WikiJournal User Group/Meetings/2019-05-31

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 "/>

Minutes originally drafted in Google doc and copied here after 48 hours

Attendees[edit]

Date: 5pm 31 May 2019 EST

Agenda[edit]

  • Update on action items from April
    • Create first monthly Newsletter (Kelee & Gwinyai & Sarah)
    • Tweet about research methodology & statistics specialist (Kelee)
    • Act as internal methodology & statistics specialist (Eric)
    • Set up mailing list for social media teams to coordinate (Thomas)
    • Endorse 2 nominees in ASBS election if possible (Mikael Haggstrom)
    • Draft bylaw edits based on Affcom recommendations (Thomas)
    • Make unified location for all editorial board and associate editor applications (Thomas)
    • Post code of conduct to wiki and email to invite community feedback (Thomas)
    • Push development of the Template:Article infobox (Thomas & Felipe Schenone)
  • Thematic organisation application
  • WMF board elections
  • Dyslexia article as case study
    • Calibrating quality of article for acceptance
    • Guidance about editor input (edits, additional review, vs focusing on reviews, response to reviews, and decision about publication)
  • Up for debate: four modest proposals (Appraisal and ideas on future evolutions)
  • How to handle wikipedia authors who wish to remain anonymous? X
  • Expansion and streamlining X
    • How to grow more article submissions? X
    • How to improve/simplify participation? X
  • Strategic liaison - preferred ways of working (consensus/prioritisation/voting tools) X

Ran out of time before full agenda finished (marked ‘X’)

Notes[edit]

  • Update on action items from April
  • Bylaws updates: General support but some limitations to such broad votership
    • Identity for users who acted as anon reviewers may have to be confirmed by email
    • How to handle someone making 30 minor edits to game the system to be eligible to vote
    • To begin with neither will likely be major problems, but should be kept in mind as the journals grow
  • Dyslexia article as case study - Can editors make direct edit to draft? When?
    • Direct editing currently encouraged (take advantage of mediawiki format), just keep authors informed
    • After handling editor satisfied with author response to review, send email around editorial board for final 1-2 week decision discussion.
    • When it comes to final publication decision, only requirement to comment on articles within knowledge area.
  • Four modest proposals
    • 1) Do not duplicate articles
      • Some view Wikiversity as a sandbox for Wikipedia so duplication is superfluous (particularly for articles submitted from Wikipedia) whereas others want permanently different versions at WikiVersity that can be more technical without being nixed by WP editors (particularly at WJM, WJH).
      • Could possibly inter-wiki transclude if sister project
      • May not harm peer reviewer response rate (Wikipedia more recognisable ‘brand’ than WikiJournals.
    • 2) Make authors optional
      • We could have experiments about that: select a few existing Wikipedia articles and try having reviewers and editors work on them directly (‘contributors’ but no traditional ‘authors’).
      • Aim to avoid the problems with the BMJ-organised peer review of Parkinson’s disease (comments from 2016 not fully addressed)
    • 3) Focus on reviewers and their work
      • Giving DOIs to reviews is an emerging practice in scientific publishing and we could do it as well.
      • Moreover we could give more prominence to reviews on WP talk pages, especially when the suggested changes are not implemented.
    • 4) Be relaxed about official recognition
      • Official recognition seems indifferent to reviewers, but some authors will not contribute before the journals are on PubMed, Scopus, etc.

Action items[edit]

  • Vote on Bylaws
  • Vote on Editor applications
  • Vote on Code of Conduct after final updates made
  • Share these minutes to metawiki with any confidential info redacted
    • This Google Doc will be emailed to the boards immediately (Thomas Shafee)
    • Its contents will be posted to a public wiki page after 48 hours to give time for any additional notes to be added, and any private info redacted (Thomas)
  • Organise next meeting - doodle poll share do 4th/5th Poll to decide times for mid-late April (Kelee)