Talk:WikiJournal User Group/Archive 2014–2016

Discussions in Wikipedia
The citation of Wikiversity Journal articles in Wikipedia is under discussion at w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and w:Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. These discussions may be applicable to the citation of any Wikiversity article in a Wikipedia article. James500 (discuss • contribs) 20:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. I've made replies at those discussions. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 11:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Journals in development
I moved this header, along with text below, to here, because I think it needs any actual development before reinsertion: Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 09:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

How did this journal set get DOIs?
Is there anyplace that I can read on-wiki how this journal set came to be able to assign DOIs to articles? Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   15:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There wasn't before you came to ask, but in short I first applied for an ISSN as an "open access scholarly publication" at the National Library of Sweden, and once that was approved I could use that ISSN apply for assigning DOIs to articles at CrossRef. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well done
Hi all, great to see this project. I was thinking the same thing today and was pointed here by DocJames when I asked him for feedback. I am interested in helping in any way I can. I will read up on this project in the coming days and see if I can find something to do. All the best, Taketa (discuss • contribs) 16:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm delighted to hear that you find interest in this project I left a message on your talk page. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Generic process
Mikael has gotten the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine started, but there are general concerns. I've been reading the discussions of the Wiki J Med on Wikipedia. There is a collision between the apparent objectives of Wiki J Med and Wikipedia Reliable Source guidelines.

In some discussions I have read, there is a confusion between peer review and "reliable source." The essence of reliable source guidelines is independent publication. Peer review is merely a method used in academic publication to support the publisher goals. The essence of it, in peer-reviewed publications, is that the *publisher* controls the review process, not the author.

The prohibition of using a wiki as a reliable source comes from the fact that, on a wiki, there is normally no responsible publisher, in the sense required for reliable source guidelines.

The goals of Wiki J Med have been mixed. One was to provide material to be used in Wikipedia articles. Another was to have an open and transparent process for approval. As was apparently realized early on. "open and transparent" is not always feasible. However, any publisher could incorporate open and transparent process in its publication decisions.

Now, we can have Wikiversity Journals without this rigamarole. They would simply be places where content relating to the topic of the journal are published, instead of scattering it. They could also be lists of resources here, and approval process is possible, on-wiki.

However, to meet RS guidelines, there must be an independent *and responsible* publisher, not merely an open access place where content may be created and edited. The name Wikiversity in the title implies that Wikiversity is the responsible publisher. "Wiki" would not imply that, by the way. However, the publisher must be an independent person or organization, with a reputation to create, maintain, and defend. The publisher, then, would certify content. That content may exist on Wikiversity, but it would also be linked from the publisher web site, which cannot be Wikiversity. It could be very simple, just tables of contents, low traffic, cheap. Almost all the review process could take place openly, with an independent board -- or editor --, appointed by the publisher, handling confidential submissions, and, as well, assigning peer reviewers.

One of the conflicts that appeared, which did not escape notice on Wikipedia, was authors who were involved with peer review. Not independent. Apparently, the principal author is also the publisher, in the sense of owning the domain that is used, currently http/www.wijoumed.org, which currently redirects to Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, which is not going to fly. This domain is owned by Mikael Haggstrom, not by an organization.

Mikael *can* be the publisher; however, this then creates a blatant conflict of interest.

There are student-run journals. It is fairly common in the U.S. for law reviews, even highly reputable ones, to be student-run. However, to become a reputable journal, quality standards must be high. If articles are published on non-notable topics and without expert review, reputation may be damaged. This much is clear to me: to serve as reliable source, the publisher cannot be Wikiversity, nor can the publisher be controlled by a wiki. Being openly advised by a wiki is a different matter, that is clearly possible.

The problem of wiki articles being approved in one state, and then changing, has been raised on Wikipedia as well. The Journal, when it publishes using the wiki, links to permanent versions. The authoritative table of contents of the Journal is off-wiki, though it will be mirrored on-wiki. We already have traditions of respecting attributed authors on subpages (which is a reason why I moved all the published Journal articles to subpages of the Wiki J Med.) We can formalize this as policy in the case of Journal articles, where the community recognizes the journal's relationship with Wikiversity. We can also use Pending Changes for this, which will allow *anyone* to edit journal articles, which are only incorporated in the visible page for non-logged-in users when approved by a Reviewer, and we can cover this in policy.

If the considerations mentioned are respected, there is nothing other than inertia stopping the creation of journals, that might even create content for Wikipedia as needed; key will be an independent responsible publisher, as with any reliable source, and probably a sound and independent review process. Properly done, the quality of the sources created could be higher than for standard publishing. Having "wiki review" as part of the process may bring in wider expertise than sometimes is available with single-reviewer process. As well, as soon as an article exists on Wikiversity, even undergoing review, a sister wiki link can be placed on Wikipedia. That is *not* a claim of reliable source, it is merely a notice that content relating to the topic exists on Wikiversity. It's under External Links if on the article page, and, of course, it may be mentioned on Talk pages.

The discussions that are then created will not decide the content. They will inform it, by advising the publisher; key to this is that the publisher is responsible for those content decisions, as to what the Journal publishes.

Hybrid structure, long an interest of mine.... --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If we necessarily need to define a publisher, why can't an editorial board with an editor-in-chief constitute that? I do have the ultimate responsibility for published articles, but I do so as an editor-in-chief. The articles are then hosted by Wikiversity, and the project does have approval by the Wiki Project Med Foundation. Reliability is then something that us built in time - even Wikipedia is struggling with that despite evidence of not having more errors than other academic sources (Reliability of Wikipedia).
 * I agree the peer review process should now not be performed by someone in the editorial board. I've added myself at Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Peer reviewers, but it's practically to set an example of how to add yourself on the list. I've emailed several independent individuals and asked for a peer review of the latest article submission. You can help out too by trying to find people who would be suitable for the task.
 * I also support either semi-protection or pending changes, once we have any disruptive edit to show upon application. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Outreach, domain, news tab, past issues

 * Congratulations Mikael for your noble efforts. It was my ignorance that was not aware of this journal earlier. However, this journal has still a long way to go in terms of establishing reliability and acceptance.
 * Firstly, people have to know that it exists. It was not even listed on List of open access journals where I added it just today. There are only a very limited number of blog articles or published articles mentioning about this journal. Reviews, criticisms and discussions (outside the wiki community) need to be encouraged. Even on certain discussions on talk pages of articles under WikiProject Medicine we could give suggestions for the people to publish on Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. We can also approach eminent persons to publish this journal. We can even find some of them as users on Wikiprojects. I understand that it is indeed a matter of time but the board needs to structure the direction of progress.
 * Secondly, there are minor issues that need to be sorted out. I found valid points in this discussion by User:Abd On checking the domain information at I felt that, rather than appearing as an independent registrant, you could add an organization. It remains to be discussed which would be the best organisation but my vote would be in favor Wiki Project Med Foundation. Alternatively, you could make it Wikiversity Journal Council or Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.
 * Thirdly, you could include a tab for press released on the journal main page and list the publications related to the journal on that page (although even I could do it). However, these are some suggestions that you could consider. Diptanshu.D (discuss • contribs) 00:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The list on Past Issues also needs to be updated. This is very important. It seems that there has not been much work since 2014 (certainly a misconception). Diptanshu.D (discuss • contribs) 00:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Diptanshu.D,
 * I'm glad you found your way to the project, and got to share your valuable thoughts! I added a header to this discussion to be able to find my way back here, I hope you find it all right.
 * It was a nice thought to mention the journal at List of open access journals, but it seemed it was not yet notable enough to deserve a spot there, but it is the aim to be so in the future. I do think, however, that the project has enough mention in external sources to be mentioned in its relation to Wikiversity, and hence I now mentioned it at . Time will tell if the entry will last there.
 * The domain ownership may be transferred, but on the other hand I think it may be a lost effort when the project is moved to a separate project and renamed. At that point, we can simply register the new domain under for example Wikiversity Journal Council.
 * I now added recent mentions in the news and updates on the Wikiversity Journal main page.
 * Thanks for the rework of the Past issues page!
 * Feel free to implement more of your ideas, or help out in any other way listed at the Contribute page.
 * Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

We perhaps need a guild sign
When more journals come onlinke, I say we form a guild and modify this image with a European-style rendition of the Wikiversity logo.


 * See Second Journal of Science/Editorial
 * --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Good idea! Wikiversity Journal is a platform for multiple potential journals, and deserves an own sign as such. I didn't find any convenient way to use the proposed sign as a template. I found it easier to combine the following images:

I think it's fitting for a project like this, because it consists of: We can change the official logo of the project later if we're not happy with this one. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * a lightbulb, symbolizing the creation of ideas
 * latitude and longitude stripes around the lightbulb, symbolizing a global scope
 * pillars, symbolizing academia
 * I like the logo. It wouldn't look good with the guild sign, but that's OK.  Wikiversity_Journal_logo.png can be the official logo, and  Zz Glaser P1010007a retouched.jpg can appear in articles promoting the concept. What about using the plural "Wikiversity Journals"?  I will write at length about why I like the plural in my sandbox and post a permalink here soon.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is a bit more discussion of why we should think in terms of a "guild": Special:Permalink/1510796--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I predict that someday there will be many journals, but only those that are elected into the guild will be allowed to post this guild sign.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I also predict that there will be inferior and amateurish journals, so we need to consider how and when members are admitted to the guild. Perhaps a probationary "pending membership" status should be considered,--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 10:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the lightbulb-pillar logo can be used for the group of journals, and the guild logo for the community of people involved, particularly when discussing about matters affecting multiple journals. I think there should be criteria that journals need to meet before being accepted into this group, such as abiding by some international standards on journal structure. I also think any future journal wanting to join the group should have a name starting with "Wikiversity Journal of..." for consistency. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 21:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by the two groups your call "group of journals" and "community of people involved". I see the two groups defined as follows:
 * One group consists of all Wikiversity Journals (or people), and there are currently two journals: WJM and FJS
 * The other group is a subset consisting of those that adhere to certain standards. Except for a misunderstanding concerning journal names that was entirely my fault, the second group is currently one and same with the first group.
 * I was thinking of journal administration as practicing the craft, with the lightbulb symbol, and guild activity being cooperation between those involved. I think my main idea, however, was that both symbols are useful in their own way. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If a third journal emerges that wants to do things differently, then either we need to convince the Wikiversity community to govern the behavior of this third journal, or we need to form the guild. Personally, I see no choice but to form the guild.  But that does not imply that this guild needs to make any decisions yet.  First we need to see what this new journal(s) is (are) like.  But, at some point in the future, a clear procedure must be established for inviting, excluding, and even expelling  members or journals from the guild (will this be a guild of members or a guild of journals?).  Trust me, Wikipedia attracts some very unconventional people.


 * Also, I seem to be outvoted 3:1 on the need for name consistency. I don't think I will ever change my opinion, but I do respect a solid majority.  But I am too busy to change the name.  I am not enthusiastic about this, but if someone wants to create a new journal called called "Wikiversity Journal of Physics and Astronomy Education",  I can use the SJS as an unrefereed "practice journal" for my students.


 * Perhaps a compromise might be to reserve "Wikiversity Journal of X" for people already educated in the X profession. Other journals, like mine (which is intended to be read by lower division college students) would be forbidden the use of "Wikiversity Journal of X". Most students in my Astronomy class have very limited interest in science, and that creates a huge distinction between journals targeting the two different audiences.  Don't forget, there are 10,000 open access journals out there.  If only 1% of them decide to be hosted by Wikiversity, we will be very big.  And, I can't imagine NOT wanting a journal that so effortlessly links in and out of Wikipedias of all languages.  This ability to link is especially useful in education because it permits one to write in prose at a slightly higher reading level than would be needed if every word had to be explained.

--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 11:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think "Wikiversity Journal of Science Education" as you suggested is an excellent name for it. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * My biggest concern involves refereeing. When I created SJS the plan was for me to be the sole editor/referee and use the journal to develop articles for use in my courses, which rely entirely on WMF wikis.  I think it is ethical to adopt such a policy if it is clearly stated (?). But I don't know if such editor-only refereed journals should be granted full guild status.  My vision is that Wikiversity Journal be a hub for a guild journals named "Wikiversity Journal of X" that are properly refereed.  This leaves me with two questions:
 * Will the Wikiversity community allow exclusive use of the name "Wikiversity Journal of X" for this guild? I believe the answer will be a conditional "yes", the caveat being that the Wikiversity community has the right to control any page on Wikiversity, and is actually incapable of surrendering that right (unless it is to WMF).  --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to protect every possible name containing "Wikiversity Journal of..." from being created or edited. Any person may even add the guild image to it without permission. If that happens, we may ask at for example the Colloquium for consensus to remove such page. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 16:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would go one more step and suggest the guild sign can be removed before seeking consensus. It's not an issue of trademark infringement but accuracy.  Any editor may correct an erroneous statement in any article.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can probably remove it ourselves, and seek additional consensus if it keeps being added back again. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 08:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What does our guild want to do with the name and editor-only referring questions associated with Second Journal of Science? I believe this question need not be addressed for now, but that ultimately the guild should exclude journals that are editor-only refereed. At the same time this new guild should evaluate non-guild journals and endorse the best ones with an "affiliation" that falls short of full membership.  I believe that our first priority is to recruit others to create journals, but discourage ISSN and domain name registration until the journal has matured a bit.  --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think being editor-only refereed is all right if it is clearly stated for journal readers that such is the case. I made a suggestion in the following section of how this can be displayed at the Wikiversity Journal page. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 16:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Journal summaries
I think all journals in this group should have summaries that should include the most important aspects of journal structure, as well as completeness. I suggest the following layout, with current journals included: Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 08:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

What about social science?
So I read the Signpost piece at en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-06-15/Special_report and I want to congratulate people on their work here. I do, however, notice that the "Second Journal of Science" seems to focus on natural sciences. Does it mean that any social scientists interested in this project would have to start by, well, starting a third journal? --Piotrus (discuss • contribs) 06:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Piotrus, thank you for your interest in the Wikiversity Journal. You are correct that we currently do not have a journal on social science. As a starting project on wikiversity we are still growing. A journal on social sciences is certainly welcome. However as a wiki it is up to editors to create this. We welcome serious editors to cooperate with us in starting a journal on social science. All the best, Taketa (discuss • contribs) 07:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

French Wikiversity science journal
A decision to host a journal on French Wikiversity is already done since 21th of september 2015. I'm thinking to translate English wikiversity science journal presentation and peer review system pages to submit them to our community. I'm also very interested about starting a French social science open journal on fr.wikiversity. Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact (French native speaker) 18:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Lionel! It was nice to hear about you ideas at Wikimania, and you are welcome to copy and translate guidelines and templates for use in the French journal. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mikael Häggström. I need time for this, and holidays are not the best moment for me. But let we see, later. Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact (French native speaker) 16:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, Lionel, take your time. With journals in multiple languages, I think any published articles can be highlighted on the front page of all of them, at least with a translated title linking to the wiki where the main work is found. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

Why did I miss your work !

Well, I must congratulate you. I do not know from experience the medical field, but I suppose there must have been some resistance or absence of recognition. I had a look to some articles of the medical journal. I'm not sure though to decipher the structure of peers work I'm used to (with structure: objective, methods, results, discussion, conclusion). I see no reason however not to duplicate what you've done for other discipline.

Not knowing your contribution I started a project, fr:Projet:Journal_scientifique_libre as introduced to you by. I'd be delighted to discuss issues of reviewing procedures and quality recognition principles. As my research environment is quite not open to such practices I tried to develop authorship, responsibility and quality controls in my proposal. I see no automation in recognition attribution or pages protections

Focused on solving the multi-functionality issue in Life Cycle Assessment methodology and occupied with political troubles in France, I did not much for JSL since I started the idea. But I guess now is the time (even though I should be writing my thesis).

Translations of the proposal are already done in english on Enipedia (graphics on commons, in french english and Chinese). I should receive Arab and Spanish translation from friends.

BR

@+

--RP87 (discuss • contribs) 09:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Rudy!


 * I'm glad you found this project now. It seems from your diagrams that the proposed components of Journal scientifique libre are about the same as in Wikiversity Journal. As mentioned above, you are welcome to copy guidelines and templates. Also articles in a particular language can at least have their titles translated and linked from the journals in all other languages. Also, if you develop for example this Bot authorship, let me know. It might be useful for all Wikiversity Journals.
 * Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 10:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * That's right Mikael Häggström bot authorship could be useful but we can develop the french part of the journal without it. RP87 and me can work together on it when I'll finished with prior activities. Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact (French native speaker) 14:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Listing in Directory of Open Access Journals
I have put an application for listing of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine in the Directory of Open Access Journals (https://doaj.org). The same can be done separately for Second Journal of Science. Diptanshu.D (discuss • contribs) 17:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Astrohistory
I'd like to suggest a scientific journal entitled: Astrohistory. A search of Google Scholar (not the last word!) indicates at present this journal title is not being used, at least recently. A subtitle might be "an open-access journal from Wikiversity". It can go in any domain you can get. The range of potential article topics can be enormous! . --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea, Marshallsumter (I moved your entry to here)! I made page at Wikiversity Journal/Starting a journal with advice. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 17:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Naming election open
An election for determining the future name of the project is now open at: Talk:Wikiversity Journal/Future as separate Wikimedia project. The name of the project will be the entry that gets the most points during an election lasting from 12 (noon) on August 6, until 12 (noon) August 16 (GMT time), wherein each voter gets 5 points. Those eligible to vote are: Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 12:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Editorial board members of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine or Second Journal of Science
 * Those who have (on August 16 at the latest) signed up as editors or peer reviewers of either of these journals.

Email lists
An issue with increased participation is that the email lists that came with the domain names (wikiversityjournal.org and wijoumed.org) have limited amounts of recipients. For the wide-reach@wikiversityjournal.org, we only have space for 1 more participant. I suggest that we get our mailing lists through https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo. This would hopefully also allow for having a moderator review emails to us from people who are not themselves on the lists. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 17:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Willingness to join Journal Council
I am Dr. Diptanshu Das, a long term editor on Wikipedia. I am also on the Editorial board of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. I would like to join the journal council and am willing to work on it in order to be able to launch it as a separate wikiproject. Since all the team members are likely to be familiar with me, I am not going into further details. Diptanshu.D (discuss • contribs) 05:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Great! I will add you to the list tomorrow, so that the community has a chance to give any comments first. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Welcome! Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 05:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikijournal or WikiJournal
There is still some uncertainty whether it should be Wikijournal or WikiJournal. I think it should be written with a lower case j in order to be consistent with other Wikimedia projects. Main discussion is located at: Talk:Wikijournal/Future_as_separate_Wikimedia_project. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Many journals / one journal
The WikiJournal project is struggling to take off. Is it wise to split readers and contributors across several journals? Should we merge all journals into one, all-encompassing WikiJournal?

Arguments in favor of many journals

 * Specialist journals can be more attractive to authors. Certainly medical researchers I know are more interested in publishing in a medical journal than in a generalist journal (however that's anecdotal).
 * Retaining a separate WikiJournal of Medicine maintains the outreach and reputation so far built (though this is still minimal).
 * The "WikiJournal of Medicine" name is consolidated in for example ISSN.org (for the International Standard Serial Number), Crossref (for doi codes), and the registration as a non-profit organization, so it would be a lot of work if we would need to change it.
 * Journal editors and other volunteers may be interested and particularly knowledgeable only in specific fields.}}
 * Articles can be easily categorized per discipline, and the categories advertised so that users can quickly find articles in their field if interest.
 * Different fields can have different expectations of peer review.
 * Articles can be easily categorized per discipline and then subject to the appropriate standards for the field.
 * General journals can struggle (e.g. SpringerOpen closed down).
 * This can also be said of specialist journals, there are a trillion that closed down.

Arguments in favor of one journal

 * The publication rate of the WikiJournal of Medicine is declining (2014: 2 issues, 12 posts; 2015: 1 issue, 4 posts; 2016: 1 issue, 1 post) and the WikiJournal of Science hardly has any contributors either. Merging the two journals (and any future ones) into a single WikiJournal would allow us to collaborate, gather contributors and readers more effectively.
 * More interested editors to spread the workload (peer review, template work, documentation, etc).
 * More interested editors to advertise its existence, especially outside of the existing wiki community.
 * Having only one journal reduces the risk of it falling under the critical mass of editors needed to continue in 10 years (probably the main risk for most volunteer projects, and could easily happen for a WikiJournal servicing too niche a topic).
 * Having only one journal would greatly simplify the mailing list. Instead of having one list called "wikijournal-of-medicine-l", another "wikijournal-of-science-l" and others for future journals, we'd have a single one called "wikijournal-l", a single and thus larger suscriptor list and more regular emails.
 * There's no need for a separate mailing list for each journal. We can have single "wikijournal-en" list and send all issues through there.

Free talk
Hi! I very much like the WikiJournal idea, and have a couple of papers I'd like to submit. However, my field is Logic and Philosophy, and there's currently no journal for that, nor is there likely to be, as there aren't many logicians or philosophers around in Wikiversity. However, I noticed that in this very talk page, Piotrus showed interest in a Social Sciences Journal, and Marshallsumter on an Astrophysics Journal. I bet there are many other users who would really like a wikijournal for their discipline where to submit their work. The current approach seems to be: gather a sufficient community and start your own journal, but I think there's a better way. We could create ONE WikiJournal (THE WikiJournal) and make it a generalist journal for all kinds of peer-reviewed papers (appropriately tagged per discipline). Yes I know, many of you love your WikiJournal of Medicine and your Second Journal of Science, but wouldn't you prefer to have one, very active journal, than several, mildly active? Such a journal could quickly become a first-class journal, I believe, and would attract contributors from all corners of the wikiverse, creating a very active and wild community in no time. And if merging the WikiJournal of Medicine and the Second Journal of Science into a single WikiJournal is too much to ask, maybe we could start a journal called General WikiJournal (or something like that). What do you think? --Felipe (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. As it is, I find this initiative too limited. --Piotrus (discuss • contribs) 03:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to starting a new journal. But you should know that I encourage you to play with Second Journal of Science by creating a preliminary edition.  I created the logo (with the horses) because it was the first plausible one that I found.  At the time, it was called the "First Journal of Science", and I chose "Science" because of its entomological connection to the word "knowledge".  Anything can be called a "science", even boxing or cave painting.  Feel free to do anything you want with the Second Journal of Science.  I will be happy to help you with the templates and immediately make you chief editor.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a key point in the general WikiJournal project. As I understand it, WJM was the first WikiJournal because the WikiProject Medicine (on en.Wikipedia) and the Wiki Project Med Foundation (on meta) are amongst the best organised and populous communities. In general there are two extremes, a single journal called WikiJournal, or many small specialist journals. There may be sustainable models in the middle. The current default has been to use WJM as a flagship/experiment to see if such a journal is even possible then to encourage other specialist journals under the same umbrella (in the same vein as PLOS or BMC journal families). Even PLOS One is science only.

For WikiJournals, I think it falls down to demand (how many authors want to publish) and labour supply (how many editors will help run it).

I don't have a particular answer, but I'm interested in the discussion. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have refereed or reviewed for several physical science journals and could do so here. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 04:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the generous offer, I want to accept it but lets see where this discussion leads first. Thanks for the background. If I'm not mistaken, the publication rate of the WJM is as follows: So notwithstanding the relatively active medical community, it seems that the WJM is decreasing its productivity. This seems like a powerful argument for a single WikiJournal, would you agree? Maybe when a larger community builds up, we can support more specialist journals. What do you think? --Felipe (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2014: 2 issues, 12 posts
 * 2015: 1 issue, 4 posts
 * 2016: 1 issue, 1 post
 * Here is my problem with a single journal: Single journal = single editor (or other governing entity).  Diversity of thought is essential.  --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking over this page, perhaps I am not following. Are you talking about a single wikigjournal?  Or are you proposing that the existing journals avoid specialization?  My belief is that the Second Journal of Science is intended to include the broadest possible range of topics.  Back when boxing was pupular, sportswriters would refer to the "scientific boxer". I have always been confused about what does NOT belong on Wikiversity.  A short story is literature, not educational.  But we teach literature in schools, so shouldn't we allow short stories on Wikiversity?  We also teach people how to write a Résumé.  I oppose allowing Wikiverity to post résumés, but wonder how we would solve the conundrum of a résumés-writing course taught using Wikiversity.  In short, the Second Journal of Science could be that broad journal you are advocating.  And if you find a format or them that makes SJS succeed, you can always create a new journal with a different name and let SJS go dormant again.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, the SJS could be that broad journal, and I'd be glad to take over and see what I can do. But to me, that's the second best thing to do. The way I see it, the best thing to do would be to merge the two existing wikijournals into a single journal and call it simply "the WikiJournal". The WJM seems to be declining, and the SJS also needs help. Why not help each other? Also, I agree that the word "science" is sufficiently broad to encompass all fields of knowledge (I specialized in philosophy of science, so really, I agree) but for the layman, the word "science" does not mean "all fields of knowledge" and so I think that putting "science" in the title will shoo many clicks, views and even contributions. That's why I think that ending up with a generalist journal called just "WikiJournal" could make a lot of good to the project. --Felipe (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * About the "single journal = single editor" problem, I agree that diversity of thought is important (should we allow astrologers too?) but why do you think that a single generalist journal is incompatible with diversity of thought? Can't we have a board of editors? --Felipe (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Four comments:
 * SJS cannot be merged with the medical journal because one needs to be strictly refereed and the other is currently unrefereed. They are intended to have entirely different reputations.
 * I agree that the word "science" in SJS is a flaw in a journal designed to be all-encompassing, but an even greater flaw is the template structure. We need a program that can read/write permalinks from a spreadsheet and create wikitext that constitutes the journal.  The articles in a wikijournal are nothing more than links pages and permalinks in Wikiversity or one of its wikimedia sisters.  A spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) is the ideal platform for keeping track of articles and submissions.  I would use Matlab to create the program to do this, but am way too busy for a job that would take me almost a month to complete (I am not a good programer).
 * You might want to rethink the name Wikijournal because it is used by at least two other organizations (here and here)
 * Like you, I also thought about organizing the varied efforts, and for that reason concocted the concept of a The guild. The idea of a guild is that journals could evaluate each other in a spirit of both cooperation and competition.  On Wikiversity, we place the Template:Fringe on pseudoscience articles, and the same could be done for pseudoscience journals.  But the guilds could add an independent layer to that structure.  People not happy with the Template:Fringe need to go through the Wikiversity Colloquium and that is a waste of time.  But, guilds could be smaller units that make decisions more quickly.  The idea is that the "good" journals could allow the bad journals to exist on Wikiversity, but by a quick vote of the editors, exclude "bad" journals from the list of guild members.  We chould even allow a separate guild for the "bad" journals.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

For anyone interested in starting an additional journal, I wrote some advice at WikiJournal/Starting a journal. Even with a low publication rate, I want to retain WikiJournal of Medicine, since I am personally interested in this particular field. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * While journals are not usually named after their university of origin, the title "Wikiversity Journal" as a general journal is still available unless I missed something. Retaining the name "WikiJournal of Medicine" or "Wikiversity Journal of Medicine" as a separate entity is probably preferred not because it's refereed but because physicians usually write for other MDs to read, as a scientist might write for other scientists to read. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As for naming, I think it would entirely depend on what the journal decided to encompass. E.g. two broad journals WikiJournal of Humanities and WikiJournal of Science, or many small journals, or one WikiJournal Open / WikiJournal Plus / etc. There was a discussion a while back about the relative merits of WikiJournal vs Wikiversity Journal here and here, so I think Wiki.J.Med is unlikely to change its' name in the near future. I'd recommend that other journals that start up use WikiJournal of X, to collect journals under the same brand/umbrella. However, it is obviously up the community that starts a journal as to what to call it! The ting to decide first, is what the journal(s) scope would be, since that would define all subsequent discussion. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Besides, the WikiJournal of Medicine name is consolidated in for example ISSN.org (for the International Standard Serial Number), Crossref (for doi codes), and the registration as a non-profit organization, so it would be a lot of work if we would need to change it. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So there's no consensus for merging the journals, ok. Following Marshallsumter's comment, I propose we rename the SJS to "WikiJournal of Science". Do you agree? --Felipe (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree in that it's best changing its name to WikiJournal of Science. I think it's best to have one single science journal, rather than a main one and one "second". Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to changing the name. Any volunteers to do the edits? Keep in mind that the big problem here is the lack of interest in the journal.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I did review Second Journal of Science/Past issues/004 "Astronomical spectroscopy" and Second Journal of Science/Past issues/006 "Alpha Centauri". Comments, questions, criticisms, and concerns of these reviews are most welcome! Usually the authors are free to respond and edit their articles if the edtor-in-chief or the editor assigned to their article requests this. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science
I just finished renaming the Second Journal of Science to WikiJournal of Science. Cheers! --Felipe (discuss • contribs) 22:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I also just updated the logo. It's a crude first version, I think future versions should follow the style of the current logo of the WikiJournal of Medicine. --Felipe (discuss • contribs) 22:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should do an effort to unify the templates used by the journals. This will allow us to collaborate. --Felipe (discuss • contribs) 23:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice work! Regarding the templates, there are several options for each one:
 * Create new or adapt from WikiJournal of Medicine to fit the science journal specifically, such as I see you have for Template:WikiJournal of Science menu
 * Have the same template for both journals. If you find a template that you can use with no modification, you are welcome to move it from "Template:Wijoumed..." to "Template:WikiJournal..." (and then, please have a look at its "What links here" to see that it still renders well for the medical journal).
 * It's also possible to have, for example Template:Article info working for both journals (and potentially future journals as well) by adding a journal parameter. Hence, if you enter "journal=medicine" it will render as it does now, and if you enter "journal=science" it will render as you want.
 * Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 16:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I like uniformity of the new name and logo for WJScience, but we still haven't solved the notability problem. Next semester a large portion of the grade for all my classes will involve wikis.  What does the community think about me attempting to recruit a few students to become active editors and turn it into a student journal? I created the journal in order to highlight individual accomplishments on  Wikipedia/Wikiversity, but subsequently solved the problem by giving each student a private wiki at wright.miraheze.org .  This allows me to grade their efforts and post only the best on Wikiversity.  Science is not like medicine in that with a science journal amateurish efforts do little harm. I can't guarantee that I can recruit this cadre of student editors, but it might be worth a try. What do you think?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good thing to have student editors, and to accept student works to get things going, especially if it involves moving only the best of it to Wikiversity. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 14:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I also think it's a good idea to bring students in and publish their best work on the WikiJournal, but "turning it into a student journal" is another issue which I think is both unnecessary and undesirable. --Felipe (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I like the name change. Doc James (discuss • contribs) 19:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm excited to see this project go ahead! I'm happy to help out with template formatting. I formed the majority of the WikiJournal of Medicine formatting templates. I've tried to organise the markup in a way that can be edited by other template-savvy editors, however it can always be tricky reading the code of a complex template. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've also created a svg logo for the journal updated the png version. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. I think it works a bit better at different sizes, and scg version are easier to update/edit. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sweet!!! --Felipe (discuss • contribs) 11:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Mailing list
I think it's essential that we create a mailing list and start gathering a user base so that when we publish a new issue, we can email users about it, similar to what The Signpost does. Any thoughts? Any support? Any objections? --Felipe (discuss • contribs) 18:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a Task at the Phabricator to have my WMF email fixed so that I can send and receive email via the "email this user" feature on the left menu! It now works! Anyone can now email me this way! If you do not want your private email address revealed simply reply using that same feature rather than clicking on "reply"! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, per lack of objections, I requested the mailing list wikijournal-en@lists.wikimedia.org be created at T156739. --Felipe (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! When created, I think it can replace the current public mailing list at: https://groups.google.com/d/forum/wikijournal (reached by emails to ). Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 17:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The mailing list has been created (https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikijournal-en). :-) Are you the admin of the other mailing list at Google? If so, are you interested in becoming an admin on this new mailing list? Also, please check the main menu of the WikiJournal of Science, notice the big blue button for subscribing, and please consider if you'd like a similar button in the main menu of the WikiJournal of Medicine. Cheers! --Felipe (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Good work Felipe! Yes, I am admin of the email. What would be my tasks as an admin of this mailing list? I linked to this mailing list at Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine (in turn linked from the journal's right menu for "updates"). Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks! The general duties of mailing list administration are at Mailing lists/Administration. In order to add you as an admin, I'll need your email. If you subscribe to the list I should be able to see it. --Felipe (discuss • contribs) 23:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, Felipe, I can be an administrator of this list. I subscribed to it now, so I think you should be able to see my email. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Felipe (discuss • contribs) 00:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The WikiJournal umbrella
I've updated the WikiJournal users group to include the French language Journal scientifique libre (Free Journal of Science) that was proposed in 2015. I don't know what the likelihood is that it gains critical mass, or even merges with WikiJournal of Science into a multi-language journal. Either way, I think it is useful for WikiJournals to be gathered together to share information. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 08:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

A new use for the old Second Journal of Science logo
By renaming the Second Journal of Science to the WikiJournal of Science, this user group clarified the journal's intended scope. And, the clarification created a niche for an new "quasi-journal" that I call the Wright State University Lake Campus/Showcase. I am sole editor and referee, and all my students are required to attempt to publish in Showcase. They do this on, wright.miraheze.org, which hosts private wikis where one and only one individual student writes wikitext on a wiki that cannot be viewed by other students (but I can see the effort in-progress). It is hard to assign letter grades to student efforts if they can "peek" into each other's work in progress. While this is hardly a journal, it is something this group should know about.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All right. It may still be possible to use the best articles in Showcase for WikiJournal of Science as well. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 11:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)