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>rg>, 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_reliable_sources#User-g… "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 Editorial_guidelines#Wikipedia_inclusion _______________________________________________ WikiJournal-en mailing list WikiJournal-en(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikijournal-en

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(a)rpi.edu> 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 <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 &lt;R.Watson(a)hull.ac.uk&gt; wrote: -- *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 <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>

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 &lt;pld(a)chem.ucla.edu&gt; Date: 2018-06-18 9:58 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Thomas Shafee &lt;thomas.shafee(a)gmail.com&gt; Cc: Roger Watson &lt;R.Watson(a)hull.ac.uk&gt;uk>, Andrew Leung &lt;andrewcleung(a)hotmail.com&gt;om>, WikiJournal participants &lt;wikijournal-en(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt;rg>, Mikael Häggström &lt;editor.in.chief(a)wikijmed.org&gt;rg>, wjmboard &lt;wjmboard(a)googlegroups.com&gt;om>, WJH board &lt;wjhboard(a)googlegroups.com&gt;om>, WJS board &lt;wjsboard(a)googlegroups.com&gt; 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<https://publicationethics.org/membership>ip>, AOSPA<https://oaspa.org/membership/membership-criteria/>a/>, 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<mailto: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<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not…ce>. 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>ip>, AOSPA<https://oaspa.org/membership/membership-criteria/>a/>, 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/Editoria… 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<mailto: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 Mobile: +447808480547<tel:+44%207808%20480547> On 18 Jun 2018, at 17:53, Andrew Leung <andrewcleung@hotmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:iany@scenarioplus.org.uk>> Date: 2018-06-18 12:50 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Mikael Häggström <<editor.in.chief@wikijmed.org<mailto:editor.in.chief@wikijmed.org>> Cc: "WikiJournal (currently at Wikiversity)" <wikijournal-en@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikijournal-en@lists.wikimedia.org>>, wjmboard <wjmboard@googlegroups.com<mailto:wjmboard@googlegroups.com>>, WJH board <wjhboard@googlegroups.com<mailto:wjhboard@googlegroups.com>>, WJS board <wjsboard@googlegroups.com<mailto: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-g… "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 Editorial_guidelines#Wikipedia_inclusion _______________________________________________ WikiJournal-en mailing list WikiJournal-en@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto: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<mailto:wjmboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to wjmboard@googlegroups.com<mailto: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/YQBPR0101MB156991ADC78D0E83FCA5C…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@googlegroups.com<mailto:wjhboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to wjhboard@googlegroups.com<mailto: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-E6626BA9…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-b… | 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@googlegroups.com<mailto:wjsboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to wjsboard@googlegroups.com<mailto: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/CAFikvs3n5hHbyTA9GMMNO80sFS54NR6…footer>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 &lt;thomas.shafee(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Hi Sylvain, I guess I wasn't clear about when criticism is important to be kept anonymous. I was referring to original articles that publish new data. If I understand correctly from the link you sent me, that is a review article and most reviewer comments are rather about form and presentation. If WikiJ only intends to publish reviews and not original data then it is likely that most reviewers will be fine to reveal their identity. As for people getting credit for reviewing, there are other options, for example publons.com that can collect reviews and send a somewhat official summary of one's reviewing activity. I hope this helps, Paula On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Sylvain Ribault &lt;s.g.ribault(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Hi All, I just wanted to chime in with one other point. Review articles in conventional journals sometimes contain the authors opinion or speculations and some outlook for future work/challenges/opportunities in a cutting edge field. This is not considered "original research" by journal standards, since it has no new data, but would certainly be considered OR by Wikipedia standards. Thus, we do need to be sensitive to the distinction. 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(a)googlegroups.com [wjsboard(a)googlegroups.com] on behalf of Ian Alexander [iany(a)scenarioplus.org.uk] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 4:13 AM To: pld(a)chem.ucla.edu Cc: Sylvain Ribault; WikiJournal participants; wjmboard; WJH board; WJS board Subject: Re: [WikiJournal-en] WikiJournal as a reference in Wikipedia Paula, you are probably correct that reviewers of review articles will be more willing to drop anonymity. However, this does not address the issue we face with getting WJ materials treated as reliable over at Wikipedia, as by their nature review articles can be fully cited to external sources, and can be copied straight over to Wikipedia, fully sourced. The issue is acute with original research articles, which we would also like to encourage; at the moment, we can only copy over the non-original parts of those articles, which will typically be the historical background of existing research in the field, i.e. the introductory section. We might conclude that WJScience (and perhaps WJMed) should focus on review articles, which are a natural match for Wikipedia but which will be more thoroughly and professionally reviewed. In that case, traditional reviewers' anonymity may be the best option, enabling reviewers to comment completely freely. Just a Wikipedian's thoughts. Ian Book: The English Love Affair with Nature, 2015 http://www.obsessedbynature.com -- 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 an email to wjsboard(a)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/a985dae629bd1614a090c973721370d7…. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.