WikiJournal User Group/Guidelines

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiJournal logo.svg

WikiJournal User Group
Wikipedia-integrated • Public peer review • Libre open access

WikiJournal User Group is a publishing group of open-access, free-to-publish, Wikipedia-integrated academic journals. <seo title=" Wikiversity Journal User Group, WikiJournal Free to publish, Open access, Open-access, Non-profit, online journal, Public peer review "/>

These guidelines are included in the information pages for authors and for peer reviewers. The advice and recommendations for both are intended to broadly correspond to one another.

Author guidelines[edit]

Research articles

 

Accuracy

All results needed to support the conclusions should be clearly presented, including appropriate controls and statistical tests. Diagrams should be clear and easy to interpret if presented with the figure and its legend in isolation. Work should be put in context by referencing existing literature.

Methods should be described in enough detail for findings to be reproducible. Established protocols should be summarised and referenced. New protocols must be described in full.

Publication of full supplementary data sets is strongly encouraged.

Balance

The introduction should give a brief and balanced summary of the current state of the topic necessary to understand the results presented. Where there are multiple hypotheses or viewpoints on an aspect of a topic, they should be given due weight based on their relative support in the academic literature.

The discussion should clearly indicate where results can have more than one interpretation.

Accessibility

Authors are encouraged to also submit a lay summary that should be understandable to a reader with only secondary school background.

Hyperlinks to Wikipedia articles should be used to clarify terms.

The standard section organisation of Introduction, Results, Discussion, Methods is encouraged. Wording should be as concise as possible without obscuring meaning.


Additional

Where relevant:

Review articles

 

Accuracy

Review articles should give accurate and up to date coverage of the topic. Diagrams should be clear and easy to interpret if presented with the figure and its legend in isolation.

Accuracy of review articles is also ensured by thorough referencing to attribute the points being made. Sources that have a lower level of scrutiny or not been peer reviewed (e.g. news articles or research preprints), may be used if there's absolutely no better source, such as for emerging or rapidly evolving topics. Use of such sources should be indicated (by e.g. "Media reports state...", or by marking the ref with an asterisk).

Balance

Review articles should aim to describe the academic consensus position of the topic. Where there are multiple hypotheses or viewpoints on an aspect of a topic, they should be given due weight based on their relative support in the academic literature, and attributed in the text to their respective authors. For contentious points, we recommend also citing a review article to demonstrate that the point is well-accepted.

If a history section is included, consider citing particularly impactful/seminal works. The citation is sufficient to indicate who did the work, so phrases such as "Smith et al have previously demonstrated that" are discouraged.

Accessibility

Strive to make the each section as understandable as possible to the widest audience who are likely to be interested in that material. Authors are encouraged to also submit a lay summary that should be understandable to a reader with only secondary school background.

Hyperlinks to Wikipedia articles should be used to clarify terms. Acronyms and abbreviations should be defined upon first use.

Sections should be organised to make the article as easy to read as possible. Wording should be as concise as possible without obscuring meaning.

Articles intended for Wikipedia integration

Articles that are intended for Wikipedia integration (in whole or in part) must also comply with Wikipedia's own guidelines.

  • Articles should be written such that a knowledgeable generalist can understand them. The abstract, which in Wikipedia is an untitled lead section, must be understandable to a general audience. (WP:TECHNICAL)
  • Wikipedia cannot include any original research (including synthesis of ideas). Original research, such as tentative conclusions, personal perspectives, outlook, or opinions can be included in a separate section for the published journal version of the article; it will be omitted from Wikipedia. (WP:OR)
  • Wikipedia's policies on references used to support any medical claims are stricter than for other areas (WP:MEDRS).

In addition, the Wikipedia policies on neutrality (WP:NPOV), permissible sources (WP:RS), and style (WP:MOS) should be checked. When in doubt, just ask the editors.

Peer reviewer guidelines[edit]

Research articles

 

Accuracy

  • Are methods and results described in sufficient detail?
  • Are the methods, sample sizes, outcome measures and data analysis adequate to answer the research question?
  • Was the research properly executed?
  • Are the results credible?
  • Will the article add to existing knowledge?

Balance

  • Are conclusions adequately supported by the data?
  • Are any limitations in interpreting the results clearly discussed?
    • alternative hypotheses
    • confounding factors
    • shortcomings

Accessibility

  • Is the language clear and unambiguous?
  • Does the introduction summarise the relevant and up to date background?
  • Is the question being addressed defined?
  • Are figures fully described?
  • Does it the abstract summarise the work in general?
  • Does the lay summary (if included) capture the key points of the work whilst being understandable to a reader with only secondary school background?

Additional

If relevant:

  • Was the study up to ethical standards for any animal or human studies and approved by a relevant ethics committee or institutional review board?
    • Animal:
      • Is the usage of animals justified as required for this work?
      • Is the number used as small as possible, and as large as necessary?
    • Human:
      • Was participant consent gained?
      • Have risks of harm to participants been minimized and appropriate protections included?
  • Supplemental files:
    • Do these contain sufficient information?
    • Does the information match the statements made in the main manuscript?
    • Should any information therein be moved to the main manuscript?

Review articles

 

Accuracy

  • Is anything incorrectly stated?
  • Do the references support the statements being made?
  • Are there any important recent papers that are missed?
  • Are any of the references used out of date or considered obsolete?

Balance

  • Does it reflect the current thinking in the field?
  • Is there anything important missing (or cherry-picked)?
  • Are viewpoints given due weight given the existing literature on the topic?
  • Are any conclusions / perspectives / outlook / opinions / original research clearly indicated?

Accessibility

  • Is the language clear and unambiguous?
  • Are any diagrams misleading or incomplete?
  • Is the work written such that a knowledgable generalist can understand it?
  • Is the abstract/lead understandable to a general audience?
  • Does the lay summary (if included) capture the key points of the work whilst being understandable to a reader with only secondary school background?