I think that we DEFINITELY need to join the discussion and counter any invalid claims that might tend to ignorantly prove conclude that WikiJournals cannot act as reliable source. The peer review process and stringent quality control norms are in place to ensure that the published matter is citable and reliable. While we are open to ideas for improvisation, we need to emphasise on the integrity of the process already in place.

Regards
Diptanshu

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

On 18 June 2018 at 22:42, Palermo, Edmund Francis <palere@rpi.edu> wrote:
Hi All,

I would like to take the opposing viewpoint. That is, the purpose of our peer review process is to ensure that the articles are indeed a reliable source of information. If the articles we publish are not reliable, they why are we publishing them at all?

Best,
Ed

---
Edmund F. Palermo
Assistant Professor
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Materials Science & Engineering Department
110 8th Street
Troy, NY 12180

Office: MRC 206
Lab: MRC 229
Office phone: (518) 276-6124
Cell phone: (734) 660-1685
From: wjsboard@googlegroups.com [wjsboard@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Andrew Leung [andrewcleung@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 12:53 PM
To: WikiJournal participants; Mikael Häggström
Cc: wjmboard; WJH board; WJS board

Subject: Re: [WikiJournal-en] WikiJournal as a reference in Wikipedia

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 "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/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 "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/A567753F3417C94E87E0D03574ABFD59F03C130D%40EX14MB6.win.rpi.edu.

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