WikiJournal

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiJournal logo.svg

WikiJournal User Group
Open access • Publication charge free • Public peer review

WikiJournal User Group is a publishing group of open-access, free-to-publish, Wikipedia-integrated academic journals. <seo title=" WJM, WikiJMed, Wiki.J.Med., WikiJMed, Wikiversity Journal User Group, WikiJournal WikiMed, Free to publish, Open access, Open-access, Non-profit, online journal, Public peer review "/>


This page is a proposal for a new Wikimedia Foundation Sister Project.
Status Under discussion
What is the proposed name for the project? WikiJournal
Proposed project tagline Open access peer reviewed academic journals with no publication costs.
Project description
What is the project purpose? What will be its scope? How would it benefit to be part of Wikimedia?
A site where authors can write their works directly online. The works then undergo independent scholarly peer review before being officially published in the journal.

Currently hosted in Wikiversity: WikiJournal User Group, with the main journals being WikiJournal of Medicine and WikiJournal of Science (Humanities journal starting up).

It provides a way of bridging the Wikipedia-Academia gap by enabling academics, scholars and professionals to contribute expert knowledge to the Wikimedia movement in the familiar academic publishing format that directly rewards scholars with cite-able publications.

See also: General landing page | About Wiki.J.Med. | About Wiki.J.Sci. | About Wiki.J.Hum.

How many wikis?
Will there be many language versions or just on one multilingual wiki?
Many language versions
How many languages?
Is the project going to be in one language or in many?
Initially English, eventually many
Proposed project website address Current: hosted within Wikiversity (with link from wikiversityjournal.org )

Ideal: wikijournal.org (currently used for a separate start-up project by User:Fokebox)
Alternatively: journal.wiki.org or journal.wikimedia.org

Proposed logo for the project WikiJournal logo (flat blue yellow).svg

Proposed logo matches current WMF sister project styles uses 2014 WMF colour palette
WikiJournal logo.svg WikiJournal of Medicine logo.svg WikiJournal of Science logo.svg WikiJournal of Humanities logo.svg WikiJournal Preprints logo.svg
Current logo of user group and logos of specific journals within the group
WikiJournal logo (flat black).svg WikiJournal of Medicine logo (flat black).svg WikiJournal of Science logo (flat black).svg WikiJournal of Humanities logo (flat black).svg WikiJournal Preprints logo (flat black).svg
Flat black version for small icons (including specific journals)

Technical requirements
If the project requires any new features that the MediaWiki software currently doesn't have, please describe in detail. Are additional MediaWiki extensions needed for the project?
A number of unique features will be useful:
  • It should be possible to categorize users as authors, editors and/or peer reviewers.
  • Separate namespaces for articles yet to be peer reviewed equivalent to Wikipedia's Draftspace, e.g. Draft: or Preprint: or equivalent. (Currently stored in category and as list)
  • Some way of automatically numbering figures (currently done manually in the {{fig}} template).
  • It is also important to have the option of certain pages not being publicly accessible (i.e. only viewable by author and editors). This avoids violating press embargos for unpublished articles and allows re-submission to other journals if rejected from here. (Currently confidential works must be emailed to submissions(at)wikijmed.org).
  • Preferably, there should be an option to have restricted viewer access to some files and discussions.
  • Automated synchronisation of article info template on main and talk pages
  • Automated maintenance of the tracking sheets when reviewer comments submited
  • Automated simple form for submission of peer reviewer comments (typically have no wiki experience)
  • Automated metadata-submission to crossref of accepted articles
  • Automated addition of accepted articles to the current volume&issue
  • Automated XML annotation of articles in the JATS format
  • Automated formatting of accepted articles into a specific PDF format (currently done manually via copy-paste to a DOCX template which is then saved as a PDF. Another option is to use the WikiMedia infrastructure as a content sink and generate on demand other formats like docx, odt, LaTeX from the wiki syntax (e.g. via PanDoc, the swiss-army knife for converting documents). The MediaWiki PDF-export funtion was an example of that. Pandoc supports Wiki syntax as input code (among others) and can produce a huge variety of output format. By selecting a template, the formating of the output is determined (two-column layout, inject logos, header style, ...). A benefit of that approach is, that corrections additons in the content sink (i.e. the MediaWiki infrastructure) are automatically available in other export formats.
  • Ideally, we would also like converters to wiki from DOCX and LaTeX so that articles can be more easily submitted.
  • Specific left menu items
  • Specific title fonts
Development wiki Not yet any separate technical-development wiki (e.g. in Wikimedia Labs)
Interested participants 94 participants (editors, authors and peer reviewers) as of 2018-06-1

Scenario[edit]

  • Wikipedia lacks information.
  • Wikipedia is viewed with suspicion by the academic community.
  • Original research cannot be published on Wikipedia.
  • Lack of quality images for articles.
  • Lack of contributions from academic community.
  • Academic authors often seek recognition more than a mere mention of the history tab of the article.
  • Lack of standard procedure to maintain notability parameters of an article.

Possible solution[edit]

The Wikipedian community and the academic community can be converged and unified through a journal initiative under the Wikimedia banner. The journals needs to adhere to international guidelines and standard procedures in addition to being open access and editable by all. WikiJournal can provide a prototype based on which journals for various themes and subjects can be built upon.

This involves two broad aspects: The background structure and the journal contents.

Background structure[edit]

Background structure comprises of:

  • Journal policies: This can be customized based on the journal theme and subject but would be common overall.
  • Templates: Specific templates need to be designed for journals. These templates would probably not be relevant to any other wikiproject.
  • Technical parameters:
    • Unlike other wikiprojects, the journal project calls for specialized logins as authors, editors and/or peer reviewers.
    • The possibility of one individual having multiple capacities, and the specific capacity being specified for an edit also need to be considered.
    • Custom PDF rendering facility.

Journal contents[edit]

  • Anybody would be able to make a submission. Specification of legal name and contact details might be required.
  • The contents would undergo a public peer review before submission.
  • The submitted contents would be reviewed by the Editorial board and considered critically before it is accepted or rejected.
  • After acceptance, the editing capacities for the article would be restricted.
  • A permalink in the form of Digital Object Identifier or DOI would be awarded to each article after publication.
  • A citation format for academic publications would be specified.

Present scenario[edit]

WikiJournal of Medicine has been developed under Wikiversity and has been operational since 2014. More information about this journal is located at WikiJournal of Medicine/About. Based on this initiative a separate initiative, Second Journal of Science has come into being. A composite journal user group has been formed in order to overlook the development of such journals. This project is currently located in Wikiversity: Wikiversity:WikiJournal User Group

Proposal[edit]

A wiki that is open for everyone to contribute, and at the same time having the features of scholarly journals in that the published works undergo independent peer review by experts in the subject before publication. Also, the authors are clearly credited at the top of their articles, making it more attractive for researchers and scholars to contribute. Works may include images and reviews that are supported by secondary sources. Wikipedia and other Wikimedia sister projects can subsequently use material from these publications.

Why separate Wikiproject[edit]

  • An internal discussion revealed a consensus for a move to a separate Wikiproject.
  • It calls for custom structure that would probably not be required by other Wikiprojects.
    • The users would need to specify their real names and contact details.
    • Login types might need to be specified.
    • Custom templates.
  • Better visibility and awareness. The current journals have limited viewership possibly due to lack of awareness across Wikimedia users.
  • Grant requirements would follow a definite prototype.
  • The scope is unique. The uniqueness needs to be identified.
    • A separate link as another sister project will enhance its visibility to Wikimedia users would therefore enhance participation and impact.
  • The scope does not exactly merge with:
    • Wikiversity: Although there is partial overlap in relation to open research, the scope of WikiJournal goes beyond that. Academic publications are not necessarily same as open academia, open educational resources or learning projects.
    • Wikibooks: Academic publications are not necessarily same as open-content textbooks.
    • Wikipedia: Although Wikipedia is most read information source, it is often not given the credibility it deserves. While a few journals have started taking Wikipedia seriously, it still cannot claim the academic recognition that WikiJournal could claim.
  • Impact metrics may not be applicable to any other wikiproject and may call for additional support from Wikimedia labs.
  • Translation to other language wikis would call for standard protocols to be followed, unlike in any other sister project.
  • It is essential for journals to get enlisted in various databases and follow various international protocols. A single repository for all such journals will help in minimizing the hassles of separate enlistment in such databases or central bodies.

Discussion[edit]

  • Support Support. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC) Editor-in-chief, WikiJournal of Medicine
  • Disagree with split I don't see why it's valuable to split this from WV--this is perfectly within its scope. In fact, it is one of the real triumphs of that project and splitting it off would probably be to the detriment of that site. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Having Wikiversity lose WikiJournal might be a huge loss to you, Justin. However, all's not lost for Wikiversity, and there is still hope for Wikiversity. Indeed, Wikiversity has English courses, like v:English as a second language, most of which needs further improvements. Recently, I had to help one of users who utilized his poor English writing skills at English Wikipedia. To help him improve his English skills, I had to direct him to v:English and b:English. I received thanks for helping him. Therefore, Wikiversity may be needed for users who want to improve their English writing skills for English Wikipedia. Don't you think so? --George Ho (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC); edited, 05:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: Honestly, it seems like your English is better in the months that I've seen you posting across WMF sites. I definitely believe that there is potential in Wikiversity but I just don't think this should split from it. We'll see how it goes. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for complimenting my English. ;) --George Ho (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support A journal needs specific tools. Having it as its own sister site would be ideal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Very promising proposal --Athikhun.suw (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support I agree with the split. I don't think it belongs with Wikiversity at all, which is for courses and curricula. It makes more sense to me, if anything, that it should be part of Wikibooks, as that is a place for publication of original scientific works. The process for a journal paper is different than a book however so I agree it should be separate. As for the project in general, I think the wiki approach to writing a scientific paper is potentially really great. I know PLOS has their own internal wiki for writing Topic Pages, which are review papers that are written and then eventually transferred to Wikipedia. Non-review papers, however, don't really make sense as part of Wikipedia, so it makes sense to develop them on their own wiki. Mvolz (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Disagree with split (Changed vote to neutral with the understanding that the real question is whether the wiki hosts confidential or "private" conversations) Original text: Keep in mind that I speaking from the biased perspective of a Wikiversity Custodian who is only marginally involved with this WikiJournal project. One reason Wikiversity would want to host the journals is that the software developed for WikiJournal could be useful on Wikiversity. An example of such software might include confidential communications between editors and referees that are held on-wiki (instead of on a remote user group). I have no idea whether Wikimedia is willing or even able to host such confidentiality, but it would also allow students and authors to collaborate privately. Also, Wikiversity would be interested in hosting student-run journals. I concede that the prospect of amateaurish student-journals might not be appealing to board members, and fully understand why the board might wish to separate from Wikiversity. If the board chooses to split, I will support that decision. --Guy vandegrift (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Confidential talks are currently held on a Google Group, which can be used for students and authors even if WikiJournal is split from Wikiversity. Likewise, students have at least the same ability to start journals after a split. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Allowing for confidential conversations on a Wikimedia sister-wiki would be a major departure from protocol. The wiki that does it will need an independent governing body for each journal or organization that uses it. Someday, it would be nice for universities, laboratories, and journals to have such capabilities. I am neutral about the current proposed split if the confidentality is not included: Without the confidentiality option, I see neither a reason for the split, nor any harm done by splitting away from Wikiversity. But if this new wiki is created with confidentiality options, it will likely recruit university and laboratory-based journals that wish to utilize this option. The question of whether to allow this confidentiality option is likely to go to the top levels of the Wikimedia corporation...Perhaps what we really need is for Google groups to host discussions in wikitext.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
@Mikael Häggström: The private option is already availablae at https://wikiversity.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page--Guy vandegrift (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support The scope is unique and can extend to a number of domains. Specific tools needed. Access rights need to be different. It is also important to have the option of certain pages not being publicly accessible such that press embargo for unpublished articles do not get violated and yet editors or peer reviewers get to work in wiki format. DiptanshuTalk 12:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support I definitely agree with this. If it does air how would the three statutes you mentioned be done? Would peer reviewer, editor, and author have different edit rights or be purely decorative, and would you have to apply for them? Iazyges (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Good questions, Iazyges. I see no reason for editors to need any particular edit rights, and readers without any account should be able to edit too, even published works under certain conditions. I think the author role is also rather decorative, since it's the quality of their works that matter. I think the peer reviewers should need to apply, so that we know they fulfill the criteria. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support per DocJames--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Because an open access journal is very different from WV and WB. --Netha Hussain (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support because I'm looking for a project like this to publish some ideas. --Felipe (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support - If this happens, I can read well the promising journal articles by academics. Though I can't write well the stuff, I can be a good reader to this. --George Ho (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment Belated post-vote comment: I recently read peer reviews on scholarly articles and was amazed by comments and responses. I am also intrigued by the peer review templates, like v:en:Template:editor's comments and v:en:Template:Response. I fixed a usage error recently, so I wonder whether the project can adopt either the templates or some software similar to MediaWiki's Support Desk or something like Wikinews's Comments (like this example). Honestly, I found the templates less convenient for peer reviews, so I figured that some discussion software would be a better improvement. --George Ho (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support -Richard923888 (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support - there is no reason why a separate journal cannot continue to link with WV but there is immense potential that cannot be achieved by remaining a sub-project. Green Giant (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support - This proposal has evolved and improved significantly since first proposed in 2016. The flagship WikiJournal of Medicine exemplifies what the project can achieve (see 2017 editorial). Starting up within Wikiversity was useful to incubate the project and prove that such a novel format is even feasible. Becoming a sister project would further support the initiative by adding legitimacy, support, and extra control of sidebar contents etc. There would remain a strong focus on generation, improvement, peer-review and re-integration of high-quality content into other WMF projects (especially Wikipedia), and a WikiJournal sister project would maintain strong ties to the other projects. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Great proposal!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support For reasons adequately described above. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Great proposal with value for the academic community. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support more than that it is exactly what i had in mind because the lack of open source credited material is recurrent fact on wikipedia and it will expand wikimedia scope. --167.63.49.24 02:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support - Seems like a reasonable proposal, I don't see why it shouldn't at least be given a try. I think the challenge will mostly consist of getting experts in various fields to peer-review, but that's not impossible to do. InsaneHacker (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose they don't need an entire sister project. It has to stay in WV.this user voted 2x, therefore have struck one vote--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose to separate login. Just add the obligation to fill an informations tab in Preferences to allow contributing CreativeC38 (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@CreativeC38: Why does it have to stay on WV? You don't think there's any merit whatsoever to having it as a separate site instead of a subpage on WV in terms of presentation, attracting experts etc.? InsaneHacker (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, the "oppose" and "strong oppose" vote are yours. I'm informing readers to avoid misleads. BTW, sometimes you feel that Wikiversity won't be the same without WikiJournal. However, Wikiversity has been Wikiversity, especially without WikiJournal. Also, it has some good lessons for others to read, like v:English. --George Ho (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support - I think it is to Wikiversity's detriment that WikiJournal find a separate home, however, it does seem to be a better approach for WikiJournal itself, and it should attract more users to the wiki community. I trust that WikiJournal will encourage academics to develop lessons and courses supporting their work at Wikiversity. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support I think WikiJournal would have better chances to develop and to engage with expert communities if it were a sister project. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support I agree my previous speaker. Good point -- DerFussi 06:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Per others. -- Thennicke (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I propose to lessen the requirement to first make the article available in wiki format. Consider my case: I wrote a book (i.e. a very long article) in PDF format (generated from LaTeX) with my original research in mathematics and make it publicly available under an open license. I have a trouble publishing it, because journals don't publish 380 pages articles and book publishers refuse to publish a book which is already available online. I want to allow me to submit the PDF file and be reviewed in WikiJournal project. Note that converting PDF into wiki markup would be a hard work, and this way it would be needed to update after each change in my book (e.g. when I add a solution of a conjecture or correct a typo). --VictorPorton (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@VictorPorton: We definitely hope to implement some easier ways of importing LaTeX, DOCX and PDF submissions on the submissions page. That will likely require help from the WMF's dev team. Currently, the main conversion option is probably Pandoc. We have had people submit as docx files, and the journal editors have manually reformatted for wikimarkup, but that's not a scalable solution. Note that currently only Wiki.J.Med. is accepting original research, whist the other journals starting up are focusing on review articles (at least initially) since these are 'safer' options for building the journals early on. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems that we will never (or at least in near 50 years) have a good automated conversion from LaTeX to wiki. I propose not to convert but to allow the author to upload a PDF file and publish in the wiki just a link to author's files, not the article itself in wiki markup. --VictorPorton (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
We also need some reasonable policy about updates of already published articles. For example arXiv allows to upload more than one version of an article. (This is especially important with articles building a theory rather than proving a single result.) We need it too. Probably every change should be peer reviewed. Or we can trust authors that they improve their materials over time not make it worse. --VictorPorton (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The downside of if we were to have only a pdf version and no wikimarkup version, is that it would make it hard to integrate material into other Wikimedia projects (one of the current main goals of the journals). However, this is not set in stone, so could change. As for multiple versions - I agree with the need for more specific guidelines (it happens not to have come up yet). In addition to the history tab record of all edits during drafting on the preprint server, my expectation is that anything that changes content of a published article would have to be re-reviewed to retain legitimacy. Indeed I can imagine that people could publish updated 'versions' of a review article, as already happens for textbooks. I'd suggest more in-depth discussion be on the main WikiJournal discussion page. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 13:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Anyway my book won't be completely copied to Wikipedia. So to convert the entire book and every its part into wiki markup format is just largely useless work. If we need to publish some part in a wiki, we can convert parts of the book or article on as-needed basis. --VictorPorton (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Victor. Here is v:en:WikiJournal Preprints, which has instructions on sending PDF files via email and provides email address for those wanting to send PDF files. --George Ho (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support This sounds like "a hidden gem 💎" situation where something good is hidden in something else, people who would be interested in this but otherwise not in the Wikiversity might be able to see this sooner if it weren't "hidden away". --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 11:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Very important project. Ammarpad (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support This proposal has a unique scope, and would have been the only WMF project to seem trustworthy for referencing by most of academics. In addition to the potential features listed on the top, this project would require much stricter internal procedures and hence Wikiversity does not fit in its current form. --Strange quark (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I'm ready to give a hand for french version of this sister project. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 20:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support NMaia (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

See also[edit]

Alternative proposals[edit]

WikiJournal as a publishing house[edit]

WikiJournal as a publishing house I am a little confused about how a WikiJournal project would work: would other users be allowed to come along and edit already published research? Would it be like Scholarpedia where you need credentials? Rather than make a separate project as such, maybe "WikiJournal" could be a regularly-published periodical or a publishing imprint that has stable versions of articles that have been collaborated on at Wikiversity. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

As summarized at the structure of WikiJournal of Medicine, anyone may edit pages, even published ones, but substantial edits to the main text of such articles would be reverted. Instead, users should then make a separate draft, and have that draft peer reviewed as well. Peer reviewers must be experts in the subject, but authors do not necessarily have to be. Collaborations at any site with a permitting license may be submitted. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiJournal Public-Private-Versioning and Dynamic Paper Management in a Wiki[edit]

For a Journal the concept of Public-Private-Versioning could be used to facilitate a community based paper development (the community could contribute during the evolution of the paper - transparent history of the evolution of the paper, and private versions are created by a reviewing process (see Open Community Approach).

Furthermore a KnitR-Backend or SageMath-Backend for Wikiversity papers can be used for statistical and/or numerical analysis of data for the paper (see KnitR in Wikiversity). --Bert Niehaus (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)