WikiJournal User Group/Guidelines
WikiJournal User Group
Open access • Publication charge free • Public peer review • Wikipedia-integrated
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 | edit source]Research articles
Accuracy
All results needed to support the conclusions are clearly presented, including appropriate controls and statistical tests. Diagrams are clear and easy to interpret if presented with the figure and its legend in isolation. Work is put in context by referencing existing literature.
Methods are described in enough detail for findings to be reproducible. Established protocols are summarised and referenced. New protocols are described in full.
Publication of full supplementary data sets is strongly encouraged.
Balance
The introduction gives a brief and balanced summary of the current state of the topic, inasmuch as is necessary to understand the results presented. Where there are multiple hypotheses or viewpoints on an aspect of a topic, they are given due weight based on their relative support in the academic literature.
The discussion clearly indicates 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 are used to clarify terms (usually once per article).
The standard section organisation of Introduction, Results, Discussion, Methods is encouraged. Wording is as concise as possible.
Additional
Where relevant:
- ethics approval (e.g. work including animal or human subjects).
- ICZN code
Review articles
Accuracy
Review articles give accurate and up-to-date coverage of the topic. Diagrams are clear and easy to interpret if presented with the figure and its legend in isolation.
Accuracy of review articles is ensured by thorough referencing to attribute claims. Sources that have a lower level of scrutiny or not been peer-reviewed (e.g. news articles and research preprints), may be used if there is no better source, such as for emerging or rapidly evolving topics. Use of such sources is indicated (by e.g. "Media reports state...", or by marking the ref with an asterisk).
Balance
Review articles aim to describe the academic consensus position on the topic. Where there are multiple hypotheses or viewpoints on an aspect of a topic, they are given due weight based on their relative support in the academic literature, and are 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 likely to be interested in it. 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 are used to clarify terms. Acronyms and abbreviations are expanded on first use.
Sections are organised to make the article as easy to read as possible. Wording is as concise as possible.
Articles intended for English Wikipedia integration
Articles intended for Wikipedia integration (in whole or in part) must also comply with its guidelines.
- Articles are 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, outlooks, and 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 for 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 | edit source]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 the abstract effectively summarise the work?
- Does the lay summary (if included) capture the key points of the work while being understandable to a reader with only secondary-school background?
Additional
If relevant:
- Did the study comply with ethical standards for any animal or human studies, and was it approved by a relevant ethics committee or institutional review board?
- Animals:
- Is the usage of animals justified?
- Is the number used as small as possible and as large as necessary?
- Humans:
- Was participant consent gained?
- Have risks of harm to participants been minimized and appropriate protections included?
- Animals:
- Supplemental files:
- Do these contain sufficient information?
- Does the information match the statements made in the main manuscript?
- Should any information be moved to the main manuscript?
Review articles
Accuracy
- Is anything incorrectly stated?
- Do the references support the statements being made?
- Are any important recent papers missed?
- Are any references out of date or obsolete?
Balance
- Does it reflect current thinking in the field?
- Is anything important missing (or cherry-picked)?
- Are viewpoints given due weight given the existing literature?
- 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 while being understandable to a reader with only secondary-school background?