respective journal.
  • Board members would have to reveal their real names and credentials.
  • Dedication of members to open knowledge and open access movement.
  • An initial period wherein the WikiJournal Council will oversee the activities of the respective WikiJournal Board.
  • That one or more members of the respective WikiJournal Board can apply to join the WikiJournal Council in order to form a representation of the respective WikiJournal in the Council. Acceptance of these new members into the Council will be subject to voting by existing Council members.
  • The respective WikiJournal Board needs to form of list of standard norms that benchmark journals for the respective subject usually adopt, and gradually the journal would have to try to achieve those standards.
  • Article publication process (briefly) from submission, peer review to final publication.
  • A minimum of two peer reviews as a pre-requisite for each article.
  • Amenities conferred by WikiJournal umbrella vs. amenities to be procured by the respective journal.
  • Stuff like Permalinks (DOI), ISSN and basic registrations.
Will update the list if I can think of anything else. Diptanshu💬 19:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Diptanshu! As you noticed, I thought WikiJournal Council fits better than WikiJournal Board, largely because it avoids mixup with the editorial boards of individual journals. I also added that journals not yet having been accepted should use the word "Preliminary" or equivalent in their titles. Beyond this and the core criteria for candidate journals, I don't think we should have any further strict criteria. After all, not even WikiJournal of Science fulfills those core criteria since its peer review system is currently labeled as "intended". I've rather took the time to update the page WikiJournal User Group/Starting a journal. We can use this as a form of grading of the development of different journals.
I haven't yet gone through your recently added list, but that will be my next step. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I've now made some further amendments with your comments in mind (but not yet all of them). I've split members into journal representatives and community-selected members. Also, I've added specifics about how to apply for an additional journal at WikiJournal User Group/Starting a journal (making an entry here). It doesn't necessarily need to be specified in the Bylaws. Instead, we can easily adapt to whatever issues arise when we actually do get such an application. If a particular issue arises that we hadn't thought of, we can vote to change the Bylaws later. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Expansion possibilities?[edit]

So we have a journal for medicine and one for science. Is there room for more journals or will it remain two until the project is hived off? There are several potential non-scientific areas that other journals could cover such as history, education and law. What would be needed to request additional journals? Cheers. Green Giant (discusscontribs) 21:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting that you brought this up, Green Giant, as we are discussing the criteria for additional journals. You can read about suggested steps at WikiJournal User Group/Starting a journal. As mentioned, the specific criteria to be an accepted member of WikiJournal is still under discussion. Is there any particular subject that would be of interest to you? Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 18:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mikael Häggström: thank you pointing me to the link. My interests have varied over the years but I would be particularly interested in a WikiJournal of Law. Green Giant (discusscontribs) 19:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Green Giant: I think it is the general hope of the existing WikiJournals that the format can be extended to other areas. Currently, WikiJournal of Medicine is the largest 'flagship' journal. WikiJournal of Science is just starting up. A test page for WikiJournal of Business and Economics was also created by user:Michael Ten back in February. In general, I think that larger topic areas will be more sustainable initially (e.g. a WikiJournal of Humanities), since it is more likely to be able to sustain and publish multiple articles per year. It is likely that Wiki.J.Sci will aim to encompass biology, physics, mathematics, engineering etc. What do you think about a WikiJournal of Humanities that encompassed law, economics, politics and other humanities? See this draft 'main page' for en example of what I mean. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability: that sounds like an eminently sensible approach. A humanities journal would be very suitable. Green Giant (discusscontribs) 01:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)