Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[Samuel Klein]

Indeed... there is no wikiversity phd.  Nor is one planned in the near
future in any language, as far as I know.
Getting WV courses onto accredited platforms seems like a step towards
alignment (or perhaps first: working w/ an existing set of accredited
courses and getting their materials onto WV as a non-accredited space to
find and learn from those materials!)

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 8:35 PM Thomas Shafee 
wrote:

> Hi Amirouche,
>
> It's definitely possible to write articles in WikiJournals without a PhD (
> example ). External peer reviewers
> are invited in the same way whether the author is some top prof or an
> undergrad.
>
> I definitely think that WikiJournal articles can be useful for Wikiversity
> courses (example , example
> ). Bu I think that the two projects
> have different technical needs.
>
> As far as I know, Wikiversity is currently not accredited in any country -
> a process usually tightly regulated by governments (Australia example
> ). Wikiversity is therefore more like P2PU
>  than Open University
> , in that it can offer courses and
> provide completion badges, but not yet award formal PhDs. I don't now
> whether there are any users working on it, but accreditation for
> Wikiversity courses would probably be most easily achieved by partnering
> with established accredited universities, a bit like coursera
> , but that would still be a pretty major
> project.
>
> Hope that is useful info!
> All the best,
> Thomas
>
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 15:39, Amirouche Boubekki <
> amirouche.boube...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> > I am new to the mailing list and more generaly on wikipedia as
> contributor
> > and as student in wikiversity.
> >
> > I did not know about WikiJournals as part of Wikiversity. My only remark
> > will be that the wikiveristy
> > PhD program is in poor shape. I was lost in the various tools I had to
> use
> > and broken links.
> > Most if not all conversation are old-ish and doesn't say the PhD program
> is
> > active or working
> > at all. (French wikiveristy is in much better shape).
> >
> > I am certain that the implementation of wikijournal as sister project
> will
> > have more impact for WikiJournal.
> > My point is with a better english wikiversity, both could have more
> impact.
> >
> >
> > I think, forking wikijournals outside wikiverity will have a bad impact
> on
> > wikiversity.
> >
> > Also, is it possible to write a publication in the journal without prior
> > PhD?
> > Can publication in the wikijournal help obtain the wikiveristy PhD?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Amirouche ~ amz3
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[Thomas Shafee]

Hi Amirouche,

It's definitely possible to write articles in WikiJournals without a PhD (
example ). External peer reviewers
are invited in the same way whether the author is some top prof or an
undergrad.

I definitely think that WikiJournal articles can be useful for Wikiversity
courses (example , example
). Bu I think that the two projects
have different technical needs.

As far as I know, Wikiversity is currently not accredited in any country -
a process usually tightly regulated by governments (Australia example
). Wikiversity is therefore more like P2PU
 than Open University
, in that it can offer courses and
provide completion badges, but not yet award formal PhDs. I don't now
whether there are any users working on it, but accreditation for
Wikiversity courses would probably be most easily achieved by partnering
with established accredited universities, a bit like coursera
, but that would still be a pretty major
project.

Hope that is useful info!
All the best,
Thomas

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 15:39, Amirouche Boubekki <
amirouche.boube...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
> I am new to the mailing list and more generaly on wikipedia as contributor
> and as student in wikiversity.
>
> I did not know about WikiJournals as part of Wikiversity. My only remark
> will be that the wikiveristy
> PhD program is in poor shape. I was lost in the various tools I had to use
> and broken links.
> Most if not all conversation are old-ish and doesn't say the PhD program is
> active or working
> at all. (French wikiveristy is in much better shape).
>
> I am certain that the implementation of wikijournal as sister project will
> have more impact for WikiJournal.
> My point is with a better english wikiversity, both could have more impact.
>
>
> I think, forking wikijournals outside wikiverity will have a bad impact on
> wikiversity.
>
> Also, is it possible to write a publication in the journal without prior
> PhD?
> Can publication in the wikijournal help obtain the wikiveristy PhD?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Amirouche ~ amz3
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[Amirouche Boubekki]

Hello,


I am new to the mailing list and more generaly on wikipedia as contributor
and as student in wikiversity.

I did not know about WikiJournals as part of Wikiversity. My only remark
will be that the wikiveristy
PhD program is in poor shape. I was lost in the various tools I had to use
and broken links.
Most if not all conversation are old-ish and doesn't say the PhD program is
active or working
at all. (French wikiveristy is in much better shape).

I am certain that the implementation of wikijournal as sister project will
have more impact for WikiJournal.
My point is with a better english wikiversity, both could have more impact.


I think, forking wikijournals outside wikiverity will have a bad impact on
wikiversity.

Also, is it possible to write a publication in the journal without prior
PhD?
Can publication in the wikijournal help obtain the wikiveristy PhD?

Thanks!

Amirouche ~ amz3
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[Samuel Klein]

Nice work.  It will take time, but keep it up.

On Thu., Jun. 6, 2019, 10:05 p.m. Thomas Shafee, 
wrote:

> Some more notes, responses and thoughts on the topics raised above!
>
> *Impact and reach*
> I fully agree that impact factor is of primary importance to many
> researchers. However, many grants that fund research also have started
> looking for evidence that researchers are making genuine efforts in public
> outreach. Example: A researcher spends 30 years on one of the most
> important livestock parasites, publishing review articles read by 100-1000
> people, yet the Wikipedia page is only 2 sentences long
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teladorsagia_circumcincta=860605498
> >.
> Their grant reviewers, potential students, farmers, politicians, and
> journalists read the WP page which gives a false impression of obscurity to
> the topic. Then they publish a review article with a WikiJournal which is
> dual-published as a citable version for their cv and copied into WP to show
> they they are trying hard to keep the general public informed
> (*10.15347/wjs/2019.004
> *).
>
> *Citing WikiJournals in Wikipedia*
> I see the COI point of view. On the other hand, the best cure for coi is
> transparency and I think the publishing of peer reviews that go along with
> papers. Overall, I think WP use of WikiJournals articles as sources
> (e.g. *10.15347/wjm/2017.005
> *) would remain independent and a
> matter for WP:RS discussion once the journals are accredited. However, one
> perennial problem in WP has notable topics lacking citable sources (e.g.
> first nations history / neglected tropical diseases / women historical
> figures). If a wikipedian were able to do the research into an aspect of
> that topic to a level that it meets rigorous scholarly standards and passes
> external peer review, then that may a be a reasonable way of minting a
> valuable new citable source. Again, that'd be up for the community to
> decide as the project progresses.
>
> *Indexing*
> We have started the practice of drafting indexing applications publicly
> <
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_of_Medicine#SCOPUS_reapplication
> >
> for greater transparency (unique as far as I know).
>
> *Comparison to peer review within Wikipedia*
> WP essentially does post-publication editorial review (rather than peer
> review). External peer review by WikiJournals and internal PR/GA/FA review
> by wp editors perform complementary (not competing) roles. Many FA articles
> are definitely up to academic standards - and indeed their performance
> through peer review proves just that as an additional quality-assurance
> mechanism. That is not universally true (e.g. the review of GA article
> Surface
> tension
> <
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_Preprints/Surface_tension
> >
> includes
> "in some instances the ideas are incorrect ... It will confuse rather then
> enlighten readers new to the field"). FA has unique aspects that external
> academic peer review lacks (e.g. a sharper focus on readability, and
> formatting, spot-chacking of references).
>
> All the best,
> Thomas
>
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 23:37, Vi to  wrote:
>
> > Il giorno mer 5 giu 2019 alle ore 12:00 John Erling Blad <
> jeb...@gmail.com
> > >
> > ha scritto:
> >
> > > > > One reason; reach.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > In academia reach -per se- is not a big deal, while impact is.
> > >
> > > Reach leads to impact. You can't get impact without reach, but reach
> > > in non-scientific communities does not necessarily turn into reach in
> > > scientific communities.
> > >
> >
> > Apart from the hype I wouldn't releate reach and scientific impact. Most
> of
> > research community is forced to seek for impact, bibliometric indicators
> > and abiding by the publish or perish principle.
> >
> >
> > > There are nothing that blocks Wikipedia from doing peer review. (It
> > > has implicit peer review.) What you propose for WikiJournal is to make
> > > peer review a policy. That does not in itself turn articles into good
> > > research.
> >
> >
> > I disagree with this, Wikipedia doesn't make original research by
> > definition.
> > I concur we have something similar to peer review, though ours is less
> > "autorithy-centered".
> >
> > Vito
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[Thomas Shafee]

Some more notes, responses and thoughts on the topics raised above!

*Impact and reach*
I fully agree that impact factor is of primary importance to many
researchers. However, many grants that fund research also have started
looking for evidence that researchers are making genuine efforts in public
outreach. Example: A researcher spends 30 years on one of the most
important livestock parasites, publishing review articles read by 100-1000
people, yet the Wikipedia page is only 2 sentences long
.
Their grant reviewers, potential students, farmers, politicians, and
journalists read the WP page which gives a false impression of obscurity to
the topic. Then they publish a review article with a WikiJournal which is
dual-published as a citable version for their cv and copied into WP to show
they they are trying hard to keep the general public informed
(*10.15347/wjs/2019.004
*).

*Citing WikiJournals in Wikipedia*
I see the COI point of view. On the other hand, the best cure for coi is
transparency and I think the publishing of peer reviews that go along with
papers. Overall, I think WP use of WikiJournals articles as sources
(e.g. *10.15347/wjm/2017.005
*) would remain independent and a
matter for WP:RS discussion once the journals are accredited. However, one
perennial problem in WP has notable topics lacking citable sources (e.g.
first nations history / neglected tropical diseases / women historical
figures). If a wikipedian were able to do the research into an aspect of
that topic to a level that it meets rigorous scholarly standards and passes
external peer review, then that may a be a reasonable way of minting a
valuable new citable source. Again, that'd be up for the community to
decide as the project progresses.

*Indexing*
We have started the practice of drafting indexing applications publicly

for greater transparency (unique as far as I know).

*Comparison to peer review within Wikipedia*
WP essentially does post-publication editorial review (rather than peer
review). External peer review by WikiJournals and internal PR/GA/FA review
by wp editors perform complementary (not competing) roles. Many FA articles
are definitely up to academic standards - and indeed their performance
through peer review proves just that as an additional quality-assurance
mechanism. That is not universally true (e.g. the review of GA article Surface
tension

includes
"in some instances the ideas are incorrect ... It will confuse rather then
enlighten readers new to the field"). FA has unique aspects that external
academic peer review lacks (e.g. a sharper focus on readability, and
formatting, spot-chacking of references).

All the best,
Thomas

On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 23:37, Vi to  wrote:

> Il giorno mer 5 giu 2019 alle ore 12:00 John Erling Blad  >
> ha scritto:
>
> > > > One reason; reach.
> > > >
> > >
> > > In academia reach -per se- is not a big deal, while impact is.
> >
> > Reach leads to impact. You can't get impact without reach, but reach
> > in non-scientific communities does not necessarily turn into reach in
> > scientific communities.
> >
>
> Apart from the hype I wouldn't releate reach and scientific impact. Most of
> research community is forced to seek for impact, bibliometric indicators
> and abiding by the publish or perish principle.
>
>
> > There are nothing that blocks Wikipedia from doing peer review. (It
> > has implicit peer review.) What you propose for WikiJournal is to make
> > peer review a policy. That does not in itself turn articles into good
> > research.
>
>
> I disagree with this, Wikipedia doesn't make original research by
> definition.
> I concur we have something similar to peer review, though ours is less
> "autorithy-centered".
>
> Vito
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[Vi to]

Il giorno mer 5 giu 2019 alle ore 12:00 John Erling Blad 
ha scritto:

> > > One reason; reach.
> > >
> >
> > In academia reach -per se- is not a big deal, while impact is.
>
> Reach leads to impact. You can't get impact without reach, but reach
> in non-scientific communities does not necessarily turn into reach in
> scientific communities.
>

Apart from the hype I wouldn't releate reach and scientific impact. Most of
research community is forced to seek for impact, bibliometric indicators
and abiding by the publish or perish principle.


> There are nothing that blocks Wikipedia from doing peer review. (It
> has implicit peer review.) What you propose for WikiJournal is to make
> peer review a policy. That does not in itself turn articles into good
> research.


I disagree with this, Wikipedia doesn't make original research by
definition.
I concur we have something similar to peer review, though ours is less
"autorithy-centered".

Vito
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[John Erling Blad]

> > One reason; reach.
> >
>
> In academia reach -per se- is not a big deal, while impact is.

Reach leads to impact. You can't get impact without reach, but reach
in non-scientific communities does not necessarily turn into reach in
scientific communities.

> At nowiki we vere approached some years ago by a
> > university about publishing cutting edge research in fish farming. We
> > could not publish their work because some claimed it to be "original
> > research". Sure it was, and it was darn good original research too. I
> > don't think that was a single occurence, other communities has
> > probably had similar questions.
> >
>
> On Wikipedia you have no means to tell what is a good research, anyway.

There are nothing that blocks Wikipedia from doing peer review. (It
has implicit peer review.) What you propose for WikiJournal is to make
peer review a policy. That does not in itself turn articles into good
research.

You can turn your statement around and say if you can not write good
reasearch on Wikipedia, then you can not write good reasearch on
WikiJournal. The tools are basically the same, the only real
differences are in the policies.

Actually, some of the example articles at WikiJournal are nothing more
than FA, but that is another discussion.

Intent is the major difference on what WikiJournal could be compared
to Wikipedia.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[Vi to]

 Thanks anyone of the interesting replies!

Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 17:03 John Erling Blad 
ha scritto:

> One reason; reach.
>

In academia reach -per se- is not a big deal, while impact is.

At nowiki we vere approached some years ago by a
> university about publishing cutting edge research in fish farming. We
> could not publish their work because some claimed it to be "original
> research". Sure it was, and it was darn good original research too. I
> don't think that was a single occurence, other communities has
> probably had similar questions.
>

On Wikipedia you have no means to tell what is a good research, anyway.

Il giorno mar 4 giu 2019 alle ore 03:20 Thomas Shafee <
thomas.sha...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

>
>- Accountability to the academic community - indexing by cope
>, doaj ,
>pubmed , scopus
>, web of science
>, free journal network
> etc all require *extensive *external
> auditing
>of processes. Each journal has to apply for these individually and they
> are
>challenging to gain and retain.
>

Yup, indexing is definitely needed, though challenging.


>3. Cynical academics may be drawn by the likely high impact that the
>journal will likely get form publishing a lot of broad review articles
> and
>the exposure of those through wikipedia
>

I'm not sure it would be auspicable to cite "our journal" on Wikipedia,
also it may boost COI.


>   - It could be a way to peer review parts of wikidata (e.g. whether
>   the Drug interactions (P769) property set is up to date, and what
>   references should support any additions)
>

That's way interesting, though some mechanism of automatic update would
have the drawback of making some papers incoherent.


> *Democracy*
> So far the only inherently undemocratic part of the project has been the
> strict requirements on the peer reviewers.
>

Our inner "gerarchy" is somehow based upon committment/process knowledge
rather than competence in specific fields. While academia is (well, should
be) exactly the opposite, both systems works where they are supposed to
work, I hope they'll work the same if mixed up!

Translation is a complex issue.
Using English as the lingua franca for science deeply boosted
internationalisation of research, but also added an extra requirement for
researchers. Translation also adds a non negligible delay in information
spread. I, for one, don't judge scientific article worth translation, but I
wouldn't oppose it.

I think the ND in plan-S is meant to address the plagiarism (also
self-plagiarism) problem/fears.

Vito


Il giorno mer 5 giu 2019 alle ore 07:27 Thomas Shafee <
thomas.sha...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Such translation of CC content is pretty much unpreventable and can be a
> benefit or a drawback depending on the author's own opinion.
>
> From the point of view of an official 'version of record' (i.e. what the
> doi points to) the authors would be named along with attribution of all
> contributors. If there are translations, they'd likely be marked as
> somethign like "adapted by translators XYZ from article XYZ by original
> authors XYZ under a CC-BY license", though details would need to be decided
> if it came up. See this 2008 article
>  for some ideas
> floated previously floated. I'll admit I've limited knowledge of
> translation practices though, so the project would need advice!
>
> For some existing Wikipedia-based examples:
>
>- PLOS article
><
> https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002803
> >
> and
>uk.wp page
><
> https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%94%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F
> >
>- PLOS article
><
> https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004095
> >
> and es.wp page
><
> https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infiriendo_transferencia_gen%C3%A9tica_horizontal
> >
>
>
> Thomas
>
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 12:48, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > When we publish CC BY SA on Wikipedia, we allow translation into other
> > languages without having any control over the translations (but we
> require
> > our name to be attached in some fashion). So right now we do all the
> time.
> > Most of my academic publications are CC BY which is even more permissive.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:27 PM Thomas Townsend 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 18:46, James Heilman  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as
> that
> > > > would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I
> disagree
> > > with
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[Thomas Shafee]

Such translation of CC content is pretty much unpreventable and can be a
benefit or a drawback depending on the author's own opinion.

From the point of view of an official 'version of record' (i.e. what the
doi points to) the authors would be named along with attribution of all
contributors. If there are translations, they'd likely be marked as
somethign like "adapted by translators XYZ from article XYZ by original
authors XYZ under a CC-BY license", though details would need to be decided
if it came up. See this 2008 article
 for some ideas
floated previously floated. I'll admit I've limited knowledge of
translation practices though, so the project would need advice!

For some existing Wikipedia-based examples:

   - PLOS article
   

and
   uk.wp page
   

   - PLOS article
   

and es.wp page
   



Thomas

On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 12:48, James Heilman  wrote:

> When we publish CC BY SA on Wikipedia, we allow translation into other
> languages without having any control over the translations (but we require
> our name to be attached in some fashion). So right now we do all the time.
> Most of my academic publications are CC BY which is even more permissive.
>
> James
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:27 PM Thomas Townsend 
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 18:46, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > > Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as that
> > > would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I disagree
> > with
> > > Plan S's move to allow ND.
> > >
> >
> > So part of the offer is that an author's article may be translated into
> > other languages without the original author having any say in the
> process?
> >  Surely you would not permit your own articles to be republished in
> another
> > language with your name still on them and your having no control over
> what
> > the translation says in your name?
> >
> > The Turnip
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[James Heilman]

When we publish CC BY SA on Wikipedia, we allow translation into other
languages without having any control over the translations (but we require
our name to be attached in some fashion). So right now we do all the time.
Most of my academic publications are CC BY which is even more permissive.

James

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:27 PM Thomas Townsend 
wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 18:46, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as that
> > would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I disagree
> with
> > Plan S's move to allow ND.
> >
>
> So part of the offer is that an author's article may be translated into
> other languages without the original author having any say in the process?
>  Surely you would not permit your own articles to be republished in another
> language with your name still on them and your having no control over what
> the translation says in your name?
>
> The Turnip
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[Thomas Townsend]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 18:46, James Heilman  wrote:

> Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as that
> would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I disagree with
> Plan S's move to allow ND.
>

So part of the offer is that an author's article may be translated into
other languages without the original author having any say in the process?
 Surely you would not permit your own articles to be republished in another
language with your name still on them and your having no control over what
the translation says in your name?

The Turnip
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[Thomas Shafee]

In response to a few of the earlier questions (apologies for the delays):

*Quality control*
There are a few mechanisms in place for quality control:

   - Standard academic processes of external peer reviews which for
   wikijournals are all public (journals such as PLOS are moving in the same
   direction)
   - Accountability to the academic community - indexing by cope
   , doaj ,
   pubmed , scopus
   , web of science
   , free journal network
    etc all require *extensive *external auditing
   of processes. Each journal has to apply for these individually and they are
   challenging to gain and retain.
   - Accountability and transparency to the wider community - unlike other
   academic publishing houses, we try to get feedback on ideas, votes and
   governance (which could be much greater with more exposure to the academic
   community)

*Why would an academic choose a WikiJournal*

   1. Most OA journals charge $2000-3000 per publication.
   2. Idealistic academics may value it for its adherence to the ideals of
   the wikimedia movement (public focussed, more democratic than most journals)
   3. Cynical academics may be drawn by the likely high impact that the
   journal will likely get form publishing a lot of broad review articles and
   the exposure of those through wikipedia
   4. Multiple 'unique selling points' from being integrated with wikimedia
   to give further impact:
  - Obviously, broad review articles are also integrated into Wikipedia
  so vastly wider read than typical journal reviews
  - Image-based article can have their figures added to commons
(e.g.*10.15347/wjm/2017.008
  *)
  - It could be a way to peer review parts of wikidata (e.g. whether
  the Drug interactions (P769) property set is up to date, and what
  references should support any additions)
  - possible integration of some articles into wikiversity taught
  courses (e.g. this teaching case study *10.15347/wjm/2017.006
  *)
   5. Indirectly, I also hope it can act as a gateway drug to get more
   experts wanting to engage in the other projects. Because it accepts
   submissions straight out of wikipedia, it might also increase the incentive
   for an academic to contribute to wp if they can later submitting it to wj.

*Democracy*
So far the only inherently undemocratic part of the project has been the
strict requirements on the peer reviewers.
Conversely, authors have included professors, students, and people
completely unaffiliated with any university. Editorial board composition
ranges from the academics you'd expect to see, but also science
communicators, science librarians and experienced wikimedians which are
uncommon in other journals.
The indexed draft areas (currently called WikiJournal Preprints
) will be a
free-for-all. Currently we have no exclusion criteria other than the
standard Wikimedia copyvio/slander/etc. If there become problems we might
need editors to keep an eye on them like ArXiv does, but I hope to keep it
light-touch.

*Plan S*
The journals definitely intend to be Plan_S compliant. I'll raise the idea
of putting out some statement of intention over at the project. Plan_S will
likely have a large direct impact in Europe and the US, and likely far
wider-reaching indirect ripple effects across all of academic publishing.

*Translation*
So far there has been little translation of articles. This is possibly
because the project started in English, which is especially dominant as a
lingua franca in scholarly publishing. However, there have been a few
proposals for translation that have been raised:

   - Translation of whole articles if they are thought by the community to
   be particularly useful (e.g. *Teladorsagia circumcincta *is one of the
   most important agricultural parasites*10.15347/wjs/2019.004
   * yet is almost completely absent
   from wikimedia )
   - Translation of many/all abstracts into multiple languages

Thank you for the the really interesting discussions, ideas and feedback so
far!
Thomas

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 04:07, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> How often do you expect a scientific article to be translated?
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 7:46 PM James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as that
> > would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I disagree
> with
> > Plan S's move to allow ND.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:08 AM Vi to  wrote:
> >
> > > En.wikiversity user I'm dealing with was a custodian (in other words a
> well

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[John Erling Blad]

How often do you expect a scientific article to be translated?

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 7:46 PM James Heilman  wrote:
>
> Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as that
> would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I disagree with
> Plan S's move to allow ND.
>
> James
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:08 AM Vi to  wrote:
>
> > En.wikiversity user I'm dealing with was a custodian (in other words a well
> > established user within the community).
> >
> > Keeping it short my main concern is: we are a naturally democratic
> > community, while the science cannot be. Also, we've been attracting low
> > quality "research" for years.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 16:36 James Heilman 
> > ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > > The peer review process and the editors of the journals in question. This
> > > is the same mechanism that prevents gibberish from getting into all peer
> > > reviewed literature.
> > >
> > > J
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:30 AM Vi to  wrote:
> > >
> > > > In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects
> > > > which were eventually defeated by the "no original research"
> > principle.
> > > > Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his
> > > > friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion,
> > paranormal
> > > > and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind of
> > > > gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
> > > >
> > > > Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to
> > > > define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious"
> > research
> > > > group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals
> > or
> > > > classical PR journals?
> > > >
> > > > Vito
> > > >
> > > > Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee <
> > > > thomas.sha...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > > >
> > > > > Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
> > > > > >
> > > > > ).
> > > > >
> > > > > Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved
> > (e.g.
> > > > > JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced
> > > stringency
> > > > > and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
> > > > said,
> > > > > things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be
> > valuable
> > > to
> > > > > implement anyway for machine readability.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thomas
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > James
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thomas
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
> > > > thomas.sha...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > > > > > > >  has
> > > been
> > > > > > > building
> > > > > > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a
> > > mediawiki
> > > > > > > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review
> > > and
> > > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > >(example )
> > > > > > > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> > > > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > > > (
> > > > > > > >example )
> > > > > > > >- Original research articles that are not imported to
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > > > > (example
> > > > > > > ><
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system
> > > to
> > > > > > > Featured
> > > > > > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
> > > > > > >,
> > > > > > > > implementing 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[James Heilman]

But to clarify, the intent is to be Plan-S compliant from what I understand.

James

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:46 AM James Heilman  wrote:

> Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as that
> would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I disagree with
> Plan S's move to allow ND.
>
> James
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:08 AM Vi to  wrote:
>
>> En.wikiversity user I'm dealing with was a custodian (in other words a
>> well
>> established user within the community).
>>
>> Keeping it short my main concern is: we are a naturally democratic
>> community, while the science cannot be. Also, we've been attracting low
>> quality "research" for years.
>>
>> Vito
>>
>> Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 16:36 James Heilman 
>> ha
>> scritto:
>>
>> > The peer review process and the editors of the journals in question.
>> This
>> > is the same mechanism that prevents gibberish from getting into all peer
>> > reviewed literature.
>> >
>> > J
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:30 AM Vi to  wrote:
>> >
>> > > In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects
>> > > which were eventually defeated by the "no original research"
>> principle.
>> > > Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his
>> > > friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion,
>> paranormal
>> > > and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind
>> of
>> > > gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
>> > >
>> > > Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to
>> > > define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious"
>> research
>> > > group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals
>> or
>> > > classical PR journals?
>> > >
>> > > Vito
>> > >
>> > > Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee <
>> > > thomas.sha...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>> > >
>> > > > Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
>> > > > <
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
>> > > > >
>> > > > ).
>> > > >
>> > > > Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved
>> (e.g.
>> > > > JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced
>> > stringency
>> > > > and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
>> > > said,
>> > > > things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be
>> valuable
>> > to
>> > > > implement anyway for machine readability.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thomas
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman 
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > James
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
>> > > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Thomas
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thrapostibongles
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
>> > > thomas.sha...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Hello Wikipedians,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
>> > > > > > >  has
>> > been
>> > > > > > building
>> > > > > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a
>> > mediawiki
>> > > > > > > platform. The main types of articles are:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review
>> > and
>> > > > > > feedback
>> > > > > > >(example )
>> > > > > > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
>> > > > > Wikipedia
>> > > > > > (
>> > > > > > >example )
>> > > > > > >- Original research articles that are not imported to
>> > Wikipedia
>> > > > > > (example
>> > > > > > ><
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >)
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
>> > > > > > > *
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary
>> system
>> > to
>> > > > > > Featured
>> > > > > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
>> > > > > > > <
>> > > >
>> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
>> > > > > >,
>> > > > > > > implementing established scholarly practices
>> > > > > > > <
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[James Heilman]

Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as that
would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I disagree with
Plan S's move to allow ND.

James

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:08 AM Vi to  wrote:

> En.wikiversity user I'm dealing with was a custodian (in other words a well
> established user within the community).
>
> Keeping it short my main concern is: we are a naturally democratic
> community, while the science cannot be. Also, we've been attracting low
> quality "research" for years.
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 16:36 James Heilman 
> ha
> scritto:
>
> > The peer review process and the editors of the journals in question. This
> > is the same mechanism that prevents gibberish from getting into all peer
> > reviewed literature.
> >
> > J
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:30 AM Vi to  wrote:
> >
> > > In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects
> > > which were eventually defeated by the "no original research"
> principle.
> > > Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his
> > > friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion,
> paranormal
> > > and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind of
> > > gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
> > >
> > > Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to
> > > define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious"
> research
> > > group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals
> or
> > > classical PR journals?
> > >
> > > Vito
> > >
> > > Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee <
> > > thomas.sha...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
> > > > >
> > > > ).
> > > >
> > > > Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved
> (e.g.
> > > > JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced
> > stringency
> > > > and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
> > > said,
> > > > things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be
> valuable
> > to
> > > > implement anyway for machine readability.
> > > >
> > > > Thomas
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
> > > > >
> > > > > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
> > > > >
> > > > > James
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thomas
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
> > > thomas.sha...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > > > > > >  has
> > been
> > > > > > building
> > > > > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a
> > mediawiki
> > > > > > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review
> > and
> > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > >(example )
> > > > > > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> > > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > > (
> > > > > > >example )
> > > > > > >- Original research articles that are not imported to
> > Wikipedia
> > > > > > (example
> > > > > > ><
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system
> > to
> > > > > > Featured
> > > > > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > > > > > > <
> > > >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
> > > > > >,
> > > > > > > implementing established scholarly practices
> > > > > > > <
> > > > >
> > >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > > > > > >,
> > > > > > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > > > > > > <
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing
> > > >.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > > > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[Vi to]

En.wikiversity user I'm dealing with was a custodian (in other words a well
established user within the community).

Keeping it short my main concern is: we are a naturally democratic
community, while the science cannot be. Also, we've been attracting low
quality "research" for years.

Vito

Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 16:36 James Heilman  ha
scritto:

> The peer review process and the editors of the journals in question. This
> is the same mechanism that prevents gibberish from getting into all peer
> reviewed literature.
>
> J
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:30 AM Vi to  wrote:
>
> > In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects
> > which were eventually defeated by the "no original research"  principle.
> > Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his
> > friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion, paranormal
> > and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind of
> > gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
> >
> > Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to
> > define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious" research
> > group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals or
> > classical PR journals?
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee <
> > thomas.sha...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > > Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
> > > >
> > > ).
> > >
> > > Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g.
> > > JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced
> stringency
> > > and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
> > said,
> > > things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable
> to
> > > implement anyway for machine readability.
> > >
> > > Thomas
> > >
> > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman  wrote:
> > >
> > > > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
> > > >
> > > > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thomas
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
> > thomas.sha...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > > > > >  has
> been
> > > > > building
> > > > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a
> mediawiki
> > > > > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review
> and
> > > > > feedback
> > > > > >(example )
> > > > > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > (
> > > > > >example )
> > > > > >- Original research articles that are not imported to
> Wikipedia
> > > > > (example
> > > > > ><
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > > > > *
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system
> to
> > > > > Featured
> > > > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > > > > > <
> > > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
> > > > >,
> > > > > > implementing established scholarly practices
> > > > > > <
> > > >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > > > > >,
> > > > > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > > > > > <
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing
> > >.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > > > > > All the best,
> > > > > > Thomas Shafee
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
> > > > wikimedia
> > > > > > community, so feel free to share with others.
> > > > > > ___
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[John Erling Blad]

Do editing in a non-indexed draft space and then move the articles
into an indexed mainspace after passing peer review.

I guess a "WikiJournal" should be CC-ND by default. Authors should be
able to relax the license. If others are allowed to edit then the
license should be forced to CC-by-SA.

Authors should be explicitly listed, and if authors allow other to
edit, then they must explicitly say so. A "front matter" like in
Jekyll should be sufficient for declaring the authors.

There must also be a process for verifying the identity for authors.
That can be really fun! And btw, Mediawiki has a field for real names,
but lacks methods for verifying those names.

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 4:36 PM James Heilman  wrote:
>
> The peer review process and the editors of the journals in question. This
> is the same mechanism that prevents gibberish from getting into all peer
> reviewed literature.
>
> J
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:30 AM Vi to  wrote:
>
> > In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects
> > which were eventually defeated by the "no original research"  principle.
> > Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his
> > friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion, paranormal
> > and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind of
> > gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
> >
> > Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to
> > define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious" research
> > group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals or
> > classical PR journals?
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee <
> > thomas.sha...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > > Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
> > > <
> > >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
> > > >
> > > ).
> > >
> > > Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g.
> > > JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency
> > > and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
> > said,
> > > things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to
> > > implement anyway for machine readability.
> > >
> > > Thomas
> > >
> > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman  wrote:
> > >
> > > > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
> > > >
> > > > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thomas
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
> > thomas.sha...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > > > > >  has been
> > > > > building
> > > > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki
> > > > > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
> > > > > feedback
> > > > > >(example )
> > > > > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > (
> > > > > >example )
> > > > > >- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
> > > > > (example
> > > > > ><
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > > > > *
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
> > > > > Featured
> > > > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > > > > > <
> > > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
> > > > >,
> > > > > > implementing established scholarly practices
> > > > > > <
> > > >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > > > > >,
> > > > > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > > > > >  > >.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > > > > > All the best,
> > > > > > Thomas Shafee
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
> > > > wikimedia
> > > > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[John Erling Blad]

One reason; reach. At nowiki we vere approached some years ago by a
university about publishing cutting edge research in fish farming. We
could not publish their work because some claimed it to be "original
research". Sure it was, and it was darn good original research too. I
don't think that was a single occurence, other communities has
probably had similar questions.

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:29 PM Vi to  wrote:
>
> In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects
> which were eventually defeated by the "no original research"  principle.
> Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his
> friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion, paranormal
> and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind of
> gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
>
> Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to
> define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious" research
> group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals or
> classical PR journals?
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee <
> thomas.sha...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> > Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
> > <
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
> > >
> > ).
> >
> > Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g.
> > JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency
> > and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being said,
> > things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to
> > implement anyway for machine readability.
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
> > >
> > > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thomas
> > > >
> > > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> > > >
> > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > > > >
> > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > > > >  has been
> > > > building
> > > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki
> > > > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > > > >
> > > > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
> > > > feedback
> > > > >(example )
> > > > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > (
> > > > >example )
> > > > >- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
> > > > (example
> > > > ><
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > > > >
> > > > >)
> > > > >
> > > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > > > *
> > > > >
> > > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
> > > > Featured
> > > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > > > > <
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
> > > >,
> > > > > implementing established scholarly practices
> > > > > <
> > > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > > > >,
> > > > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > > > > All the best,
> > > > > Thomas Shafee
> > > > >
> > > > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
> > > wikimedia
> > > > > community, so feel free to share with others.
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > 
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[John Erling Blad]

Ok. Works might not be accepted if people outside a well-defined group
contributes to the work.

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 3:50 PM Thomas Shafee  wrote:
>
> So at the moment, there is no locking of any sort. However, but it's noted
> that once an article is assigned a doi, that meaning-changing edits would
> be re-reviewed and an updated doi minted by from crossref's crossmark
> service  along the lines of this
> article . Copyedits and
> formatting are always fine though. So far, the vast majority of editing has
> occurred before the doi assignment, and articles integrated into Wikipedia
> have a note in the top right to let people know that they can more
> logically be edited there (example
> 
> ).
>
> Thomas
>
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 14:18, John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > How do you handle lock down of articles? That is only listed authors should
> > write a given article, so you can't allow random user edit access as it is
> > today.
> >
> > Jeblad
> >
> > man. 3. jun. 2019, 04.16 skrev Thomas Shafee :
> >
> > > Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
> > > <
> > >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
> > > >
> > > ).
> > >
> > > Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g.
> > > JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency
> > > and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
> > said,
> > > things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to
> > > implement anyway for machine readability.
> > >
> > > Thomas
> > >
> > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman  wrote:
> > >
> > > > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
> > > >
> > > > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thomas
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
> > thomas.sha...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > > > > >  has been
> > > > > building
> > > > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki
> > > > > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
> > > > > feedback
> > > > > >(example )
> > > > > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > (
> > > > > >example )
> > > > > >- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
> > > > > (example
> > > > > ><
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > > > > *
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
> > > > > Featured
> > > > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > > > > > <
> > > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
> > > > >,
> > > > > > implementing established scholarly practices
> > > > > > <
> > > >
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > > > > >,
> > > > > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > > > > >  > >.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > > > > > All the best,
> > > > > > Thomas Shafee
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
> > > > wikimedia
> > > > > > community, so feel free to share with others.
> > > > > > ___
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > >  > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[James Heilman]

The peer review process and the editors of the journals in question. This
is the same mechanism that prevents gibberish from getting into all peer
reviewed literature.

J

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:30 AM Vi to  wrote:

> In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects
> which were eventually defeated by the "no original research"  principle.
> Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his
> friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion, paranormal
> and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind of
> gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?
>
> Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to
> define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious" research
> group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals or
> classical PR journals?
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee <
> thomas.sha...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> > Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
> > <
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
> > >
> > ).
> >
> > Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g.
> > JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency
> > and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
> said,
> > things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to
> > implement anyway for machine readability.
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
> > >
> > > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thomas
> > > >
> > > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> > > >
> > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
> thomas.sha...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > > > >
> > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > > > >  has been
> > > > building
> > > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki
> > > > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > > > >
> > > > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
> > > > feedback
> > > > >(example )
> > > > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > (
> > > > >example )
> > > > >- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
> > > > (example
> > > > ><
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > > > >
> > > > >)
> > > > >
> > > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > > > *
> > > > >
> > > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
> > > > Featured
> > > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > > > > <
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
> > > >,
> > > > > implementing established scholarly practices
> > > > > <
> > >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > > > >,
> > > > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > > > >  >.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > > > > All the best,
> > > > > Thomas Shafee
> > > > >
> > > > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
> > > wikimedia
> > > > > community, so feel free to share with others.
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > >  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > >
> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[Thomas Townsend]

What is the objection in principle to ND licencing?  If you publish a paper
detailing your experiments on apricot kernels as a cure for cancer with a
conclusion that they are completely worthless, and give it a BY licence, I
can now "remix" it, that is publish exactly the same material, except with
a new conclusion that apricot kernels are a complete cure for cancer,
provided that I attribute it to you.  Is that what you want, in any sense
at all?

The Turnip

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 19:55, James Heilman  wrote:

> It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
>
> Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
>
> James
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thomas
> >
> > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > >
> > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > >  has been
> > building
> > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki
> > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > >
> > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
> > feedback
> > >(example )
> > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> Wikipedia
> > (
> > >example )
> > >- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
> > (example
> > ><
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > >
> > >)
> > >
> > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > *
> > >
> > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
> > Featured
> > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > >  >,
> > > implementing established scholarly practices
> > > <
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > >,
> > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > > .
> > >
> > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > > All the best,
> > > Thomas Shafee
> > >
> > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
> wikimedia
> > > community, so feel free to share with others.
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[Mister Thrapostibongles]

James

It already is Plan-S compliant :-)


Unfortunately Plan-S requires rather more than a conformant licence.  It
also imposes strict conditions on business models and editorial practices,
not all of which have yet been completely finalised: see
https://www.coalition-s.org/rationale-for-the-revisions/ for example.

The best the WikiJournals project can realistically do right now to is
announce an intention to conform.  So my question remains: does the project
intend to become and remain Plan-S compliant?  It seems odd that this is
not considered to be, and publicised as, a major goal of the project, as
non-conformance will be a major setback.

Thrapostibongles
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[Thomas Shafee]

So at the moment, there is no locking of any sort. However, but it's noted
that once an article is assigned a doi, that meaning-changing edits would
be re-reviewed and an updated doi minted by from crossref's crossmark
service  along the lines of this
article . Copyedits and
formatting are always fine though. So far, the vast majority of editing has
occurred before the doi assignment, and articles integrated into Wikipedia
have a note in the top right to let people know that they can more
logically be edited there (example

).

Thomas

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 14:18, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> How do you handle lock down of articles? That is only listed authors should
> write a given article, so you can't allow random user edit access as it is
> today.
>
> Jeblad
>
> man. 3. jun. 2019, 04.16 skrev Thomas Shafee :
>
> > Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
> > <
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
> > >
> > ).
> >
> > Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g.
> > JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency
> > and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being
> said,
> > things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to
> > implement anyway for machine readability.
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
> > >
> > > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thomas
> > > >
> > > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> > > >
> > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee <
> thomas.sha...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > > > >
> > > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > > > >  has been
> > > > building
> > > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki
> > > > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > > > >
> > > > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
> > > > feedback
> > > > >(example )
> > > > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > (
> > > > >example )
> > > > >- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
> > > > (example
> > > > ><
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > > > >
> > > > >)
> > > > >
> > > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > > > *
> > > > >
> > > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
> > > > Featured
> > > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > > > > <
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
> > > >,
> > > > > implementing established scholarly practices
> > > > > <
> > >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > > > >,
> > > > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > > > >  >.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > > > > All the best,
> > > > > Thomas Shafee
> > > > >
> > > > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
> > > wikimedia
> > > > > community, so feel free to share with others.
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > >  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > >
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[Vi to]

In years I've seen countless attempts to put gibberish on our projects
which were eventually defeated by the "no original research"  principle.
Even en.wikiversity struggled with a now banned user (and his
friends/enablers) pushing lots of gibberish about cold fusion, paranormal
and Wikimedia user themselves. So I ask, what will prevent this kind of
gibberish from slowing infiltrating such project?

Don't get me wrong but I think this is the first question in order to
define a "business model" for the project: why would a "serious" research
group choose to publish there instead of already existing OA journals or
classical PR journals?

Vito

Il giorno lun 3 giu 2019 alle ore 04:16 Thomas Shafee <
thomas.sha...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
> <
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
> >
> ).
>
> Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g.
> JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency
> and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being said,
> things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to
> implement anyway for machine readability.
>
> Thomas
>
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
> >
> > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thomas
> > >
> > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > > >
> > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > > >  has been
> > > building
> > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki
> > > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > > >
> > > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
> > > feedback
> > > >(example )
> > > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> > Wikipedia
> > > (
> > > >example )
> > > >- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
> > > (example
> > > ><
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > > >
> > > >)
> > > >
> > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > > *
> > > >
> > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
> > > Featured
> > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > > > <
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
> > >,
> > > > implementing established scholarly practices
> > > > <
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > > >,
> > > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > > > All the best,
> > > > Thomas Shafee
> > > >
> > > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
> > wikimedia
> > > > community, so feel free to share with others.
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[John Erling Blad]

How do you handle lock down of articles? That is only listed authors should
write a given article, so you can't allow random user edit access as it is
today.

Jeblad

man. 3. jun. 2019, 04.16 skrev Thomas Shafee :

> Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*
> <
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group#Notes_on_Plan_S_compliance_criteria
> >
> ).
>
> Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g.
> JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency
> and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being said,
> things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to
> implement anyway for machine readability.
>
> Thomas
>
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
> >
> > Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thomas
> > >
> > > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > > >
> > > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > > >  has been
> > > building
> > > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki
> > > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > > >
> > > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
> > > feedback
> > > >(example )
> > > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> > Wikipedia
> > > (
> > > >example )
> > > >- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
> > > (example
> > > ><
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > > >
> > > >)
> > > >
> > > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > > *
> > > >
> > > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
> > > Featured
> > > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > > > <
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Peer_reviewers
> > >,
> > > > implementing established scholarly practices
> > > > <
> > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > > >,
> > > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > > > All the best,
> > > > Thomas Shafee
> > > >
> > > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
> > wikimedia
> > > > community, so feel free to share with others.
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[Thomas Shafee]

Yes, we put together a little checklist back in round one (*link*

).

Initially there were a few items that are currently not achieved (e.g.
JATS-compliant XML formatting). The revised Plan_S has reduced stringency
and all the items that weren't hit happen to be optional. That being said,
things like JATS-compliant XML and citation metadata would be valuable to
implement anyway for machine readability.

Thomas

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 04:53, James Heilman  wrote:

> It already is Plan-S compliant :-)
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights
>
> Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.
>
> James
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thomas
> >
> > Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Wikipedians,
> > >
> > > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> > >  has been
> > building
> > > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki
> > > platform. The main types of articles are:
> > >
> > >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
> > feedback
> > >(example )
> > >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to
> Wikipedia
> > (
> > >example )
> > >- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
> > (example
> > ><
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > > >
> > >)
> > >
> > > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > > *
> > >
> > > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
> > Featured
> > > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > >  >,
> > > implementing established scholarly practices
> > > <
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement
> > >,
> > > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > > .
> > >
> > > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > > All the best,
> > > Thomas Shafee
> > >
> > > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing
> wikimedia
> > > community, so feel free to share with others.
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[James Heilman]

It already is Plan-S compliant :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S#Licensing_and_rights

Plan-S unfortunately is looking at allowing ND content.

James

On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thomas
>
> Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Wikipedians,
> >
> > Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
> >  has been
> building
> > and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki
> > platform. The main types of articles are:
> >
> >- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and
> feedback
> >(example )
> >- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia
> (
> >example )
> >- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia
> (example
> ><
> >
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> > >
> >)
> >
> > *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> > *
> >
> > From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to
> Featured
> > article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> > ,
> > implementing established scholarly practices
> >  >,
> > and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> > .
> >
> > Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> > All the best,
> > Thomas Shafee
> >
> > ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing wikimedia
> > community, so feel free to share with others.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[Mister Thrapostibongles]

Thomas

Is it intended that the journals should be Plan-S compliant?

Thrapostibongles

On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:01 AM Thomas Shafee 
wrote:

> Hello Wikipedians,
>
> Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
>  has been building
> and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki
> platform. The main types of articles are:
>
>- Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback
>(example )
>- From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (
>example )
>- Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example
><
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Acute_gastrointestinal_bleeding_from_a_chronic_cause:_a_teaching_case_report
> >
>)
>
> *Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
> *
>
> From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured
> article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
> ,
> implementing established scholarly practices
> ,
> and generating citable, doi-linked publications
> .
>
> Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
> All the best,
> Thomas Shafee
>
> ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing wikimedia
> community, so feel free to share with others.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[Thomas Shafee]

Hello Wikipedians,

Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group
 has been building
and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki
platform. The main types of articles are:

   - Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback
   (example )
   - From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (
   example )
   - Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example
   

   )

*Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
*

From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured
article review, but bridging the gap with external experts
,
implementing established scholarly practices
,
and generating citable, doi-linked publications
.

Please take a look and support/oppose/comment!
All the best,
Thomas Shafee

ps, We are attempting to improve awareness within the existing wikimedia
community, so feel free to share with others.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,