Thanks Andrew and Thomas for your inputs.

I feel that unless people come to know about our journals, submissions will not pour in. So, in order to attract quality submissions we need to build a reputation. Social media, blogposts, publication of articles in various forms including in Signpost and Wikimedia blog, are all very important in this regard.

I would encourage Mikael and Thomas to write two independent articles for Wikimedia blog and Wikiedu blog. Others are welcome to join in and assist. Signpost is perhaps the next important thing and perhaps Andrew can help.

Regards
Diptanshu

  
Please do not print this e-mail unless you really need to. 

On 19 June 2018 at 18:59, Thomas Shafee <thomas.shafee@gmail.com> wrote:
My priority suggestions:

Priority 1: Articles
The best way to build a reputation for quality content is to generate quality content by Inviting high-quality articles from authors in our networks, and ensuring peer review progresses rigorously and efficiently.

Priority 2: Editors
For better or worse, journals are also judged by the prestige of the names attached to the editorial team. We should establish a system to engage additional 'renowned/big-name/prestigious' editors who aren't involved in board discussions, wiki-integration and technical aspects, but would be useful for helping to invite articles, organise peer reviews, and comment on articles. It is also a way to gain useful endorsement (see discussion here).

Priority 3: Social media
I agree that now is the time for WikiJSci to start reputation-building with media outreach (primarily to WikiMedians and pro-Wikipedia academics). Andrew, would you mind contacting the Signpost (prev signpost article)? I'll contact the WMF blog (prev blog article).

Larger outreach to general public media (like radio/newspapers etc) can be a later wave once we've built the portfolio further.

Kelee, Jack and Melanie have got a set of social media posts lined up and ready to launch over the coming weeks. Feel free to suggest posts:
Exciting times!
Thomas

On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 at 21:53 Andrew Leung <andrewcleung@hotmail.com> wrote:
In light of that recent discussion, I think we should ramp up the promotional messages like blogpost, Twitter, mailing list announcement and maybe even a Wikipedia Signpost interview to make the wider community be aware of our existence.

Andrew



Sent from my smartphone. Apologies for any typos.


-------- Original message --------
From: Paula Diaconescu <pld@chem.ucla.edu>
Date: 2018-06-18 9:58 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Thomas Shafee <thomas.shafee@gmail.com>
Cc: Roger Watson <R.Watson@hull.ac.uk>, Andrew Leung <andrewcleung@hotmail.com>, WikiJournal participants <wikijournal-en@lists.wikimedia.org>, Mikael Häggström <editor.in.chief@wikijmed.org>, wjmboard <wjmboard@googlegroups.com>, WJH board <wjhboard@googlegroups.com>, WJS board <wjsboard@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiJournal-en] WikiJournal as a reference in Wikipedia

Hi everybody,

I understand that WikiJournal is broad, but, in my experience, what increases the reputation of a journal is a rigorous peer review system. The process does have a bit of catch-22 built in it because good reviewers don't want to take on articles from new journals, but that's where the editors need to step in and persuade reputable reviewers to take on the task. I personally am not a big fan of open identity reviewers. I think that, although one shouldn't take the scientific process personally, it is still difficult to accept criticism and it is a lot easier to make enemies if the criticisms are strong. Very few authors/reviewers are capable to not take it personally and those that unmask their identity tend not to have too many criticisms (a fact that, in itself, could question the quality of the review).

I agree that once WikiJournals are audited and certified by COPE, AOSPA, Scopus, Pubmed, and Web of Science things will improve.

Paula

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:20 PM, Thomas Shafee <thomas.shafee@gmail.com> wrote:
Good points. My position on this:

To clarify, WikiJournal material can still be integrated into Wikipedia as previously, the only thing is that it shouldn't currently be used as the sole support for a statement (particularly for articles going through internal good article or featured article review). Wikipedia can often have strict standards on what is a sufficiently reliable source, so I suspect that almost any journal with only 1 issue published would face the same scepticism at Wikipedia Reliable sources Noticeboard.

If the position is that WikiJournals don't have enough reputation yet, then that doesn't change our plans particularly to continue building a reputation. I've had a similar response when approaching some authors of "I think I'll wait until the reputation is built". Many academics (especially in person, as opposed to by email) have been enthusiastic, so it's a case of proving ourselves over the coming years.
 
If the position is that WikiJournals fundamentally can never have a good enough reputation then I think that's based on flawed assumptions (like we don't check reviewer identities) and can be countered. It will also be countered as WikiJournals are audited and certified by COPE, AOSPA, Scopus, Pubmed, and Web of Science.

WikiJMed is currently being considered by COPE, so I propose that WikiJSci similarly apply once we have feedback from WikiJMed's experience. We can also encourage more peer reviewers to have their identities open. Our current reviewer confirmation email template uses the phrase: "Both anonymous and non-anonymous reviews are permitted (approx 60% of our reviewers choose to have their identity open)..."
We could word to make more positive, and stating a preference for open identities like: "We believe that having reviewer identities open builds trust in the review process, however you may remain anonymous upon request"

Overall, I think that it's a useful litmus test of some Wikipedian views, but the already-intended reputation building plans should address them.
Thomas


On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 at 05:32 Roger Watson <R.Watson@hull.ac.uk> wrote:
My only contribution to this - apart from astonishment at Wikipedia not considering a peer reviewed journal within its own stable as a reliable source - is that in trying to create and edit Wikipedia pages and watching mine develop as others try to add to it, is a great deal of inconsistency across pages. I note for example one colleagues page has his books listed; someone did the same for mine and this was deleted in the basis of being a ‘shopping list’ and replaced by a very unhelpful list of my three most cited papers. I see same editor did this to another page that I happen to be working on. On the other hand I look at the page belonging to my cousin - a Dame - and it seems if your really elevated that anything goes in terms of what can be listed. 

Roger
Sent from my iPhone
Twitter: @rwatson1955
Skype: roger.watson3

On 18 Jun 2018, at 17:53, Andrew Leung <andrewcleung@hotmail.com> wrote:

Or use the ultimate trump card: IAR (ignore all rules if it prevents you from improving Wikipedia)

Andrew

Sent from my smartphone. Apologies for any typos.


-------- Original message --------
From: Ian Alexander <iany@scenarioplus.org.uk>
Date: 2018-06-18 12:50 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Mikael Häggström <<editor.in.chief@wikijmed.org>
Cc: "WikiJournal (currently at Wikiversity)" <wikijournal-en@lists.wikimedia.org>, wjmboard <wjmboard@googlegroups.com>, WJH board <wjhboard@googlegroups.com>, WJS board <wjsboard@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiJournal-en] WikiJournal as a reference in Wikipedia

Mikael, colleagues

The discussion seems clearly against accepting WJ as a 'reliable source'
at the moment. It is unclear to me whether joining the discussion to argue
about reviewers' anonymity and the academic status of the board would
improve matters.

I have 3 observations:

1) We may hope that in a few years' time, WJ has enough reputation that
Wikipedia will be willing to treat it as a reliable journal.

2) We are free to cut-and-paste to Wikipedia any WJ material which is
sufficiently well cited to reliable sources, which would include
peer-reviewed papers already published elsewhere by WJ authors. I note
that mathematics articles seem to require fewer citations both on
Wikipedia and in WJScience.

3) We could, I think, use material on WJ that isn't covered by citations
in the same way as material on a known scientist's blog: Wikipedia allows
'blog' postings to be cited provided it can be shown that the person
posting it is a recognised authority.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#User-generated_content
"Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an
established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by
reliable third-party publications.") Mikael might or might not wish to try
to confirm that on the discussion group.

Ian




> Hi all,
>
> WikiJournal content can be used in Wikipedia as per
Editorial_guidelines#Wikipedia_inclusion
> <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Editorial_guidelines#Wikipedia_inclusion>,
> such as reviews based on other reliable sources.
>
> There is currently an online discussion whether content from WikiJournal of
> Science can be a reliable source in Wikipedia, which would allow original
> research from WikiJournal to be added to Wikipedia as well. I'd appreciate
> additional input to this:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_WikiJournal_of_Science
>
> If the consensus is to deny this usage in Wikipedia, we could either settle
> for adding only content such as material from reviews, as well as images.
> Alternatively, we could make a better case by not allowing peer reviewers
> to process articles anonymously, and thereby base reliability on their
> credentials, in addition to the judgement of the boards. But first we'll
> see how this discussion goes.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mikael
>


_______________________________________________
WikiJournal-en mailing list
WikiJournal-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikijournal-en

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WJM board" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wjmboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to wjmboard@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wjmboard.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjmboard/YQBPR0101MB156991ADC78D0E83FCA5CE9BD2710%40YQBPR0101MB1569.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WJH board" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wjhboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to wjhboard@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wjhboard.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjhboard/96101525-33C2-40FC-82DF-E6626BA931BF%40hull.ac.uk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--


AgriBio & La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science | Postdoctoral research fellow

Profiles at ResearchGate | LinkedIn | GScholar | AltMetric | Wikipedia




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WJS board" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wjsboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to wjsboard@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wjsboard.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjsboard/CAFikvs3n5hHbyTA9GMMNO80sFS54NR6Trn5K_xGPr9KPcjdKJA%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--


AgriBio & La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science | Postdoctoral research fellow

Profiles at ResearchGate | LinkedIn | GScholar | AltMetric | Wikipedia




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WJM board" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wjmboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to wjmboard@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wjmboard.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjmboard/CAFikvs39eudL1Wqu3bhb6BNuv7ZaLzZfAWvr_SznvdCAhnP7MQ%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.