Talk:WikiJournal of Science/Editors/Archive 2018

Editorial board application of Shampa Ghosh

 * Questions:
 * Apart from a few contributions to a Wiki-book I do not find you to have any experience on Wikimedia sister projects. We consider familiarity with the Wiki-culture and collaborative editing a pre-requisite. How would you like to defend yourself in this aspect?
 * Could you elaborate on your experience pertaining to scientific writing and editing?
 * The journal is just establishing itself and has a long way to go. Parametrically, what are the steps of development that you have in mind with respect to this journal and what role would you possibly play in the same?
 * The journal has already empanelled a number of credible board members quite recently. What additional value do you think you could bring to the table?
 * -Diptanshu&#128172; 17:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I agree that there is not enough information presented here to make a decision, e.g. "Academic Editor" of what?. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 00:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply: Many thanks for your questions. I agree that I have meagre experience with Wikimedia but I can always start working in association with it. I have a good experience of writing and editing research manuscripts in biological sciences. Presently, I am working with an academic writing and editing company where my job profile is to understand the research done and write or edit the manuscripts. Regarding the journal, I would like to say that it is in a nascent stage and needs careful decisions to shape it better and bring it to a level where it is widely accepted in the medical field. I do understand that as an editor one has to work in close collaboration with other members of editorial board to invite prospective authors, verify the viability of the manuscript before sending it to peer reviewers and check the final manuscript along with the comments received to discuss and decide finally for publication. I could help in this as I have a good experience in it. Shampa.ghosh (discuss • contribs) 18:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that Wikimedia experience is not a prerequisite, since we have plenty of expertise in that area on the board, so that is not a problem. I think your scientific background is very valuable and, I would recommend acceptance as an associate editor, as per precedent set by Wiki.J.Med. Such a position gives the opportunity to contribute expertise and gain experience in the journal, outside of the main board. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 05:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As with the below applicant, I do have reservations about English proficiency here, which I suggest might be even more crucial in an associate editor who would perform langauge editing and finalizing of manuscripts. It would be useful to see some examples of work. --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 06:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Status: Declined due to lack of consensus. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 22:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Dr. Jitendra Kumar Sinha

 * Regretfully, . To me your contributions to Wikipedia to date seem to indicate that you have neither the necessary fluency of English for editorial work on a journal, nor a good grasp of scientific style or responsible and aposite referencing. --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 09:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Questions:
 * Although your first edit dates back to 2011, you have hardly ever been active on any of the Wiki sister projects. Could you please specify the reason? We consider familiarity with the Wiki-culture and collaborative editing a pre-requisite. How would you like to defend yourself in this aspect?
 * Could you elaborate on your experience pertaining to review and editorial work?
 * The journal is just establishing itself and has a long way to go. Parametrically, what are the steps of development that you have in mind with respect to this journal and what role would you possibly play in the same?
 * [It is to be noted that the user also applied to join the Editorial Board of WikiJournal of Medicine]
 * -Diptanshu&#128172; 17:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Although I don't think that frequent (or even any) Wiki contribution is a prerequsite so long as other skills would prove useful, the referencing issue is a problem (for clarity, they were reprimanded on Wikipedia for extrapolating animal model references to make statements on human disease example). However, their scientific publishing record does indicate an ability to interpret information accurately, so I shall otherwise wait for the applicant's response. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 00:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Answers: As noted by Dr. Diptanshu Das, I have also applied for the Editorial Board of WikiJournal of Medicine, as I was invited to do so (if I was interested). The same queries were raised there and I am answering it here again. "I don’t have any specific reason but I think I can work fruitfully. I have some experience of reviewing and editing research papers/review articles related to neuroscience, biochemistry and life sciences journals like: Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience - Guest Associate Editor; Matters – Editorial Board Member; Frontiers in Pharmacology – Reviewer; Medical Hypothesis – Reviewer; and Neuroscience – Reviewer. I agree that WikiJournal of Medicine would be indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, etc. soon and that would make it one of the preferred journal by researchers and scientists to share their work. I see an excellent growth in the journal in next few years, which also depends upon the editorial board’s hard work. I am sure I can be a productive part of the team." Regards. --G10sinha (discuss • contribs) 12:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Experience as guest editor for a Frontiers journal is definitely useful, as is the applicant's highly relevant scientific expertise. I would recommend acceptance as an associate editor for Wiki.J.Sci. (as currently performed at Wiki.J.Med.). T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 05:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to remain negative, but I do believe that language and content editing and working within scientific journal conventions, as would be required from an associate editor, might not play out too well based on the applicant's available contributions to Wikimeda projects. --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 06:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Status: Declined due to lack of consensus. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 22:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Thijs van Vlijmen

 * Comment - Experience with multiple established publishers gives valuable knowledge. Note: Jack Nunn has indicated to me that the applicant has experience in promoting public understanding of science, but I would prefer them to describe it in their own words for the record here. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 00:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Reply by Applicant to comment by T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo) - I have been involved in the 'Campfires and Science' project with Jack Nunn, which is a community outreach program to make people aware of the fact that everyone is a scientist, that anyone can generate scientific data and that science is for everyone. This has been done by taking interested individuals into the state forests of Victoria for a variety of field based activities, chaperoned by experts in those respective areas. I have also presented at quite a few university campuses and at international conferences on Open Access publishing and the rights that authors of scholarly material have. Van Vlijmen (discuss • contribs) 13:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - I think the ability to mediate between the general public and academics will usefully add to the board's knowledge. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 03:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * - I support this application and believe Thijs would be a valued member of the editorial board. In the spirit of disclosure I would like it noted that I know Thijs van Vlijmen personally Jacknunn (discuss • contribs) 02:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * - His experience should be valuable for the journal. Diptanshu&#128172; 18:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * - per the above. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - valuable set of qualifications and experiences. --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 06:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * - obviously a valuable member. Chiswick Chap (discuss • contribs) 09:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Question - Could you write a few words on your vision of the future of academic publishing, and the roles of traditional journals, preprint archives, Wikipedia? Sylvain Ribault (discuss • contribs)
 * Reply - Of course, I think that 'Open', be it access, science, or data, is going to become more important very quickly. With increasing local, regional and national mandates in this area, it is likely that only venues that offer clear and unhindered 'Open' pathways will survive. There might be a small number of traditional journals that will be able to remain as they are, but the majority will need to adapt or they will disappear. The current climate of researcher assessment in combination with the mandates mentioned above make for an interesting mix that is actually slowing the transition to 'Open' and it is also, at least in some research areas, slowing down the use of preprint servers. Wikipedia can play an important role in this, if it can get the balance right in the short term (being both preprint server, 'journal' and a source of peer reviewers). If the WikiJournals can harness the power of crowd sourced peer review (pre and post publication), while also complying with the requirements put on the authors, that could really make a big impact. The opportunities are endless, but a few initial hurdles will need to be cleared before these journals become viable publishing venues, mainly in relation to a few key abstracting and indexing services. Always happy to elaborate on this.Van Vlijmen (discuss • contribs) 04:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for having elaborated. Sylvain Ribault (discuss • contribs) 13:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Status: Accepted to board. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 10:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Jack Brooks
Status: Accepted to board. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 12:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 05:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - Good experience with publishing in a range of formats: traditional peer reviewed journals, wiki-formats (e.g. scholarpedia) and informal platforms (e.g. their wordpress blog). Their scientific expertise in neuroscience also looks valuable. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 06:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pundit (discuss • contribs) 09:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , you'll be very welcome. Chiswick Chap (discuss • contribs) 11:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - Would plug a thematic gap in the board, and would bring valuable experience in semi-technical writing and publishing. Sylvain Ribault (discuss • contribs) 13:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - Valuable experience both in science and open access publishing. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Kelee Pacion
Status: Accepted to board. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 07:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - I think that the formal knowledge in science communication and education would be very valuable for the journal. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 11:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - Useful qualifications and outreach experience! --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 07:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Interesting experience - useful for developing the journal into the future to integrate into emerging forms of knowledge sharing Jacknunn (discuss • contribs) 06:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Edmund F. Palermo

 * Small question: what does your h-index mean, and why is it relevant to this application? Sylvain Ribault (discuss • contribs) 20:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The h-index is a measure of an author's publication impact. If h-index = X, that means the author has written at least X papers that have been each cited at least X times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index. MTLE4470 EFP (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I was really asking about the relevance of the h-index, given the known criticisms, and the fact that the index is especially unhelpful in a multidisciplinary context. Sylvain Ribault (discuss • contribs) 21:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's widely understood to be an imperfect measure of impact due to age- and field-dependancies. To give some context, I'm an early career materials chemistry person. Within those given age/field constraints, H=15 is considered fairly good. MTLE4470 EFP (discuss • contribs) 00:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Status: Accepted to board. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 07:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - A good combination of extensive knowledge of their specialist field as well as the generalist knowledge needed to oversee the WikiEdu course. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 12:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - Can't say I understood the titles of most of the publications - which is good as it means we've got even more diverse knowledge on board Jacknunn (discuss • contribs) 06:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Tina Qin
Status: Accepted to board. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 07:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Knowledge of chemical informatics and science-specific library experience is a very useful skill combination. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 11:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Interesting experience in creating learning resources - good to have more expertise in this area Jacknunn (discuss • contribs) 06:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Loren Cobb
Status: Accepted to board. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 07:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - A valuable depth of experience in mathematics research and open-source/open-access platforms. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 13:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - The focus on real-world problems, and the emphasis on applied and multidisciplinary research, would be very welcome. Sylvain Ribault (discuss • contribs) 21:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - wide range of experience should be very useful. --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 07:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Jacknunn (discuss • contribs) 06:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Paula Diaconescu
Status: Accepted to board. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 07:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Although no direct experience on the editorial side of the publishing dynamic, they are highly published and have experience in organising textbook writing. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 13:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We seem to be getting a lot of good people. This is exciting. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Andrew Leung
Status: Accepted to board. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 07:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We already had some discussions about using WJS a refererence in Wikipedia, and academic standards vs Wikipedia standards. Some questions that may arise: can a WJS article serve as a reference for a nearly identical Wikipedia article? Can we copy a WJS article to Wikipedia even though the author does not reference many claims that are obvious to her, makes technical statements, and violates other Wikipedia rules such as WP:SYNTHESIS? Should WJS try to publish articles that are good by Wikipedia standards, or articles that are merely acceptable? In mathematics some articles are little more than compilations of formulas, for example this one; in my experience such articles are extremely useful to students and researchers, should they be encouraged? I am not asking you to answer these questions now, but to say whether you are motivated to contribute to such debates, and how your experience as a Wikipedia administrator could be useful. Sylvain Ribault (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking from a non-admin capacity, I think we can draw parallel comparison with WikiJournal of Medicine. Medical pages on Wikipedia, as we know, require a higher quality of sources. If WJM can successfully incorporate their paper contents into Wikipedia pages and WJS achieves the same degree of peer reviewing, then I don't see why WJS shouldn't be accepted. In fact, since our review process is more transparent than many other journals (open access or not) and that Wikipedia has countless of references where the articles are published in a journal of questionable quality or downright predatory open access journal, I see WJS' contribution as a net-positive for Wikipedia. And it appears that there have been positive cross-cutting discussions between the communities, which should minimize antagonizing editors from both communities.
 * Publishing something that is considered "acceptable" or "good" is often a judgment call. If the purpose of publishing in WJS is to simply improve the quality of the article by text or image, then acceptable should be fine. But if the goal is to reach good article or featured article, then "good" may not even be enough if the existing Wikipedia article doesn't cover enough breadth or depth. For your math question, I vaguely recall a different set of notability rules exist for math articles but it has been ages since I visited that page and unsure if things have changed (or even what the page is called now). OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Sylvain Ribault (discuss • contribs) 07:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Extensive Wikipedia experience (over a decade as editor and admin) would be a very useful asset. They would also provide first-hand view of how Wikipedia has been changing since 2006. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 02:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - For the same reasons as above, and because integration with Wikipedia is essential for WJS. Sylvain Ribault (discuss • contribs) 07:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Useful qualifications and experience. I think some admin insights into WP processes might be especially handy for further development.--Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 07:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of José Lages
Status: Accepted to board. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 07:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Brings useful physics & astronomy knowledge, as well as diverse open access and outreach experience. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 02:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You would be very welcome to help organize peer review, but your 'open' experience seems light for helping shape the overall operation of the journal. I would suggest that you join as an associate editor. Sylvain Ribault (discuss • contribs) 21:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't believe lack of WP experience need be an issue here, as long as the fundamental tenets of the journal/WP connection are understood. --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 07:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - fantastic to have this kind of expertise on board - welcome Jacknunn (discuss • contribs) 06:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Thais C. Morata
Status: Accepted to board. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 01:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Good experience in all categories, with an impressive range of activities. Sylvain Ribault (discuss • contribs) 21:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Extensive experience spanning both academic and governmental areas. Highly relevant work with WikiEdu is also very useful. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 06:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - great to see a member of a Cochrane editorial board on here - the first of many I hope! Welcome! Jacknunn (discuss • contribs) 06:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Konrad U. Förstner
Status: Accepted to board. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 01:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Useful qualifications and experience. --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 07:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong involvement in open science. Sylvain Ribault (discuss • contribs) 19:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good academic background, as well as involvement in a variety interesting open science projects. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 04:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Jonathan Holland
Could you please give a link to your list of publications? (Including preprints of course.) Also, it would be helpful to know your contributions to Wikipedia, if you were willing to reveal them. Sylvain Ribault (discuss • contribs) 20:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I added a list of publications to User:Maknongan. I edit Wikipedia under the pseudonym Sławomir Biały.  Maknongan (discuss • contribs) 21:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Status: Accepted to board. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 01:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Respectable researcher, with lots of experience in open science and especially in Wikipedia. Sylvain Ribault (discuss • contribs) 21:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A great mixture of academic experience and wiki knowledge. Open outputs with ArXiv, Juyter and Geogebra also excellent. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 00:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Demonstrated experience in research and Wikimedia projects. --Daniele Pugliesi (discuss • contribs) 11:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong in all aspects. --Konrad Foerstner (discuss • contribs) 17:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * --Chiswick Chap (discuss • contribs) 07:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong backgrounds on both sides of the fence :) --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 08:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Vinod Scaria
Status: Accepted to board. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 01:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong background both in science and in publishing/editorial roles. Sounds like a good fit! Markus Pössel (discuss • contribs) 07:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good background in open publishing. Maknongan (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - Extremely useful experience across a range of OA journals. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 09:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 14:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Great standing in the scientific community and many experiences in active roles of open access journals. --2001:4DD6:8E46:0:E584:139:D89:EE3 (discuss) 04:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Hemachander Subramanian

 * as associate editor - Great scientific background, although minimal experience in journal publishing. I'd recommend to start off as an associate editor, with the option of moving the the editorial board after having been review coordinator for an article. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 09:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * per T. Shafee suggestion, welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * per T.Shafee. Very good breadth of interest, in areas that seem to fit well with the journal.  More Wiki/Journal experience would be desirable.  Maknongan (discuss • contribs) 12:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the scicomm experience as well! Welcome! --Saguaromelee (discuss • contribs) 12:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Status: Accepted as associate editor. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 00:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Associate editor application of Christos Noutsos

 * I would like to see this applicant register an account first. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - I agree that registering an account will be ideal. However, I support the applicant as an associate editor given their useful editorial experience. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 23:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - good qualifications. But yes, a bit unusual to not even have an account yet. Markus Pössel (discuss • contribs) 06:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - Very useful experiences. I agree, that an account is a must-have. --Konrad Foerstner (discuss • contribs) 17:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * pending registration. --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 08:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: Applicant username on Wikipedia is User:Noutsosc

Status: Accepted as associate editor. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 04:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Associate editor application of Jenny R. Lenkowski
Status: Accepted as associate editor. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 04:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - Good combination of academic knowledge and experience teaching with Wikipedia. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 23:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - Welcome aboard! You may wish to also join the Editorial Board! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 04:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - excellent qualifications, welcome! Markus Pössel (discuss • contribs) 06:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - My strong support --Konrad Foerstner (discuss • contribs) 17:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Very useful background --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 08:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Associate editor application of Ayush Bhardwaj

 * - The additional expertise in electronics will be useful to broaden the journals's associate editor pool. Their work with the Open Computer Science Journal makes them well set up for our approach to OA publishing. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 01:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Web link is broken - Ayush, could you provide an up to date link please? Mstefan (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Gorla Praveen

 * - Although early-career, they have been very proactive in getting involved in student research publishing. Their work across a number of open projects may also give useful insights. It will also be good to have input from someone with an engineering background. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 02:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: the applicant has expressed interest in alternatively being an associate editor. If others think this would be more appropriate, however in this case I'm open to this, I think the Mozilla experience will be useful in board discussions. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 01:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Great candidate, but given the early career stage, I am leaning toward supporting the application as an associate editor instead. Mstefan (discuss • contribs) 13:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * -- per considerations mentioned above, Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Based on consensus here and at associate editor application - Result: Accepted as associate editor.

Associate editor application of Gorla Praveen
Based on consensus of here and at Editorial board application - Result: Accepted as associate editor.
 * I've commented over at the editorial board copy of this application. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 01:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - Expertise in Engineering and previous experience both in publishing and open science. Mstefan (discuss • contribs) 13:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Next steps (add DONE or ✅ after someone has performed the task):


 * 1) ✅ Copy their information over to the associate editor page using the  template
 * 2) ✅ Send a welcome email with starter info to them and cc in the board mailing list so that they and the board are informed

Editorial board application of Ed Baker
Result: Accepted into the editorial board.
 * A clear understanding of Open Access, Wikipedia, and outreach. WiR work at the Natural History Museum would also give an interesting insight into the interactions between Wiki and other communities. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 05:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A wide and useful skill set. Mstefan (discuss • contribs) 13:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Eminently qualified and already engaged. --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 12:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Next steps (add DONE or ✅ after someone has performed the task):


 * 1) ✅ Copy their information over to editorial board page using the  template
 * 2) ✅ Direct-add them to the board mailing list (via this link) which will grant them access to the private page only visible to board members
 * 3) ✅ Send a welcome email with starter info to them and cc in the board mailing list so that they and the board are informed  (Suggested email template)