Talk:Wikiversity Journal

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussions in Wikipedia[edit]

The citation of Wikiversity Journal articles in Wikipedia is under discussion at w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and w:Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. These discussions may be applicable to the citation of any Wikiversity article in a Wikipedia article. James500 (discusscontribs) 20:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I've made replies at those discussions. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 11:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Journals in development[edit]

I moved this header, along with text below, to here, because I think it needs any actual development before reinsertion:

Journals in development so far function on a Do it yourself basis, wherein the author adds the article to a Wikiversity page, arranges for completing the Wikiversity peer review process, and adds the article title to the corresponding journal.

Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 09:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

How did this journal set get DOIs?[edit]

Is there anyplace that I can read on-wiki how this journal set came to be able to assign DOIs to articles? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There wasn't before you came to ask, but in short I first applied for an ISSN as an "open access scholarly publication" at the National Library of Sweden, and once that was approved I could use that ISSN apply for assigning DOIs to articles at CrossRef. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well done[edit]

Hi all, great to see this project. I was thinking the same thing today and was pointed here by DocJames when I asked him for feedback. I am interested in helping in any way I can. I will read up on this project in the coming days and see if I can find something to do. All the best, Taketa (discusscontribs) 16:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm delighted to hear that you find interest in this project Face-smile.svg I left a message on your talk page. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Generic process[edit]

Mikael has gotten the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine started, but there are general concerns. I've been reading the discussions of the Wiki J Med on Wikipedia. There is a collision between the apparent objectives of Wiki J Med and Wikipedia Reliable Source guidelines.

In some discussions I have read, there is a confusion between peer review and "reliable source." The essence of reliable source guidelines is independent publication. Peer review is merely a method used in academic publication to support the publisher goals. The essence of it, in peer-reviewed publications, is that the *publisher* controls the review process, not the author.

The prohibition of using a wiki as a reliable source comes from the fact that, on a wiki, there is normally no responsible publisher, in the sense required for reliable source guidelines.

The goals of Wiki J Med have been mixed. One was to provide material to be used in Wikipedia articles. Another was to have an open and transparent process for approval. As was apparently realized early on. "open and transparent" is not always feasible. However, any publisher could incorporate open and transparent process in its publication decisions.

Now, we can have Wikiversity Journals without this rigamarole. They would simply be places where content relating to the topic of the journal are published, instead of scattering it. They could also be lists of resources here, and approval process is possible, on-wiki.

However, to meet RS guidelines, there must be an independent *and responsible* publisher, not merely an open access place where content may be created and edited. The name Wikiversity in the title implies that Wikiversity is the responsible publisher. "Wiki" would not imply that, by the way. However, the publisher must be an independent person or organization, with a reputation to create, maintain, and defend. The publisher, then, would certify content. That content may exist on Wikiversity, but it would also be linked from the publisher web site, which cannot be Wikiversity. It could be very simple, just tables of contents, low traffic, cheap. Almost all the review process could take place openly, with an independent board -- or editor --, appointed by the publisher, handling confidential submissions, and, as well, assigning peer reviewers.

One of the conflicts that appeared, which did not escape notice on Wikipedia, was authors who were involved with peer review. Not independent. Apparently, the principal author is also the publisher, in the sense of owning the domain that is used, currently http/ , which currently redirects to Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, which is not going to fly. This domain is owned by Mikael Haggstrom, not by an organization.

Mikael *can* be the publisher; however, this then creates a blatant conflict of interest.

There are student-run journals. It is fairly common in the U.S. for law reviews, even highly reputable ones, to be student-run. However, to become a reputable journal, quality standards must be high. If articles are published on non-notable topics and without expert review, reputation may be damaged. This much is clear to me: to serve as reliable source, the publisher cannot be Wikiversity, nor can the publisher be controlled by a wiki. Being openly advised by a wiki is a different matter, that is clearly possible.

The problem of wiki articles being approved in one state, and then changing, has been raised on Wikipedia as well. The Journal, when it publishes using the wiki, links to permanent versions. The authoritative table of contents of the Journal is off-wiki, though it will be mirrored on-wiki. We already have traditions of respecting attributed authors on subpages (which is a reason why I moved all the published Journal articles to subpages of the Wiki J Med.) We can formalize this as policy in the case of Journal articles, where the community recognizes the journal's relationship with Wikiversity. We can also use Pending Changes for this, which will allow *anyone* to edit journal articles, which are only incorporated in the visible page for non-logged-in users when approved by a Reviewer, and we can cover this in policy.

If the considerations mentioned are respected, there is nothing other than inertia stopping the creation of journals, that might even create content for Wikipedia as needed; key will be an independent responsible publisher, as with any reliable source, and probably a sound and independent review process. Properly done, the quality of the sources created could be higher than for standard publishing. Having "wiki review" as part of the process may bring in wider expertise than sometimes is available with single-reviewer process. As well, as soon as an article exists on Wikiversity, even undergoing review, a sister wiki link can be placed on Wikipedia. That is *not* a claim of reliable source, it is merely a notice that content relating to the topic exists on Wikiversity. It's under External Links if on the article page, and, of course, it may be mentioned on Talk pages.

The discussions that are then created will not decide the content. They will inform it, by advising the publisher; key to this is that the publisher is responsible for those content decisions, as to what the Journal publishes.

Hybrid structure, long an interest of mine.... --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

If we necessarily need to define a publisher, why can't an editorial board with an editor-in-chief constitute that? I do have the ultimate responsibility for published articles, but I do so as an editor-in-chief. The articles are then hosted by Wikiversity, and the project does have approval by the Wiki Project Med Foundation. Reliability is then something that us built in time - even Wikipedia is struggling with that despite evidence of not having more errors than other academic sources (Wikipedia:Reliability of Wikipedia).
I agree the peer review process should now not be performed by someone in the editorial board. I've added myself at Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Peer reviewers, but it's practically to set an example of how to add yourself on the list. I've emailed several independent individuals and asked for a peer review of the latest article submission. You can help out too by trying to find people who would be suitable for the task.
I also support either semi-protection or pending changes, once we have any disruptive edit to show upon application. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 18:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

We perhaps need a guild sign[edit]

Zz Glaser P1010007a retouched.jpg

When more journals come onlinke, I say we form a guild and modify this image with a European-style rendition of the Wikiversity logo.

See Second Journal of Science/Editorial#A guild of small journals to provide the wikis with an egalitarian organizational structure
--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 17:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikiversity Journal logo.png

Good idea! Wikiversity Journal is a platform for multiple potential journals, and deserves an own sign as such. I didn't find any convenient way to use the proposed sign as a template. I found it easier to combine the following images:

This resulted in the following logo:

I think it's fitting for a project like this, because it consists of:

  • a lightbulb, symbolizing the creation of ideas
  • latitude and longitude stripes around the lightbulb, symbolizing a global scope
  • pillars, symbolizing academia

We can change the official logo of the project later if we're not happy with this one. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Only Wikiversity Journals that meet certain standards will be allowed to post this guild sign
Wikiversity journal guild sign membership pending.svg
I like the logo. It wouldn't look good with the guild sign, but that's OK. Wikiversity Journal logo.png can be the official logo, and Zz Glaser P1010007a retouched.jpg can appear in articles promoting the concept. What about using the plural "Wikiversity Journals"? I will write at length about why I like the plural in my sandbox and post a permalink here soon.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 23:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Here is a bit more discussion of why we should think in terms of a "guild": Special:Permalink/1510796--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 23:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I predict that someday there will be many journals, but only those that are elected into the guild will be allowed to post this guild sign.Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 02:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I also predict that there will be inferior and amateurish journals, so we need to consider how and when members are admitted to the guild. Perhaps a probationary "pending membership" status should be considered,--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 10:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the lightbulb-pillar logo can be used for the group of journals, and the guild logo for the community of people involved, particularly when discussing about matters affecting multiple journals.
I think there should be criteria that journals need to meet before being accepted into this group, such as abiding by some international standards on journal structure. I also think any future journal wanting to join the group should have a name starting with "Wikiversity Journal of..." for consistency. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 21:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mikael Häggström: I'm not sure what you mean by the two groups your call "group of journals" and "community of people involved". I see the two groups defined as follows:
  1. One group consists of all Wikiversity Journals (or people), and there are currently two journals: WJM and FJS
  2. The other group is a subset consisting of those that adhere to certain standards. Except for a misunderstanding concerning journal names that was entirely my fault, the second group is currently one and same with the first group.
I was thinking of journal administration as practicing the craft, with the lightbulb symbol, and guild activity being cooperation between those involved. I think my main idea, however, was that both symbols are useful in their own way. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
If a third journal emerges that wants to do things differently, then either we need to convince the Wikiversity community to govern the behavior of this third journal, or we need to form the guild. Personally, I see no choice but to form the guild. But that does not imply that this guild needs to make any decisions yet. First we need to see what this new journal(s) is (are) like. But, at some point in the future, a clear procedure must be established for inviting, excluding, and even expelling members or journals from the guild (will this be a guild of members or a guild of journals?). Trust me, Wikipedia attracts some very unconventional people.
Also, I seem to be outvoted 3:1 on the need for name consistency. I don't think I will ever change my opinion, but I do respect a solid majority. But I am too busy to change the name. I am not enthusiastic about this, but if someone wants to create a new journal called called "Wikiversity Journal of Physics and Astronomy Education", I can use the SJS as an unrefereed "practice journal" for my students.
Perhaps a compromise might be to reserve "Wikiversity Journal of X" for people already educated in the X profession. Other journals, like mine (which is intended to be read by lower division college students) would be forbidden the use of "Wikiversity Journal of X". Most students in my Astronomy class have very limited interest in science, and that creates a huge distinction between journals targeting the two different audiences. Don't forget, there are 10,000 open access journals out there. If only 1% of them decide to be hosted by Wikiversity, we will be very big. And, I can't imagine NOT wanting a journal that so effortlessly links in and out of Wikipedias of all languages. This ability to link is especially useful in education because it permits one to write in prose at a slightly higher reading level than would be needed if every word had to be explained.

--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 11:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think "Wikiversity Journal of Science Education" as you suggested is an excellent name for it. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mikael Häggström: My biggest concern involves refereeing. When I created SJS the plan was for me to be the sole editor/referee and use the journal to develop articles for use in my courses, which rely entirely on WMF wikis. I think it is ethical to adopt such a policy if it is clearly stated (?). But I don't know if such editor-only refereed journals should be granted full guild status. My vision is that Wikiversity Journal be a hub for a guild journals named "Wikiversity Journal of X" that are properly refereed. This leaves me with two questions:
  • Will the Wikiversity community allow exclusive use of the name "Wikiversity Journal of X" for this guild? I believe the answer will be a conditional "yes", the caveat being that the Wikiversity community has the right to control any page on Wikiversity, and is actually incapable of surrendering that right (unless it is to WMF). --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 22:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
It is impossible to protect every possible name containing "Wikiversity Journal of..." from being created or edited. Any person may even add the guild image to it without permission. If that happens, we may ask at for example the Colloquium for consensus to remove such page. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 16:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I would go one more step and suggest the guild sign can be removed before seeking consensus. It's not an issue of trademark infringement but accuracy. Any editor may correct an erroneous statement in any article.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 00:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we can probably remove it ourselves, and seek additional consensus if it keeps being added back again. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 08:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • What does our guild want to do with the name and editor-only referring questions associated with Second Journal of Science? I believe this question need not be addressed for now, but that ultimately the guild should exclude journals that are editor-only refereed. At the same time this new guild should evaluate non-guild journals and endorse the best ones with an "affiliation" that falls short of full membership. I believe that our first priority is to recruit others to create journals, but discourage ISSN and domain name registration until the journal has matured a bit. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 22:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I think being editor-only refereed is all right if it is clearly stated for journal readers that such is the case. I made a suggestion in the following section of how this can be displayed at the Wikiversity Journal page. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 16:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Journal summaries[edit]

I think all journals in this group should have summaries that should include the most important aspects of journal structure, as well as completeness. I suggest the following layout, with current journals included:
Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 08:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Journal title Logo Subjects Peer reviews ISSN DOI Pubmed/MEDLINE More info
Wikiversity Journal
of Medicine
Wikiversity Journal of Medicine logo.svg Medicine, biomedicine Independent reviewers Yes Yes Not yet See About
Second Journal
of Science
Second Journal of Science logo.png Science Refereeing by journal editors Yes Not yet Not yet See About