Nice work. It will take time, but keep it up. On Thu., Jun. 6, 2019, 10:05 p.m. Thomas Shafee, <thomas.sha...@gmail.com> 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&oldid=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 > <https://doi.org/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 > <https://doi.org/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 <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> 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, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
