WikiJournal of Science/Editorial guidelines

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiJournal of Science logo.svg

WikiJournal of Science
Wikipedia-integrated • Public peer review • Libre open access

Journal issues

WikiJournal of Science is an open-access, free-to-publish, Wikipedia-integrated academic journal for science, mathematics, engineering and technology topics. WJS WikiJSci Wiki.J.Sci. WikiJSci WikiSci WikiScience Wikiscience Wikijournal of Science Wikiversity Journal of Science WikiJournal Science Wikipedia Science Wikipedia science journal STEM Science Mathematics Engineering Technology Free to publish Open access Open-access Non-profit online journal Public peer review

This page describes the steps required to process an article through submission, peer review, formatting and publication.

Editing published works[edit]

Community peer review comments can always be left for articles before or after publication. For articles dual-published into Wikipedia, readers are also encouraged to directly improve or comment on the equivalent Wikipedia pages. Both authors and associate editors may correct spelling errors, minor grammatical errors and inconsistencies in reference formatting even for published works. Technical edits to pages are also allowed. On the other hand, a change in the meaning of the main text may be reverted since it may require renewed peer review and author approval. Suggestions for updates of the main text of published articles may be created as separate drafts that are re-submitted to undergo peer review before being used to update the article. It is recommended to state any conflicts of interest (or simply "none stated") when proposing changes to the main content of published articles. These requirements are not needed if the edits are obviously spelling or grammar corrections.

How to contribute[edit]

Help run the journal[edit]

Keep in touch[edit]

Outreach[edit]

Poster for noticeboards, tearooms and mailing lists

Outreach to potential contributors is essential for the journal, and the target audience may include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals

  • The journal may be presented at scholarly gatherings (Example presentation)
  • Many scholars have written theses that are not published, but sections of which could very well fit as an article
  • Also, university faculties may be asked to present the journal to their students, as a form of teaching about online information
    • Students are often required to complete a research project or literature review as a part of their studies, parts or all of which could be eligible for submission
  • Writing (or inviting scholars to write) articles about open access publishing, highlighting the journal as an example (e.g. AOASG and The Conversation)
  • Notify Wikipedia users (or editors at other Wikimedia projects) who may be interested in the project on their talk pages (Example entry)
  • Coordinate and collaborate with other journals or organizations with similar scope and reaching out to their users/subscribers through their mailing list
  • Spread the word with a poster

Improve systems and procedures[edit]

Other[edit]

Inviting a submission[edit]

Editors may invite submissions from anyone with suitable expertise. This can act as a way of commissioning an article on a specific topic to replace or update an existing Wikipedia article or as a new article to cover a missing topic.

For content not already on display in Wikimedia projects:

Article submission invitation template
Article submission confirmation template

Articles can be adapted from existing Wikipedia pages (or other Wikimedia content). These are submitted via nomination on this page on Wikipedia. Changes made in response to peer review are integrated back in the Wikipedia version after publication (example).

Wikipedia Article submission template

Receiving a submission[edit]

As described at the Publishing page, the corresponding author may write the article online or email it to Submissions@WikiJMed.org. In the latter case, the editor-in-chief then asks whether the author wants to have their works kept confidential up until publication, mentioning that processing and peer reviewing goes faster when submissions are put directly in the wiki. Still, authors may prefer confidential processing because 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. The authors' choice in this matter will determine the pathway of the ensuing procedure.

Works without need for confidentiality[edit]

In this case, the corresponding author is asked to create a WikiMedia account and upload the work directly to WikiJournal Preprints.

If authors find it troublesome to upload the works themselves, editors help out in this matter. Editors may also make edits similarly to editing published works.

Submitted works should be added as a row on the potential upcoming articles table. It is also recommended to mention submission at the talk page of the Wikipedia article of the same topic if such exists already.

Confidential works[edit]

Discussions related to confidential works need to be held privately, such as by restricted email to members of the editorial board and peer reviewers.

Importing from Wikipedia[edit]

If the submission is an existing Wikipedia article, (via nomination at the 'embassy page' in Wikipedia) it can be imported via the following steps:

  1. Special:Import the Wikipedia page to WikiJournal Preprints/Title (including transcluded templates; all previous revisions not necessary for large pages)
  2. Remove infobox, external links, and categories
  3. Add {{Article info}} template to article (works best with VisualEditor) and to discussion page
  4. Convert all links to links to point to Wikipedia by placing the convert_links template:
  5. Reformat figures from Wikipedia [[File:]] syntax to the WikiJournal numbered {{Fig}} template (numbered and attributed)
  6. Inform author by adding {{subst:JAN talk|article name}} to their Wikipedia talkpage

Creating location for peer review[edit]

Articles with no talkpage yet should have a link on the right hand menu to 'Create peer review location'. Clicking this should created a page that synchronises the article header information from the corresponding article (containing the preloaded text "{{#section-h:{{ARTICLEPAGENAMEE}}}}").

Plagiarism checking[edit]

All submitted works should first be checked for plagiarism. The copyvios tool will identify plagiarism of any online sources. Write the results on the Discuss-page of the submission, such as:

  • {{Pass}} Report from WMF copyvios tool: 3% Plagiarism (review the detected sections manually if exceeding this and note whether plagiarism is substantial or trivial), 97% Unique. ~~~~

Arranging peer review[edit]

Articles needing peer review can be seen at potential upcoming articles.

Responsibility[edit]

Each submitted work is designated to one or more "peer review coordinator" among journal editors. The review coordinator is in charge of organising the peer review invitations and monitoring the submission through the peer review process.

Introduction of review coordinators to authors template

Finding peer reviewers[edit]

Suitable peer reviewers can be found by the following methods:

  1. Authors may recommend suitably qualified peer reviewers to review their submitted manuscript. The peer review coordinator should look at this item in the authorship declaration form (access via editorial board googlegroup).
  2. The journal maintains a list of peer reviewers across a variety of specialities.
  3. Check the recent papers cited by the submission.
  4. Search scholarly databases using key phrases to find recent publications (e.g. G-Scholar, Pubmed, Scopus)
  5. Search by field or keyword in Publons
  6. Search by abstract or key phrases in JANE database.
  7. As a last possibility, authors may pay for a peer review to be performed by Rubriq (with a request to abide by the journal's peer review guidelines).

In general, prioritise contacting reviewers who've published during the last 5 years. In addition to contacting the corresponding authors, the less senior authors often have a higher response rates when contacted. The response rate of the first round of reviewer invitations can inform how many emails will be needed in the second round of invitations. It is worth considering whether to ensure that one of the peer reviewers was not specifically recommended by the authors (peer review coordinator's discretion).

Peer reviewers must fulfill the following criteria:

  • Public contact information, or be willing to be contacted by a Wikimedia volunteer by peer review verification if necessary, wherein only trusted participants know the identity.
  • Expertise in the specific field of the article to be reviewed and be willing to confirm their credentials if requested
  • Open identity recommended, but may remain anonymous

Prospective peer reviewers should also state any conflicts of interests if applicable. For example, if the peer reviewer is an author of an article that is used as a reference in the article submission at hand, this should be mentioned among conflicts of interest.

Inviting a peer reviewer[edit]

Invitation emails to potential peer reviewers are tailored to the associated article submissions and reviewer and may describe why that person in particular was chosen as a reviewer. Reviews should ideally be submitted via the peer review submission form. Example templates are included below.

Peer review request template (new content)
Peer review request template (from Wikipedia)

Reminding a peer reviewer[edit]

Note that reviewers will often respond to a second email even if they did not respond to the first.

Peer review reminder templates

Confirming a peer reviewer[edit]

Once a reviewer has confirmed that they are willing to review an article, the full manuscript should be provided. The email should contain the article to be reviewed as an attachment, and a link to the url if the pre-print draft is available. Be sure to check if the article authors have requested to be anonymised for the peer review.

Peer review confirmation template

Importing reviews[edit]

In case a work has already undergone a peer review by another journal or reviewing service, that peer review can count in WikiJournal of Science if the peer reviewer criteria are met. This requires that the editorial board gets to know the identity of the peer reviewer, and that the reviewer agrees to have it published under creative commons license (CC BY-SA). External peer reviews that do not fulfill these criteria should still be uploaded if possible, but do not count to the minimum of 2 independent peer reviews for each article.

Processing received peer reviews[edit]

Checking the review[edit]

Reviews submitted via the peer review form appear in the tracking spreadsheet (access via editorial board googlegroup). Received peer reviews should first be checked for any disclosure of conflicts of interests, even if merely saying "none declared". Emailed peer reviews should, in addition, be checked for inclusion of:

If the peer review lacks any of these criteria, a request should be sent to the peer reviewer to supplement to peer review.

Uploading the review[edit]

Submitted peer reviews will appear in the submitted review spreadsheet (access via editorial board googlegroup). Reviews should be added to the "discussion" page of the article after checking whether the reviewer requested anonymity. Ideally, it should be formatted with the {{Review}} template. If peer review was submitted as a PDF, then upload the file and add the link in the |pdf= parameter.

The author should be informed by email (in the authors declaration responses spreadsheet, access via editorial board googlegroup)

Reviewer comments submitted template

Article amendments and publication decision[edit]

Author response to review[edit]

At this stage, the authors of the article are asked to amend the issues brought up in the peer review.

  1. Editing the article itself to address any issues
  2. Responding to all comments raised by the reviewers (using the {{Response}}template)

Once the article has been revised, the peer reviewer(s) should be notified if they have requested it in the peer reviewer form (access via editorial board googlegroup). If the editor can also contact one or more peer reviewers again if they are uncertain whether an authors response fully addressed a reviewer's comments, or if the author has added significant new content that needs to be seen by a reviewer.

Reviewer final check template

Editorial decision[edit]

The peer review coordinators should make the initial assessment as to whether the author has sufficiently addressed the reviewer's comments (optionally, they can ask the peer reviews to check the amendments).

If the peer reviewers have no further issues in the work, they should notify the editorial board with a summary of their recommendation to accept, decline, request further changes, or contact additional peer reviewers. The editorial board will then take one-two weeks to form a consensus on whether the article is suitable for publication. In trivial cases (e.g. if the author has not responded to reviewer comments) the review coordinator can make the decision to decline and inform the editorial board.

Editorial board notification template

Accepting articles[edit]

Articles that are approved by the editorial board for inclusion in the journal go through the following processes:

  • Informing the corresponding author about article acceptance
  • Move the article page to "WikiJournal_of_Science/Title"*Assignment of a digital object identifier (DOI)
  • Addition of the |accepted= parameter and date to the {{Article info}} template of the article
  • Inclusion of the {{List entry}} template at the top of the current issue of WikiJournal of Science (source page located under "Journal issues" at top menu)
  • Creation of PDF file
  • Linking to an XML-file

Article authors may be asked to translate the abstract into other languages they know. A translated abstract should be put in the Wikiversity of that language if available.

Declining articles[edit]

If the decision is made to decline an article, the step are similar:

  • Informing the corresponding author about the decision and reasons
  • Addition of the |declined= parameter and date to the {{Article info}} template of the article
  • Addition of an explanation of the decision to the the article's
  • If the article was adapted from Wikipedia, addition to the talk page of the Wikipedia article pointing editors to the review

Inclusion of approved articles[edit]

Page location[edit]

Move the page from WikiJournal_Preprints/Title to WikiJournal of Science/Title

Assignment of digital object identifier[edit]

Assignment of a DOI to an article is done through Crossref by editorial board members (log-in details in editorial board googlegroup), through their web deposit form, using the following metadata:

Data Type Selection: Journal

Journal information
Title: WikiJournal of Science
Abbr.: Wiki J Sci
Journal DOI: 10.15347/wjs
URL: http://www.WikiJSci.org/
Print ISSN: (leave blank)
Elect ISSN: 24706345
Volume: 2 (for 2019; this is updated every year)
Issue: 1 (updated every 6-15 articles)
Issue DOI: (leave blank)
Issue URL: (leave blank)
Publication dates;
Type: print: (leave blank)
Type: online;
Year: 2019
Month: (leave blank)
Day: (leave blank)

Continue to "Add article", and enter article-specific details.

Article information
Title: title of article
DOI: 10.15347/wjs/2019.XXX (where XXX is the chronological order of the work for this year)
URL: full url of article
Contributors: add each author and their ORCID (affiliations are not needed).
First page: X (where X is the chronological order of the work for this year)
Last page: (leave blank)

Whenever metadata are updated, all applicable fields need to be filled in again and previous data is over-written.

User infromation
Username: see editorial board googlegroup
Password: see editorial board googlegroup
e-mail: Contact@WikiJSci.org

WikiJournal of Science template[edit]

Ensure that the {{Article info}} is filled in. In particular, the following will need to be added:

{{Artice info
|accepted = date of acceptance
|doi      = doi number (see prev section)
|pdf      = full URL to formatted PDF (see next section)
|other parameters etc....
}}

Alternatively, the information can be copied from the DOI assignment by using the DOI Wikipedia reference generator. The <ref name="...">{{cite journal| part should then be replaced with {{Article info|, and the template can subsequently be included in the article. The |pdf=, |affiliations=, |correspondence=, |orcid=, |submitted=, |accepted=, and |abstract=parameters will need to be added manually (See Article info template for more details on parameters).

Depositing XML[edit]

When a DOI has been obtained from Crossref and added to the article, a link will appear on the right of the article to 'Deposit' the XML. Clicking that link will create an /XML subpage containing the preloaded text "{{#section-h:{{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAMEE}}|volume|issue}}}}" which, when saved, will format the XML metadata automatically (Example). Alternatively, an XML-file will be sent to Contact@WikiJSci.org which can be pasted into the /XML subpage. One saved, the link on the right of the article will read 'Download' in stead of 'Deposit'.

Inclusion in the current volume and issue[edit]

Articles should be included in the current journal issue using the {{List entry}}. The parameters for this template can be copied across from the {{Article info}} template, replacing {{Article info|... with {{List entry|....

Inform the authors[edit]

Authors should be notified with the article's acceptance and its doi. Authors can assist in several of the post-acceptance steps if they choose by formatting the PDF and/or integrating content into Wikipedia. Otherwise a journal editor should do these.

Article acceptance template

PDF files[edit]

Creation of PDF files[edit]

  1. First, the article's {{Article info}} template should be checked to make sure that the information is up to date
  2. The PDF should be formatted using the standardised blank template (MS word 2013 or later recommended)
    Accepted article formatting template (.docx)
  3. Text sections and publication data (e.g. date) are copied and pasted from the wiki page into the docx template
  4. Use Ctrl+H to find-replace "^s" with space (WikiMarkup often includes non-breaking spaces)
  5. Remove "↑ Jump to" from reference list
  6. Dysfunctional URL links to Wikipedia articles may be repaired by replacing %2520 with underscores with (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Cerebral%2520cortex|Cerebral%2520cortex]])
    1. Alt+F9 (to show field codes)
    2. Ctrl+H (to find-replace "%2520" with "_")
    3. Alt+F9 (to hide field codes again)
  7. File > Options > Advanced > Image Size and Quality > "Do Not Compress images in file" (retain full-resolution images)
  8. File > Save as > docx
  9. File > Save as > PDF (avoid PDF "printing" since this can lead to misformatting)

Uploading PDF files to the journal[edit]

Once a PDF has been generated, it needs to be associated with the article.

{{Artice info
|pdf = https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiversity/en/.....pdf
|other parameters etc....
}}

Updating PDF files[edit]

When a minor update to an article is needed, the docx version (linked from the bottom of the wiki page) should be used as the starting template, with changes copied across from the article's wiki page.

For major updates, it may be best to create the document again from scratch using the blank .docx template.

The updated PDF can be uploaded by going to the File:[Article title].pdf page and clicking "Upload a new version of this file".

Wikipedia inclusion[edit]

Different types of articles have differing potential for Wikipedia integration. Articles that review and summarise existing knowledge from other reliable sources can be copied as content into Wikipedia. Original research cannot be copied into Wikipedia. Any content integrated into Wikipedia will then be updatable over time in the same manner as any other Wikipedia content. Please note that it is up to the consensus of the Wikipedia editor community as to whether to accept, edit or omit any added content.

The author(s) of the WikiJournal article should be invited to perform this integration.
The edit summary may include a link to the work in WikiJournal for at least the first edit summary, for example "Adding/Updating section XYZ from [[v:WikiJournal_of_Science/Spaces_in_mathematics]]"

As content[edit]

Only encyclopedic content should be integrated into the encyclopedia. In all cases, any discussion, speculation or outlook sections should be omitted from the version integrated into Wikipedia.

Adjustment to Wikipedia style

Changes in the material for Wikipedia may include:

  • Decide which parts of the WikiJournal article to omit from the Wikipedia page (original research / opinions / perspectives / conclusions)
  • Decide which parts of the Wikipedia page to keep, when they were not included in the WikiJournal article
  • Reformat the code for figures from the WikiJournal {{fig|}} template to Wikipedia [[File:]] syntax and resize (Wikipedia:Help:Pictures)
  • Add the {{Academic peer reviewed}} template in the References (example)
  • If an image appears only in Wikiversity but not in the Wikipedia article, move it to Wikimedia Commons: Moving files to Commons
  • Remove w: prefixes in links (tidier, but not strictly necessary)
  • Replace [[xyz|xyz]] with [[xyz]] (tidier, but not strictly necessary)

WikiData inclusion[edit]

Articles and authors can have Wikidata items created via this tool. Articles are added via their DOI, and authors via their ORCID. Several can be added at once as a batch.

Currently any update of Wikidata items based on the content of a WikiJournal article has to be done manually.

Scientific misconduct[edit]

Any person suspecting scientific misconduct of any article should contact the editor-in-chief or an editorial board members, who in turn should bring any suspected scientific misconduct to the knowledge of the entire board. COPE has flowcharts for different types of situations: [1].

Upon suspected scientific misconduct by an author or reviewer, the next step is generally that an editor contacts the corresponding author or reviewer to ask for an explanation. COPE has examples of letters to authors in such cases sample-letters. Such letters should not accuse authors or reviewers, but should rather state the facts clearly, and allow them to explain their actions before coming to a decision.

See also

Ethics statement

Adding and removing journal editors[edit]

Adding editorial board members[edit]

Once an editorial board member applicant has clear consensus (relevant bylaws), they can be accepted to the board by the following steps.

  1. Add this text {{subst:WikiJournal accepted board member}} underneath their application on the editorial board applications page, which will paste these points as a checklist
  2. Send a welcome message and confirm their preferred email address
  3. Copy their information over to editorial board page using the {{WikiJournal editor summary}} template
  4. Direct-add them to the WJSboard mailing list (via this link) which will grant them access to the private page only visible to board members
  5. Welcome them at the WJSboard mailing list so that they are informed

Finally, move the application to [[Talk:WikiJournal of Science/Editors/Archive_{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}|this year's archive page]]

Onboarding email template

Removing editorial board members[edit]

Members can be removed from the editorial board by their own request (either completely, or changing to be an associate editor) or can be voted out (WikiJournal of Science/Bylaws#Section_3._Removal relevant bylaws).

  1. Removal from the WJSboard mailing list (via this link)
  2. Moving their information from the editorial board page to the Previous board members section
  3. Removal of any social media accesses that they were granted
  4. Send a confirmation email to them and cc in the WJSboard mailing list so that they and the board are informed

Adding associate editors[edit]

Associate editors are accepted by consensus of the editorial board, and their addition follows these steps

  1. Add this text {{subst:WikiJournal accepted associate editor}} underneath their application on the associate editor applications page, which will paste these points as a checklist
  2. Send a welcome message and confirm their preferred email address
  3. Copy their information over to the associate editor page using the {{WikiJournal editor summary}} template
  4. Email the WJSboard mailing list so that they are informed

Finally, move the application to [[Talk:WikiJournal of Science/Editors/Archive_{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}|this year's archive page]] Note that associate editors are not added to the WJSboard mailing list and so do not gain access to journal passwords or confidential information.

Onboarding email template

Removing associate editors[edit]

Members can be removed from the associate editor team by their own request, they can request to join the editorial board, or can be voted out (WikiJournal of Science/Bylaws#Section_3._Removal relevant bylaws).

  1. Removal of their information from the associate editor page
  2. Removal of any social media accesses that they were granted
  3. Send a confirmation email to them and cc in the WJSboard mailing list so that they and the board are informed

Social media accounts[edit]

Adding admins[edit]

Editors interested in being an admin for a journal's Facebook and Twitter accounts should contact the Editor in Chief and/or current social media team. Admins can be either added directly by the EiC, or by consensus of the current social media admins. New admins should be added to the social media admin google group.

Due to the very public nature of social media, there is a two-week probationary period before being being given account passwords:

Twitter is especially sensitive, since a single account password is shared, whereas for Facebook users can be added as having 'editor' permissions to post content.

Recommended use of social media[edit]

General guidelines:

  • Be sure anything shared/reposted aligns with journal principles
  • When citing a publication, always include the doi
  • Include an image whenever possible

Examples posts:

  • A catchy summary of published WikiJournal article
  • Retweet article summary from other WikiJournal that may be relevant to audience
  • Any info from WikiJournal site (e.g. aims / scope / editor info etc)
  • Relevant news articles from other outlets
  • Retweet relevant posts (about e.g. open access, Wikipedia, outreach, science communications)