I very much second the importance of a DOI. In my work with faculty at my
institution and their scholarly publishing,I've noticed that the new age of
alt-metrics is catching on, and the DOI is the key to some of those
numbers. Alt-metrics may be the attraction point for open access journals,
but without a way to capture that data, it will be a lost opportunity.
--Sarah
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Rachel Helps <rachel_helps(a)byu.edu> wrote:
I definitely mentioned the WikiJournal of Humanities
when I was at the
Leadership Bootcamp last weekend—people were interested! It also may take
some time before a professor can use the journal on their tenure
application. One of the other participants at the conference mentioned that
since predatory journals are becoming more popular, tenure committees are
more wary of new journals. Getting ISSN/DOI are good steps to improving our
images a legitimate.
-Rachel
*From:* WikiJournal-en <wikijournal-en-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org> *On
Behalf Of *Andrew Leung
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 19, 2018 5:53 AM
*To:* pld(a)chem.ucla.edu; Thomas Shafee <thomas.shafee(a)gmail.com>
*Cc:* WJH board <wjhboard(a)googlegroups.com>om>; Roger Watson <
R.Watson(a)hull.ac.uk>gt;; WJS board <wjsboard(a)googlegroups.com>om>; WikiJournal
participants <wikijournal-en(a)lists.wikimedia.org>rg>; wjmboard <
wjmboard(a)googlegroups.com>
*Subject:* Re: [WikiJournal-en] WikiJournal as a reference in Wikipedia
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(a)chem.ucla.edu>
Date: 2018-06-18 9:58 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Thomas Shafee <thomas.shafee(a)gmail.com>
Cc: Roger Watson <R.Watson(a)hull.ac.uk>uk>, Andrew Leung <
andrewcleung(a)hotmail.com>gt;, WikiJournal participants <wikijournal-en@lists.
wikimedia.org>, Mikael Häggström <editor.in.chief(a)wikijmed.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
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>, AOSPA
<https://oaspa.org/membership/membership-criteria/>, Scopus, Pubmed, and
Web of Science things will improve.
Paula
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:20 PM, Thomas Shafee <thomas.shafee(a)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/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@lists.
wikimedia.org>, wjmboard <wjmboard(a)googlegroups.com>om>, WJH board <
wjhboard(a)googlegroups.com>gt;, 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-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
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(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/
msgid/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/
msgid/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/group/wjsboard.
To view this discussion on the web, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/
msgid/wjsboard/CAFikvs3n5hHbyTA9GMMNO80sFS54NR6Trn5K_xGPr9KPcjdKJA%40mail.
gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wjsboard/CAFikvs3n5hHbyTA9GMMNO80sFS54NR6Trn5K_xGPr9KPcjdKJA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________
WikiJournal-en mailing list
WikiJournal-en(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikijournal-en