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

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

WikiJournal of Science logo.svg
WikiJournal of Science

An open access journal with no publication costs – About

ISSN: 2470-6345
www.WikiJSci.org
Frequency: Continuous

Funding: Wikimedia Foundation
Publisher: WikiJournal User Group
On social media

Feed-icon.svg RSS feed
Facebook icon.svg Facebook
AIMMP@Twitter.png Twitter
Aiga mail.svg Mailing list

Contact

Contribute


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

Editing published works[edit]

Both authors and associate editors may correct spelling errors, minor grammatical errors and inconsistencies in reference formatting even for published works. It is also allowed to make technical edits to the pages. 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. Edit suggestions can also be added at the Discuss page of each resource (linked near the top). 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 as normal, and 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 email restricted to members of the editorial board and peer reviewers.

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:

  • Artículo bueno.svg 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 instructions are available to editorial board members at the Google group of the board).
  2. The journal maintains a list of list of peer reviewers across a variety of specialities.
  3. Check through the papers cited by the submission.
  4. Search scholarly databases using key phrases from the article (e.g. G-Scholar, Pubmed, and Scopus).
  5. Search JANE database using sections of the text and/or keywords.
  6. 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.

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
  • Review may be anonymous or non-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. 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]

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]

Emailed peer reviews that fulfill the criteria are added to the "discussion" page of the article.

Firstly, the peer review text is added to the discussion page using the {{Review}} template. If peer review was submitted as a PDF, then the |pdf= parameter is used to link to the uploaded file. The {{Article info}} template should also be copied from the article main page to the discussion page.

Secondly, on the article's main page, the {{Article info}} template should have the |rev_permalink= parameter added, with a url indicating the specific version of the page that was peer reviewed.

{{Artice info
|rev_permalink = https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Images_of_Aerococcus_urinae&oldid=1297344
|other parameters etc....
}}

The peer reviewer can be invited to sign up at the peer reviewer list for future submissions in their field of interest. Confidential reviewers can contact the editorial board for future notifications.

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, preferably including a link showing the changes in the article as can be selected in the Page history.

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.

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
  • Assignment of a digital object identifier (DOI)
  • Move the article page to "WikiJournal_of_Science/Title"
  • 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 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]

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 google group discusson board), 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: 1 (for 2018; 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: 2018
Month: (leave blank)
Day: (leave blank)

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

Article information
Title: title of article
DOI: the doi should be constructed as: 10.15347/wjs/2018.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: 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.

WikiJournal of Science template[edit]

Ensure that the {{Article info}} is filled in. 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=, |review=,|affiliations=, |correspondence=, |orcid=, |submitted=, |accepted=, and |abstract=parameters will need to be added manually (See Article info template for more details on parameters).

Linking to XML[edit]

When submitting doi metadata to Crossref, an XML-file will be sent to Contact@WikiJMed.org. The code should be uploaded to a /XML subpage of the article (Example), which becomes automatically linked from the article in the {{Article info}} template. Adding the tag <syntaxhighlight lang="xml"> will improve the layout of the page.

Inclusion in the current volume and issue[edit]

Articles should be included in the current WikiJournal of Science issue of the journal using the {{List entry}}. Again, the generated citation from DOI Wikipedia reference generator can be copied into this one, replacing <ref name="...">{{cite journal| with{{list entry|.

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 "_"(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 > Save as > docx
  8. 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 will require different 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.

The author(s) of the WikiJournal article should be invited to perform this integration, and should be recommended to include "as author of the article in WikiJournal" or similarly in the Edit summary to declare the conflict of interest.
If the author(s) does not intend to add it in an immediate future, a WikiJournal editor should include appropriate material.
The edit summary should preferably 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)

As a reference[edit]

There is an ongoing discussion at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard whether WikiJournal of Science can be used as a reference in Wikipedia, which would allow even original research to be included in Wikipedia.

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