WikiJournal of Humanities/Editorial board
WikiJournal of Humanities
|ISSN: None yet
Funding: Wikimedia Foundation
Publisher: WikiJournal User Group
|On social media
The editorial board handles any confidential article submissions, and has final responsibility for ensuring that robust academic peer review is performed in a timely manner. Information about editorial board responsibilities, and how to apply to join the editorial board, are found below.
Editorial board members
PhD (Editor in Chief) Arts, humanities, social sciences, archaeology, religion, rhetoric
Dr Frances Di Lauro completed her PhD on Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy. She is currently Chair of the Department of Writing Studies at the University of Sydney.
MLIS Library science, Women's history
PhD Advocacy, Disability Studies, Education, Qualitative Research, Social Sciences
PhD Information literacy, Library and information science, Media studies, Education
JD, BA Law, linguistics
PhD (Harvard), MA (Johns Hopkins) Art History, Medieval and Byzantine Studies
Anne McClanan is a Professor of Art History at Portland State University, and in addition to her research in medieval art also works in the development of OERs and other areas of the Digital Humanities.
PhD, MSc, MA(Cantab) Celtic Studies, medieval history and literature, manuscript studies, textual criticism;, corpus linguistics
American literature, Mormon history, Mormon artists, Editing
Rachel Helps is the coordinator of Wikipedia initiatives at the Harold B. Lee Library at Brigham Young University.
English and American Literature & History BA (Joint Hons.), History MA, History PhD History, history of science, technology, engineering & medicine, labour & management history, modern British history
PhD, MA(cantab) (Adviser) Biochemistry, genetics, bioinformatics, evolution
The purpose of the editorial board is to form consensus about whether to include upcoming articles in the journal, based on multiple factors such as scope, peer reviewer recommendations and utility for Wikipedia. In the same manner as Wikipedia is not a democracy, the means of decision making is discussion leading to consensus; Straw polls can be used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion.
Editorial board members will be notified by email to wjhboardgooglegroups.com (only accepting emails from board members) when an article submission is up for decision, together with whether it needs to be held strictly confidential or not. An editorial board member does not need to comment on every article submission. In practice, members of the editorial board have substantial communication by email, especially for confidential submissions. Public submissions can be discussed at its their pages. Anyone may add their opinions and comments for such online discussions.
The main outcomes from inclusion discussions are:
- Acceptance of the article
- Rejection until there is an acceptable peer review of the article
- Rejection until article is modified
- Rejection outright
The editorial board also discusses and makes decisions regarding the overall operation of the journal. However, major issues that do not involve confidential matters should be discussed at the journal's public forums, at Talk:WikiJournal of Humanities, and/or the public Google Group of the journal through WikiJHumgooglegroups.com. Editorial board members are encouraged to invite potential additional participants to the journal.
Editorial board members may also opt to include themselves in the mailing list about matters related to the overall WikiJournal organization at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikijournal-en. Matters that are important to WikiJournal of Humanities should be emailed to its own mailing list as well.
All positions in the journal are voluntary, that is, for no financial gain.
Editor-in-chief and assistant
The editor-in-chief has final responsibility for all operations and policies.
The assistant to the editor-in-chief will act in place of the editor-in-chief on the event of her or his resignation or incapacity.
Both the editor-in-chief and the assistant to the editor-in-chief are expected to participate in public relations of the journal, including interviews and articles when opportunities arise.
At least the editor-in-chief and the assistant to the editor-in-chief are entrusted with the journal's password to administer the journal's WikiJHum.org domain at GoDaddy. This domain needs to be renewed every other year, at a cost of approximately $30 each time. Logging into the domain's account at GoDaddy also avails for changing the email addresses included in the common email address (known by the editorial board) for updates about the journal. This site is also where redirection to another target than the current one may be done in the future.
If you are interested in becoming an editorial board member, you need to abide by the following:
- You should be willing to have your full name displayed online as seen in the list of editorial board members. Affiliations should be stated as well.
- You should be familiar with the purpose and structure of the journal, as well as its Bylaws. It is also recommended to be familiar with external guidelines by which the journal abides:
- ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication: 
- COPE code of conduct for journal editors: 
- You should abide by the confidentiality policies of the journal:
Most authors have allowed their article submissions to WikiJournal to be open-access in the wiki from the very beginning. Still, the main requirement as a member of the editorial board is to not leak those works that authors wish to be confidential up until publication. Many journals do not accept submissions that have been in the open at any time, and thereby authors may be harmed by premature disclosure of any or all of an article submission's details. Editorial board members therefore keep such works confidential by restricting discussions about such articles in email communications or at a closed group at Google Sites, rather than talk page entries in Wikipedia or Wikiversity. Members of the editorial board must not retain such works for their personal use.
If you agree with the policies, please apply here. This should include a short summary of:
- Humanities, arts or social sciences education and experience
- Wikipedia or related project experience
- Publishing or editorial experience
- A statement of acceptance of the policies
All fields are optional, and you do not need to have experience in every area, however some relevant experience is very useful. Upon acceptance, you should provide an email address for updates on matters for the editorial board (unless already having corresponded by email), by emailing editor-in-chief Felipe Schenone using this link.
Duties of editorial board members
Editorial board members should have a set of talents, experience, and competencies that will best fulfill the needs of WikiJournal of Humanities. The full names and affiliations of the editorial board members should be displayed online.
Editorial board members must keep the confidentiality of works and author identities unless permission has been granted to disclose such material or information. Editorial board members must not retain confidential works for their personal use.
Scientific misconduct is defined as intention or gross negligence leading to fabrication of the scientific message or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist. The editorial board members should inform institutions if they suspect misconduct by their researchers, and provide evidence to support these concerns, such as analysis of text similarity in cases of suspected plagiarism, or evidence of inappropriate image manipulation. They should cooperate with investigations and respond to institutions’ questions about misconduct allegations. They should be prepared to issue retractions or corrections when provided with findings of misconduct arising from investigations. They should correct or retract findings that are invalid or unreliable, both when caused by misconduct and by honest errors. Publications should be retracted if they are evidenced to be generally unreliable, while on the other hand a correction should be made in cases where only a small part of the publication is affected while the majority of findings and conclusions are valid.
Editorial board members should investigate allegations of misconduct targeted at peer reviewers of the journal. However, editorial board members may be obliged to protect the identity of whistleblowers.
In cases of scientific misconduct involving several journals, these journals should cooperate and share information as required to resolve the issues.
The editorial board members should aim at keeping communications relating to ongoing misconduct investigations confidential between parties.
Expression of concern
An Expression of Concern may be used to inform readers about serious allegations likely to affect the reliability or integrity of a work. Expressions of Concern should not be viewed as ‘milder’ versions of retractions. The editorial board should consider issuing an Expression of Concern if:
- There is inconclusive evidence scientific misconduct by the authors
- There is evidence that the findings are unreliable, but there is no institution or entity available to properly investigate the case
- There is reason to believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive
- An investigation is underway but a decision thereof will not be available for a considerable time
The editorial board should consider issuing a correction if:
- A small portion of an otherwise reliable publication is evidenced to be misleading, particularly if it appears to be an honest error such as a methodological error or a miscalculation
- The author list is incorrect. For example, a deserving author may have been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria may have been included
The editorial board should consider retracting a publication if:
- There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of honest error or scientific misconduct such as data fabrication
- The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper permission or justification for publication in WikiJournal of Humanities as well
- It contains plagiarism
- It reports unethical research
Retractions are not usually appropriate in cases where the authorship needs to be changed but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings.
A retraction statement must be added in each retraced work. A retraction statements should:
- Be clearly identifiable as a retraction statement, including having a title starting "Retraction statement"
- Include the reasons for the retraction
- Distinguish between cases of misconduct and honest error to encourage researchers to report errors when they occur and ensure no stigma is attached to this.
- Be linked to the retracted work and be open access
- Clearly identify which work it refers to, by at least title and authors
- Be published promptly after the retraction decision
- State that the editorial board has made the retraction decision
If a retraction is due to the actions of only some of the authors, the statement should mention this. However, authorship entails some degree of joint responsibility for the entire work, so the author list of a work should not change after retraction.
A retraction statement may undergo amendments by consensus of the editorial board.
- Further reading
- Retraction guidelines, by COPE
- Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases, by COPE
Duties of the editor-in-chief
The editor-in-chief has final responsibilities for the operations and policies of the journal. Contact details of the editor-in-chief should be stated online. The editor-in-chief should act as the point of contact for questions relating to research and publication ethics. The editor-in-chief should acknowledge receipt of communications from institutions and should promptly bring the matter to the editorial board for action. The editor-in-chief should keep the public informed about any changes in the aims and scope of the journal.
The editor-in-chief should not disclose confidential details about work submissions with editor-in-chiefs of other journals, unless the following requirements are fulfilled:
- Such sharing is a necessary part of fulfilling the obligation to prevent and respond to suspected research misconduct
- The authors of the work have been informed about the issue at hand, and have not given a response, or the response was not satisfactory
- The disclosure is limited to journals which are suspected of having been targeted by the research misconduct at hand, or are believed to have pertinent information of the case at hand.
- The recipient editor-in-chief is notified about the sensitive nature of the information.
The amount of disclosed information should be limited to the minimum required. The shared information should be factual, while avoiding conjecture and speculation.
- Further reading
- Full ethics statement, by the WikiJournal User Group