Talk:WikiJournal/Wikiversity Journal User Group

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

Additional updates on the project can be found at: Talk:Wikiversity Journal of Medicine

What about social science?[edit]

So I read the Signpost piece at en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-06-15/Special_report and I want to congratulate people on their work here. I do, however, notice that the "Second Journal of Science" seems to focus on natural sciences. Does it mean that any social scientists interested in this project would have to start by, well, starting a third journal? --Piotrus (discusscontribs) 06:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Piotrus, thank you for your interest in the Wikiversity Journal. You are correct that we currently do not have a journal on social science. As a starting project on wikiversity we are still growing. A journal on social sciences is certainly welcome. However as a wiki it is up to editors to create this. We welcome serious editors to cooperate with us in starting a journal on social science. All the best, Taketa (discusscontribs) 07:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

French Wikiversity science journal[edit]

A decision to host a journal on French Wikiversity is already done since 21th of september 2015. I'm thinking to translate English wikiversity science journal presentation and peer review system pages to submit them to our community. I'm also very interested about starting a French social science open journal on fr.wikiversity. Lionel Scheepmans Contact (French native speaker) 18:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lionel! It was nice to hear about you ideas at Wikimania, and you are welcome to copy and translate guidelines and templates for use in the French journal. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Mikael Häggström. I need time for this, and holidays are not the best moment for me. But let we see, later. Lionel Scheepmans Contact (French native speaker) 16:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure, Lionel, take your time. With journals in multiple languages, I think any published articles can be highlighted on the front page of all of them, at least with a translated title linking to the wiki where the main work is found. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 14:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


Why did I miss your work !

Well, I must congratulate you Mikael Häggström. I do not know from experience the medical field, but I suppose there must have been some resistance or absence of recognition. I had a look to some articles of the medical journal. I'm not sure though to decipher the structure of peers work I'm used to (with structure: objective, methods, results, discussion, conclusion). I see no reason however not to duplicate what you've done for other discipline.

Not knowing your contribution I started a project, fr:Projet:Journal_scientifique_libre as introduced to you by Lionel Scheepmans. I'd be delighted to discuss issues of reviewing procedures and quality recognition principles. As my research environment is quite not open to such practices I tried to develop authorship, responsibility and quality controls in my proposal. I see no automation in recognition attribution or pages protections

Focused on solving the multi-functionality issue in Life Cycle Assessment methodology and occupied with political troubles in France, I did not much for JSL since I started the idea. But I guess now is the time (even though I should be writing my thesis).

Translations of the proposal are already done in english on Enipedia (graphics on commons, in french english and Chinese). I should receive Arab and Spanish translation from friends.

general presentation english.
logigram english.
general presentation chinese.
logigram chinese.
general presentation french.
logigram french.



--RP87 (discusscontribs) 09:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Rudy!
I'm glad you found this project now. It seems from your diagrams that the proposed components of Journal scientifique libre are about the same as in Wikiversity Journal. As mentioned above, you are welcome to copy guidelines and templates. Also articles in a particular language can at least have their titles translated and linked from the journals in all other languages. Also, if you develop for example this Bot authorship, let me know. It might be useful for all Wikiversity Journals.
Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 10:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
That's right Mikael Häggström bot authorship could be useful but we can develop the french part of the journal without it. RP87 and me can work together on it when I'll finished with prior activities. Lionel Scheepmans Contact (French native speaker) 14:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Listing in Directory of Open Access Journals[edit]

I have put an application for listing of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine in the Directory of Open Access Journals ( The same can be done separately for Second Journal of Science. Diptanshu.D (discusscontribs) 17:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


I'd like to suggest a scientific journal entitled: Astrohistory. A search of Google Scholar (not the last word!) indicates at present this journal title is not being used, at least recently. A subtitle might be "an open-access journal from Wikiversity". It can go in any domain you can get. The range of potential article topics can be enormous! . --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting idea, Marshallsumter (I moved your entry to here)! I made page at Wikiversity Journal/Starting a journal with advice. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 17:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Naming election open[edit]

An election for determining the future name of the project 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:

Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 12:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Email lists[edit]

An issue with increased participation is that the email lists that came with the domain names ( and have limited amounts of recipients. For the, we only have space for 1 more participant. I suggest that we get our mailing lists through This would hopefully also allow for having a moderator review emails to us from people who are not themselves on the lists. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 17:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Willingness to join Journal Council[edit]

I am Dr. Diptanshu Das, a long term editor on Wikipedia. I am also on the Editorial board of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. I would like to join the journal council and am willing to work on it in order to be able to launch it as a separate wikiproject. Since all the team members are likely to be familiar with me, I am not going into further details. Diptanshu.D (discusscontribs) 05:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Great! I will add you to the list tomorrow, so that the community has a chance to give any comments first. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 14:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
YesY Done. Welcome! Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 05:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikijournal or WikiJournal[edit]

There is still some uncertainty whether it should be Wikijournal or WikiJournal. I think it should be written with a lower case j in order to be consistent with other Wikimedia projects. Main discussion is located at: Talk:Wikijournal/Future_as_separate_Wikimedia_project#Wikijournal.2C_WikiJournal_or_Wiki_Journal.3F. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Many journals / one journal[edit]

Pros/cons table (feel free to edit)
In favour of having specific journals
General journals can struggle (e.g. SpringerOpen closed down).
Different fields can have different expectations of peer review.
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 WJM maintains the outreach and reputation so far built (though this is still minimal)
Journal editors and other volunteers may be interested and particularly knowledgeable only in specific fields.
In favour of a single/small number of megajournals
More interested editors to spread the workload
More interested editors to advertise its existence (especially outside of the existing wiki community)
Reduces the risk of 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)
More interested editors to submit content

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)
Three 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.
  1. 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).
  2. You might want to rethink the name Wikijournal because it is used by at least two other organizations (here and here)
  3. 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 uness 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)