WikiJournal User Group/Editorial guidelines

This page describes the steps required to process an article through submission, peer review, formatting and publication.

Editing published works
Community peer review comments can always be left for articles before or after publication. For articles dual-published into Wikipedia, readers are also encouraged to directly improve or comment on the equivalent Wikipedia pages. Both authors and associate editors may correct spelling errors, minor grammatical errors and inconsistencies in reference formatting even for published works. Technical edits to pages are also allowed. On the other hand, a change in the meaning of the main text may be reverted since it may require renewed peer review and author approval. Suggestions for updates of the main text of published articles may be created as separate drafts that are re-submitted to undergo peer review before being used to update the article. It is recommended to state any conflicts of interest (or simply "none stated") when proposing changes to the main content of published articles. These requirements are not needed if the edits are obviously spelling or grammar corrections.

Help run the journal

 * Apply to be on the editorial board to steer the journal's direction
 * Apply to be an associate editor to help organise peer review, formatting and Wikipedia-integration of potential upcoming articles
 * Apply to become the treasurer of the journals
 * Be bold with changes that you think will improve the journal

Keep in touch

 * Join the [ public mailing list]. This is open for anyone to email and read
 * Put the main discussion page on your watchlist to get updates on the project
 * Add other journal project pages to your watchlist to monitor discussion page questions or any vandalism
 * Follow our accounts on Facebook or Twitter
 * Share your ideas of what the journal could be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project

Outreach
Outreach to potential contributors is essential for the journal, and the target audience may include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals
 * The journal may be presented at scholarly gatherings (Example presentation)
 * Many scholars have written theses that are not published, but sections of which could very well fit as an article
 * Also, university faculties may be asked to present the journal to their students, as a form of teaching about online information
 * are often required to complete a research project or literature review as a part of their studies, parts or all of which could be eligible for submission
 * Writing (or inviting scholars to write) articles about open access publishing, highlighting the journal as an example (e.g. AOASG and The Conversation)
 * Notify Wikipedia users (or editors at other Wikimedia projects) who may be interested in the project on their talk pages (Example entry)
 * Coordinate and collaborate with other journals or organizations with similar scope and reaching out to their users/subscribers through their mailing list
 * Spread the word with a poster

Improve systems and procedures

 * Assist in preparing the applications for the journal to be listed in academic databases and search engines.

Other

 * Submit an article to WikiJournal. See also publishing guidelines.
 * Check on potential upcoming articles and comment on their Discussion pages
 * Add a post-publication review of an |existing publication
 * If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works
 * Donate to Wikimedia Foundation
 * Translate journal pages into other languages (example)
 * Contribute to other WikiJournals

Inviting a submission
Editors may invite submissions from anyone with suitable expertise. This can act as a way of commissioning an article on a specific topic to replace or update an existing Wikipedia article or as a new article to cover a missing topic.

For content not already on display in Wikimedia projects:

Articles can be adapted from existing Wikipedia pages (or other Wikimedia content). These are submitted via nomination on this page on Wikipedia. Changes made in response to peer review are integrated back in the Wikipedia version after publication (example).

Receiving a submission
As described at the Publishing page, the corresponding author may write the article online or email it to. In the latter case, the editor-in-chief then asks whether the author wants to have their works kept confidential up until publication, mentioning that processing and peer reviewing goes faster when submissions are put directly in the wiki. Still, authors may prefer confidential processing because many journals do not accept submissions that have been in the open at any time, and thereby authors may be harmed by premature disclosure of any or all of an article submission's details. The authors' choice in this matter will determine the pathway of the ensuing procedure.

Works without need for confidentiality
In this case, the corresponding author is asked to create a WikiMedia account and upload the work directly to WikiJournal Preprints.

If authors find it troublesome to upload the works themselves, editors help out in this matter. Editors may also make edits similarly to editing published works.

Submitted works should be added as a row on the potential upcoming articles table. It is also recommended to mention submission at the talk page of the Wikipedia article of the same topic if such exists already.

Confidential works
Discussions related to confidential works need to be held privately, such as by restricted email to members of the editorial board and peer reviewers.

Importing from Wikipedia
If the submission is an existing Wikipedia article, (via nomination at the 'embassy page' in Wikipedia) it can be imported via the following steps:
 * 1) Special:Import the Wikipedia page to   (including transcluded templates; all previous revisions not necessary for large pages)
 * 2) Remove infobox, external links, and categories
 * 3) Add  template to article (works best with VisualEditor) and to discussion page
 * 4) Convert all links to links to point to Wikipedia by placing the convert_links template:
 * 5) * at the top of the page:
 * 6) * at the bottom of the page:
 * 7) Inform author by adding   to their Wikipedia talkpage

Creating location for peer review
Articles with no talkpage yet should have a link on the right hand menu to 'Create peer review location'. Clicking this should created a page that synchronises the article header information from the corresponding article (containing the preloaded text " ").

Creating article metadata in Wikidata
Every submitted article will need a Wikidata item to hold structured metadata (authors, dates, publication status etc). If it already has a Wikidata item, it have link on the right hand menu "QID: Q12345". If it does not yet have a Wikidata item, it can be created by clicking the link on the right hand menu: "create Wikidata item". Check that this item includes:
 * = article title
 * = each author's name
 * = author order
 * = email of corresponding author
 * = peer review url
 * = license (usually )
 * = with the qualifiers
 * = date
 * = with the qualifiers
 * = date

Updating author metadata in Wikidata
Additionally, for each author:
 * = current employers (e.g. university or organisation)
 * or = affiliation (e.g. department)
 * = areas of expertise
 * = faculty website or equivalent
 * = ORCID
 * = username

Plagiarism checking
All submitted works should first be checked for plagiarism. The |WMF copyvios tool will identify plagiarism of any online sources. Write the results on the Discuss-page of the submission, such as: Cases of reverse-plagiarism from Wikipedia (other sites plagiarising a wiki) can often be identified using the Who Wrote That tool to identify when the overlapping text was added to Wikipedia.
 * ✅ Report from WMF copyvios tool: 0% plagiarism detected ~
 * ✅ Report from WMF copyvios tool flagged some false positives (not regarded as plagiarism) due to references matching wording in published articles / attributed quotes / common stock phrases. ~
 * Report from WMF copyvios tool: 70% chance of plagiarism detected: Paragraph X closeley matches similar in source Y. ~

Rejecting articles
Some submitted manuscripts may be judged by the Editorial Board as not meeting criteria for publication. Preferably, the handling Editor will discuss this within the Editorial Board and allow sufficient time to ensure consensus.

If there is consensus within the Editorial Board that the manuscript cannot meet the criteria for inclusion, even in future revisions of the work, than it may be rejected without further peer review ("desk reject").

A manuscript might also be rejected after peer review, if the reviewers raise appropriate points which the authors do not want or are unable or unwilling to address. In such instances, if the authors do to pursue further publication, the work can be archived as no longer active, rather than rejected.

If however, a complete overhaul would later make the article suitable for further peer review (e.g. manuscript initially had no or almost no supporting references, and these are later added), than the work can be resubmitted again through the original submission process.

Editors can find a sample rejection letter here.

Currently, only "nonsense" pages are deleted through the standard deletion process. Whether or not other preprints submitted via the non-confidential pathway on the wiki can be deleted upon request of the authors, is still a matter of debate. Currently, these pages would need to go through the standard Requests for Deletion process.

Arranging peer review
Articles needing peer review can be seen at potential upcoming articles. Submissions require at least two invited external peer reviewers. Editorial comments and spontaneous reviews from interested readers are additionally always valued.

Responsibility
Each submitted work is designated to one or more "peer review coordinator" among journal editors. The review coordinator is in charge of organising the peer review invitations and monitoring the submission through the peer review process.

Finding peer reviewers
Suitable peer reviewers can be found by the following methods:
 * 1) Authors may recommend suitably qualified peer reviewers to review their submitted manuscript. The peer review coordinator should look at this item in the authorship declaration form (access via editorial board googlegroup).
 * 2) Check the recent papers cited by the submission.
 * 3) Search the submission's keywords on Scholia
 * 4) Search scholarly databases using key phrases to find recent publications (e.g. G-Scholar, Pubmed, Scopus, zbMATH Open (for Mathematics))
 * 5) Search by field or keyword in Publons
 * 6) Search by abstract or key phrases in JANE database.
 * 7) Search by key phrases at semanticscholar

In general, prioritise contacting reviewers who've published during the last 5 years. In addition to contacting the corresponding authors, the less senior authors often have a higher response rates when contacted. The response rate of the first round of reviewer invitations can inform how many emails will be needed in the second round of invitations. It is worth considering whether to ensure that one of the peer reviewers was not specifically recommended by the authors (peer review coordinator's discretion).

Peer reviewers must fulfill the following criteria:
 * Public contact information, or be willing to be contacted by a Wikimedia volunteer by peer review verification if necessary, wherein only trusted participants know the identity.
 * Expertise in the specific field of the article to be reviewed and be willing to confirm their credentials if requested
 * Open identity recommended, but may remain anonymous

Prospective peer reviewers should also state any conflicts of interests if applicable. For example, if the peer reviewer is an author of an article that is used as a reference in the article submission at hand, this should be mentioned among conflicts of interest.

Inviting a peer reviewer
Invitation emails to potential peer reviewers are tailored to the associated article submissions and reviewer and may describe why that person in particular was chosen as a reviewer. Reviews should ideally be submitted via the peer review submission form. Example templates are included below.

Reminding a peer reviewer
Note that reviewers will often respond to a second email sent a week or two later even if they did not respond to the first.

Confirming a peer reviewer
Once a reviewer has confirmed that they are willing to review an article, the full manuscript should be provided. The email should contain the article to be reviewed as an attachment, and a link to the url if the pre-print draft is available. Be sure to check if the article authors have requested to be anonymised for the peer review.

Importing reviews
In case a work has already undergone a peer review by another journal or reviewing service, that peer review can count in if the peer reviewer criteria are met. This requires that the editorial board gets to know the identity of the peer reviewer, and that the reviewer agrees to have it published under creative commons license (CC BY-SA). External peer reviews that do not fulfill these criteria should still be uploaded if possible, but do not count to the minimum of 2 independent peer reviews for each article.

Checking the review
Reviews submitted via the peer review form appear in the tracking spreadsheet (access via editorial board googlegroup). Received peer reviews should first be checked for any disclosure of conflicts of interests, even if merely saying "none declared". Emailed peer reviews should, in addition, be checked for inclusion of: If the peer review lacks any of these criteria, a request should be sent to the peer reviewer to supplement to peer review.
 * The title of the work that is peer reviewed
 * Date of the peer review (or last date of peer review period)
 * A licensing statement that allows usage in Wikiversity

Uploading the review
Submitted peer reviews will appear in the submitted review spreadsheet (access via editorial board googlegroup). Reviews should be added to the "discussion" page of the article after checking whether the reviewer requested anonymity. Ideally, it should be formatted with the template. If peer review was submitted as a PDF, then upload the file and add the link in the pdf parameter.

The author should be informed by email (in the authors declaration responses spreadsheet, access via editorial board googlegroup)



Updating review metadata in Wikidata
When a review is posted to the article discussion page, check to see if the peer reviewer has a wikidata item (if they do not, create one). Add their QID to the Q parameter on the peer review text. A button should then appear to add the information to Wikidata (you will need to have made 50 previous edits to wikidata for this button to work):
 * = peer reviewer
 * = date (if reviewer doesn't request to see review again after author responses)
 * = date (if reviewer requests to see review again after author responses, with when they agree their comments have been fully addressed)If the peer reviewer was anonymous, you will also need to add some information to the article's wikidata item (example):
 * = areas of expertise
 * = degree (if there would be any ambiguity of PhD/MD/PsyD etc)
 * = degree (if there would be any ambiguity of PhD/MD/PsyD etc)

Updating reviewer metadata in Wikidata
Additionally, each reviewer should have:
 * = current employers (e.g. university or organisation)
 * or = affiliation (e.g. department)
 * = areas of expertise
 * = faculty website or equivalent
 * = ORCID

Author response to review
At this stage, the authors of the article are asked to amend the issues brought up in the peer review. Once the article has been revised, the peer reviewer(s) should be notified if they have requested it in the peer reviewer form (access via editorial board googlegroup). The editor can also contact one or more peer reviewers again if they are uncertain whether an author's response fully addressed a reviewer's comments, or if the author has added significant new content that needs to be seen by a reviewer.
 * 1) Editing the article itself to address any issues
 * 2) Responding to all comments raised by the reviewers (using the template)



Editorial decision
An article is ready to be brought by the peer review coordinator to the editorial board for a decision once:
 * Two or more external peer reviewers have given feedback on the article
 * The author has addressed all reviewer's comments (peer reviewers may request to see the article again after amendments)
 * The peer review coordinator always has the option to invite further reviews if they deem it useful (e.g. if initial peer reviewers disagree with one another)

In such cases, the peer review coordinator should notify the editorial board with a summary of their recommendation to accept, decline, or request further changes. The editorial board will then take one-two weeks to form a consensus on whether the article is suitable for publication. In trivial cases (e.g. if the author has not responded to reviewer comments) the review coordinator can make the decision to decline and inform the editorial board.

Accepting articles
Articles that are approved by the editorial board for inclusion in the journal go through the following processes:


 * update the metadata in wikidata
 * Move the article page to "/Title"
 * Assign a digital object identifier (DOI)
 * Include the template at the top of the current issue of  (source page located under "Journal issues" at top menu)
 * Create the PDF file
 * Link to an XML file
 * Inform the corresponding author about article acceptance

Article authors may be asked to translate the abstract into other languages they know. A translated abstract should be put in the Wikiversity of that language if available.

Declining articles
If the decision is made to decline an article, the step are similar:


 * Inform the corresponding author about the decision and reasons
 * Add to article's Wikidata item: =  with the qualifier  = date
 * Add an explanation of the decision to the article's talkpage
 * If the article was adapted from Wikipedia, add a link on the Wikipedia article's talkpage pointing to the review

Updating published article metadata in Wikidata
Ensure that the article's Wikidata item is filled in (this data should already be present). This will update the information everywhere else. In particular, the following must be added: Additionally, ideally information should be added (example):
 * = 10.15347//2024.XXX (where XXX is the chronological order of the work for this year)
 * = date
 * = (for 2024; this is updated every year)
 * = 1
 * = the chronological order of the work for this year
 * = URL of final PDF
 * = number of pages in the final PDF
 * = URL of final PDF
 * = number of pages in the final PDF
 * = main subject
 * = methods/techniques/conceptual frameworks
 * = references cited

Page location
Move the page from  to   (this will also automatically update in the article's Wikidata record).

Inclusion in the current volume and issue
Once the publication date is added on Wikidata, published articles will automatically appear in the current journal issue at midnight UTC (added by User:WikiJournalBot).

Assignment of digital object identifier
Assignment of a DOI to an article is done through Crossref (log-in details in editorial board googlegroup) via their web deposit form, using the following metadata:

Data Type Selection: Journal

Journal information
 * Title:       
 * Abbr.:       
 * Journal DOI: 10.15347/
 * URL:         / (the final / is necessary)
 * Print ISSN:  (leave blank)
 * Elect ISSN:  
 * Volume:       (for 2024; this is updated every year)
 * Issue:       1 (updated every 6-15 articles)
 * Issue DOI:   (leave blank)
 * Issue URL:   (leave blank)
 * Publication dates;
 * Type: print: (leave blank)
 * Type: online;
 * Year:        2024
 * Month:       (leave blank)
 * Day:         (leave blank)

Continue to "Add article", and enter article-specific details.

Article information
 * Title:       title of article
 * DOI:         10.15347//2024.XXX (where XXX is the chronological order of the work for this year)
 * URL:         full url of article
 * Contributors: add each author and their ORCiD (affiliations are not needed).
 * First page:  X (where X is the chronological order of the work for this year)
 * Last page:   (leave blank)

Whenever metadata are updated, all applicable fields need to be filled in again and previous data is over-written.

User information
 * Username: see editorial board googlegroup
 * Password: see editorial board googlegroup
 * e-mail: 

Submitting reference metadata
Logging links to an article's references is also done through Crossref (log-in details in editorial board googlegroup) via their Simple text form:


 * Copy and paste all the references from the article over to the Crossref form and click 'Submit'
 * Scroll down to the bottom of the generated page and click 'Deposit'
 * Include the information:
 * Email address: 
 * Parent DOI: DOI of the WikiJournal article for which you are adding references
 * Username: see editorial board googlegroup
 * Password: see editorial board googlegroup

Registering article in DOAJ
Individual articles can be indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (log-in details in technical editorial googlegroup) through their article metadata form.

Depositing XML
When a DOI has been obtained from Crossref and added to the article, a link will appear on the right of the article to 'Deposit' the XML. Clicking that link will create an /XML subpage containing the preloaded text " " which, when saved, will format the XML metadata automatically (Example). Alternatively, an XML-file will be sent to which can be pasted into the /XML subpage. One saved, the link on the right of the article will read 'Download' in stead of 'Deposit'.

Inform the authors
Authors should be notified with the article's acceptance and its doi. Authors can assist in several of the post-acceptance steps if they choose by formatting the PDF and/or integrating content into Wikipedia. Otherwise a journal editor should do these.

Creation of PDF files

 * 1) First, the article's  template should be checked to make sure that the information is up to date
 * 2) The PDF should be formatted using the standardised blank template (MS word 2013 or later recommended)
 * 3) Copy the article's material from the wiki page into the docx template
 * 4) * Text sections and publication data (e.g. date) are copied and pasted from the wiki page into the docx template. Pasting with the "Merge formatting" option should keep source formatting but use the font and text size of the template.
 * 5) * Wiki links and hyperlinks to references should be preserved when copying from the wiki page into the docx template (in blue color but not underscored).
 * 6) * Figures should be pasted from the full-resolution versions on Wikimedia commons (not the lower-resolution previews shows on article wiki pages)
 * 7) Use Ctrl+H to find-replace   with   (WikiMarkup often includes non-breaking spaces)
 * 8) Remove "↑ Jump to" from reference list
 * 9) File > Options > Advanced > Image Size and Quality > "Do Not Compress images in file" (retain full-resolution images)
 * 10) File > Save as > docx
 * 11) File > Save as > PDF (avoid PDF "printing" since this can lead to misformatting)
 * 12) Final PDF chacks: zoom in on figures to confirm resolution, test a selection of hyperlinks, look for any misformatted or overlapping text, and compare overall formatting against a previously published article.
 * 1) Final PDF chacks: zoom in on figures to confirm resolution, test a selection of hyperlinks, look for any misformatted or overlapping text, and compare overall formatting against a previously published article.

Uploading PDF files to the journal

 * 1) Upload the docx file to
 * 2) Upload the PDF file to Wikiversity. Name the PDF the exact same as the article title (omit any  characters, since they can't be included in filenames)
 * 3) *On the file page, in stead of, use  using the article's Wikidata QID.

Updating PDF files
When a minor update to an article is needed, the docx version (linked from the bottom of the wiki page) should be used as the starting template, with changes copied across from the article's wiki page.

For major updates, it may be best to create the document again from scratch using the blank [ .docx template].

The updated PDF can be uploaded by going to the  page and clicking "Upload a new version of this file".

Wikipedia inclusion
Different types of articles have differing potential for Wikipedia integration. Articles that review and summarise existing knowledge from other reliable sources can be copied as content into Wikipedia. Original research cannot be copied into Wikipedia. Any content integrated into Wikipedia will then be updatable over time in the same manner as any other Wikipedia content. Please note that it is up to the consensus of the Wikipedia editor community as to whether to accept, edit or omit any added content.

As content
Only encyclopedic content should be integrated into the encyclopedia. In all cases, any discussion, speculation or outlook sections should be omitted from the version integrated into Wikipedia.
 * Articles written in an encyclopedia review format may be fully copied into Wikipedia. Such Wikipedia articles also should also have the  template added at the beginning of their reference section. (example)
 * Short articles written in a mini review format may be added as a section of a relevant Wikipedia article and should be added to the category wikipedia:category:Wikipedia articles with sections published in . (example)
 * Images should be added to relevant articles, as long as they do not illustrate unpublished ideas or arguments. The WikiJournal article should be cited as a reference in the image caption in Wikipedia. (example)


 * Process
 * The author(s) of the WikiJournal article should be invited to perform this integration.
 * The edit summaries should ideally include a link to the work in WikiJournal and specify the CC license (for at least the first edit summary), E.g.:
 * " " Note: check relevant section, link, DOI, and license
 * Changes in the material to adapt to Wikipedia's format may include:
 * Decide if any parts of the WikiJournal article need to be omited from the Wikipedia page (original research / opinions / perspectives / conclusions)
 * If a current Wikipedia page on the topic already exists decide which parts to keep
 * If an image appears only in Wikiversity but not in the Wikipedia article, move it to Wikimedia Commons: Moving files to Commons
 * Remove  prefixes in links (tidier, but not strictly necessary)
 * Replace  with   (tidier, but not strictly necessary)
 * Add to the Wikidata item: =  with the qualifiers
 * = date
 * = URL of Wikipedia page
 * Add the  template in the References and at the top of the Talk page
 * Add the  template in the References and at the top of the Talk page

Scientific misconduct
Any person suspecting scientific misconduct of any article should contact the editor-in-chief or an editorial board members, who in turn should bring any suspected scientific misconduct to the knowledge of the entire board. COPE has flowcharts for different types of situations:.

Upon suspected scientific misconduct by an author or reviewer, the next step is generally that an editor contacts the corresponding author or reviewer to ask for an explanation. COPE has examples of letters to authors in such cases sample-letters. Such letters should not accuse authors or reviewers, but should rather state the facts clearly, and allow them to explain their actions before coming to a decision.

Ethics statement
 * See also

Adding editorial board members
Once an editorial board member applicant has clear consensus (relevant bylaws), they can be accepted to the board by the following steps. 
 * 1) Add this text   underneath their application on the editorial board applications page, which will paste these points as a checklist 
 * 2) Send a welcome message and confirm their preferred email address (usually in their provided website link, else via Special:EmailUser)
 * 3) If they do not yet have a Wikidata item, create one
 * 4) Copy their information over to editorial board page using the  template (including their Wikidata QID)
 * 5) The above step will create a button that will update the relevant editorial board on Wikidata
 * 6) 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
 * 7) Welcome them at the board mailing list so that they are informed
 * 8) Finally, move the application to this year's archive page

Removing editorial board members
Members can be removed from the editorial board by their own request (either completely, or changing to be an associate editor) or can be voted out (/Bylaws).
 * 1) Removal from the board mailing list (via this link)
 * 2) Moving their information from the editorial board page to the Previous board members section
 * 3) Removal of any social media accesses that they were granted
 * 4) Send a confirmation email to them and cc in the board mailing list so that they and the board are informed

Adding associate editors
Associate editors are accepted by consensus of the editorial board, and their addition follows these steps Note that associate editors are not added to the board mailing list and so do not gain access to journal passwords or confidential information.
 * 1) Add this text   underneath their application on the associate editor applications page, which will paste these points as a checklist 
 * 2) Send a welcome message and confirm their preferred email address (usually in their provided website link, else via Special:EmailUser)
 * 3) If they do not yet have a Wikidata item, create one
 * 4) Copy their information over to the associate editor page using the  template (including Wikidata QID)
 * 5) The above step will create a button that will update the relevant associate editor list on Wikidata
 * 6) Email the board mailing list so that they are informed
 * 7) Finally, move the application to this year's archive page 

Removing associate editors
Members can be removed from the associate editor team by their own request, they can request to join the editorial board, or can be voted out (/Bylaws).
 * 1) Removal of their information from the associate editor page
 * 2) Removal of any social media accesses that they were granted
 * 3) Send a confirmation email to them and cc in the board mailing list so that they and the board are informed

Updating editor metadata in Wikidata
Add to the relevant editorial team ( or ): Additionally, to each editor:
 * = editor
 * = date
 * = current employers (e.g. university or organisation)
 * or = affiliation (e.g. department)
 * = areas of expertise
 * = faculty website or equivalent
 * = ORCID
 * = username

Adding admins
Editors interested in being an admin for a journal's Facebook and Twitter accounts should contact the Editor in Chief and/or current social media team. Admins can be either added directly by the EiC, or by consensus of the current social media admins. New admins should be added to the social media admin google group.

Due to the very public nature of social media, there is a two-week probationary period before being being given account passwords: Twitter is especially sensitive, since a single account password is shared, whereas for Facebook users can be added as having 'editor' permissions to post content.
 * Suggest 5 social media posts over a 2 week period
 * Suggest 10 accounts to follow

Recommended use of social media
General guidelines: Examples posts:
 * Be sure anything shared/reposted aligns with journal principles
 * When citing a publication, always include the doi
 * Include an image whenever possible
 * A catchy summary of published WikiJournal article
 * Retweet article summary from other WikiJournal that may be relevant to audience
 * Any info from WikiJournal site (e.g. aims / scope / editor info etc)
 * Relevant news articles from other outlets
 * Retweet relevant posts (about e.g. open access, Wikipedia, outreach, science communications)