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

*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.

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
"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,

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:
> and
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to