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
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_WikiJournal_of_Science>
.
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
<https://publicationethics.org/membership>, AOSPA
<https://oaspa.org/membership/membership-criteria/>, 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
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Science/Editorial_guidelines/Message_templates#Confirming_a_reviewer>
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(a)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
Mobile: +447808480547 <+44%207808%20480547>
On 18 Jun 2018, at 17:53, Andrew Leung <andrewcleung(a)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(a)scenarioplus.org.uk>
Date: 2018-06-18 12:50 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Mikael Häggström <<editor.in.chief(a)wikijmed.org>
Cc: "WikiJournal (currently at Wikiversity)" <
wikijournal-en(a)lists.wikimedia.org>gt;, wjmboard <wjmboard(a)googlegroups.com>om>,
WJH board <wjhboard(a)googlegroups.com>om>, WJS board <
wjsboard(a)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_reliabl
e_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/Edit
orial_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
iceboard#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(a)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(a)googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to wjmboard(a)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/ms
gid/wjmboard/YQBPR0101MB156991ADC78D0E83FCA5CE9BD2710%
40YQBPR0101MB1569.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjmboard/YQBPR0101MB156991ADC78D0E83FCA5CE9BD2710%40YQBPR0101MB1569.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
.
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(a)googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to wjhboard(a)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/ms
gid/wjhboard/96101525-33C2-40FC-82DF-E6626BA931BF%40hull.ac.uk
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjhboard/96101525-33C2-40FC-82DF-E6626BA931BF%40hull.ac.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
.
For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
*AgriBio* & *La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science* | Postdoctoral
research fellow
Profiles at ResearchGate
<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Shafee> | LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/T-Shafee> | GScholar
<http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=m6Qd3zIAAAAJ> |
AltMetric
<https://www.altmetric.com/explorer/report/9048e6b2-9f82-49b4-b786-2d56740804e3>
| Wikipedia
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evolution_and_evolvability>
--
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(a)googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to wjsboard(a)googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjsboard/CAFikvs3n5hHbyTA9GMMNO80sFS54NR6Trn5K_xGPr9KPcjdKJA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
For more options, visit