Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine/Editors/Archive 2015-2017

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Importance of utility for Wikipedia

The main purpose for which I've been developing Wikiversity Journal of Medicine is to enrich Wikipedia with peer-reviewed content. An issue has arisen, however, in that submitted works may at first seem to be good candidates for enriching Wikipedia, and get peer reviewed, but still get rejected by the Wikipedia community for inclusion there. The question is mainly: Can such works still be included in the Wikiversity Journal? In my point of view, they can if there is a particular reason, and for me it's largely about being important enough to do all the administrative works involved with including the article in the journal (including having the metadata deposited in Crossref to generate a doi code, as well as updating the journal main page and article page). Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikiversity may be used to enrich Wikipedia content, but not by generating reliable source, which requires a responsible, independent publisher, and Wikiversity content does not establish notability. Wikiversity pages may be linked from Wikipedia articles, but only as external links (generally using a Wikiversity template).

The issue of the management of Wikipedia Journal has not been considered, it's been done ad-hoc, and is at variance with wiki traditions of open editing.

We have been allowing effective ownership of attributed subpages of resources, requiring that top-level resources be rigorously neutral, if anyone objects. The Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, if it has a fixed editorial board, and is not editable by anyone else, would be outside this and beyond it. I'd think this would require community approval. --Abd (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikiversity pages are not reliable source for Wikipedia purposes as you summarized in Wikiversity:Peer review. Previous discussion on this are found at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_talk:Wikiversity#Using_Wikiversity_as_reference_in_Wikipedia, but in any case I cannot object to the shortened form of the subject. Rather, usage of information in Wikiversity articles have been in attracting images that can subsequently be used in Wikipedia, such as the Aerococcus urinae ones, or by copying text in reviews to Wikipedia articles and using the those references rather than the Wikiversity article in itself, such as in the abdominal pregnancy article. For the Year of the Elephant article, the corresponding entry in the Wikipedia article was expanded ([1]) to also include the primary source according to this work which may also be regarded as a secondary source. So the question I started above would be if for example the Wikiedia community even beforehand considered that the entry in Wikipedia:The Year of the Elephant about smallpox isn't eligible for inclusion, could it still be worthwhile to have this article in Wikiversity Journal?

I've now specified on this page that Wikiversity Journal pages are still editable by anyone, and anyone may also ask to participate in email discussions between members of the editorial board whenever it isn't involving confidential works, and so far we haven't had the need to keep any submission confidential. Right now, we do discuss, however, that we make articles protected after inclusion, and I'd say preferably semi-protected. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 12:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Peer review by other entity chosen by authors

The authors of what might be the next upcoming article are having it peer reviewed by another party before letting it to editorial board discussion. I'm thinking that such peer review would be considered with caution, even if it's by an independent company such as Rubriq, since the authors could theoretically have had it peer reviewed by multiple parties, only presenting the most favorable one to us. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Who is peer reviewing it? Doc James (discuss • contribs) 20:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Although we don't need to discuss whether the article should be included in the journal or not until peer review is done, I find it necessary to mention the article here in order to discuss this issue. The article is The Year of the Elephant, and I've made a peer review of the article before at Talk:The Year of the Elephant. Dr John S. Marr is now going to have an article written about him in a Harvard alumni magazine, and they will include the link to the peer review page and invite people to review. Although I don't find it absolutely necessary to have more peer review of this individual article, I think it's a great opportunity to attract more expertise to the journal. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 06:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I just went through peer review for a major journal; a special section on my favorite topic was being prepared and I was invited by the section editors to submit a paper, which was first cleared by them, but then it was submitted to an anonymous expert reviewer chosen by the journal. It was not just that the paper was "reviewed," it was also approved -- and after substantial interaction and editing. And then the journal queried me about edits to the paper, back and forth. What I've seen in some of the peer reviews so far for the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine is just a review, not an approval, not a publish/not publish decision, not the kind of editorial review and modification that happens in substantial journals. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed the peer review process in Wikiversity Journal of Medicine needs involvement of more independent reviewers, and just as you were writing here, I was writing a specific Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Peer reviewers page for this purpose. The next step will be to ask external scholar to peer review the next upcoming article, so that the comments from the editorial board (and anyone else who wants to add their views) will be focused on approval or not. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 12:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Normally, the stability of Wikiversity page names is not ordinarily guaranteed. I'd think a stable URL would be important. It should be to subpages of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine but we may want to change that top-level resource to something shorter, especially since you are having long article names. Maybe the brief name being used for the journal? And then draft articles should go in the same subspace, and either not be listed in the top-level resource or listed as drafts there. This way they are stable all the way from peer review to formal approval.

We are hopefully creating a new user group called Assistant. See the WV:Colloquium. It will be possible with this to easily assign custodian privileges to a user for a specific purpose, such as managing a complex resource like a Journal. I believe that we can gain consensus for protecting pages within a resource like a Journal, so that edits require a custodian.

I see the Journal of Medicine as your personal project. That's fine with me. You have gained some support, and you may indeed be encouraging new users for Wikiversity, which is also great. You are creating or causing the creation of content of relatively high quality.

This is blazing a trail. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The goal is to raise interest in other people in order to keep the project going in the long term. I would very much like to apply for an Assistant position if it that group is approved. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 18:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The Assistant group is a replacement for "probationary custodianship," which is what we now have. The only difference is that it's much tougher to remove a probationary custodian who acts up, because they have full sysop rights and 'crats can't remove them. The current policy is at Wikiversity:Custodianship. Anyone may apply for probationary custodianship. So you don't have to wait. Tell you what. If you will agree to WV:Candidates for Custodianship/Standard stop agreement, current version, I'll nominate you. The nomination doesn't mean a lot, because I'm not a custodian, but it does look better, long run, if someone else nominates. Really, implementation by policy is supposedly a matter of any custodian agreeing to it, but it's a wiki. No matter what policy says, nobody is obligated to do anything. The psychology is, if the decision is at all difficult, if someone might be upset if I say Yes or No, maybe I'll look at it tomorrow. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Criteria for prospective editorial board members?

I think the only criterion for becoming part of the editorial board is to be trustworthy enough to keep the confidentiality of works that are submitted at the Google Site. So far, we've been able to display and discuss all works in the open here on the wiki, and even non-members of the editorial board will continue to be able to participate in those discussions. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

... to be trustworthy enough according to whom? Who decides who is to have what privileges? We have been able to set up managed pages as attributed subpages. If a subpage is explicitly an essay written by an individual, then it would be offensive if it is changed (other than minor spelling corrections and the like). Criticism can go on the attached talk page regardless. Doing this with a top-level resource is much more problematic. I'd think it would take a community consensus to designate a page manager. Otherwise it is unstable. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Currently it is existing editorial board members who decide whether any applicant is trustworthy to keep any confidential work from leaking before publication, and so far there haven't been any controversial case to motivate any strict criteria.

As mentioned it [that is, membership in the editorial board (these bracketed words added in my next edit)] does not involve privilege to edit any online Wikiversity Journal page [since everyone may edit them anyway]. Indeed, any edit aside from spelling or layout would very likely require consensus first. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"Requires" means? Think five years down the road, Mikael. What if someone besides you wants to start a Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? How would they do this? I have an idea, but first, what do you think? If we can agree, we can get community approval. If we cannot agree, then the community will choose or reject. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

With "requires consensus" I mean by the Wikiversity community, if that answers the question. After all, if this project is going to continue it will need a continuing participation of volunteers. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Interested

Hi all, I am interested and would like to help in any way I can. I am a final year medical student from the Netherlands. On Wikimedia I am a steward. I am mostly active on the Dutch wikipedia where I am a bureaucrat and former arbcom member. I am a member of Wikimedia Netherlands and Wikimedia Belgium. I have some experience with projects. I co-founded and coordinated the NGC project, which wrote about 8000 articles about NGC objects in two years time; co-founded the nlwiki medical talk pages; co-founded the nlwiki Did You Know project, in which 70 editors created about 1200 interesting facts in half a year time, which currently decorate the main page; founded the Wikidata Images project which added about 20.000 images to 13 Wikipedias and 50.000 images to Wikidata. Founded the Image Suggestions project, which added about 4000-8000 images and is active on nlwiki and itwiki. I coordinated a Wiki starter course at Maastricht University Library with several meeting in feb/march 2014. I organised the 2014 Wikimedia picnic in the Netherlands, helped coordinate a meeting at the Bonnefanten Museum in Maastricht, and help at Wiki starter courses and "Wiki Takes" meetings organised in the Netherlands and Belgium. Let me know if and how I can best help the project. All the best, Taketa (discuss • contribs) 17:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Hi all,

I have been thinking about this project and had the following ideas:

• At my university on a yearly basis 300 medical students in their 6th and final year, have to take part in a scientific study. Alot of them are minor studies and do not publish. I propose I give a talk at the start of each final year group and talk about this project and the opportunity it gives them.
• I suggest we create an OTRS email account for the Journal of Medicine. And make the editors OTRS-members with access to this email account. Researchers who send their study to the editors can send it to the OTRS email. This way we can store the emails and create a record, so that in the future we can always look back at what was said.
• I suggest we change the name from "Wikiversity Journal of Medicine" to "Wikimedia Journal of Medicine". If we ever want to become a seperate project (like Wikipedia, WIkivoyage, WIkimedia Commons, etc) having Wikiversity in the name would be confusing. Moreover, Wikimedia is a well known name, and closely resembles Wikipedia. People will recognise the name.
• I suggest changing the main page (Wikiversity Journal of Medicine). Currently the oldest article is at the top. I suggest instead of links we display abstracts. The abstracts can be put on a seperate page and kopied to the main page. Only the newest editions is diplayed. We can make an archive and put a link to the archive on the main page as well.

Let me know what you think. All the best, Taketa (discuss • contribs) 14:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I really like the idea of introducing medical students to the possibility of getting their work published. Even if such articles won't make it into Wikipedia as primary sources, they often contain reviews of the topics at hand, which are generally useful in Wikipedia, in turn making them good candidates for Wikiversity Journal as well. I added this at Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Contribute.

An OTRS email account sounds very useful too. Right now, I receive article submissions as well as editorial board member applications to my own email, and then forward them to other members. Still, if we replaced this system with an OTRS email, would it require us to login to our OTRS accounts on a regular basis to keep track on what is happening? If so, we could probably have mailing lists as well for those who want project updates in their inboxes.

A name change to Wikimedia Journal of Medicine would be confusing at this point where all the articles are in Wikiversity space. I do anticipate that we will one day be using a separate domain for the journal, and that final name would be separate from Wikimedia Journal as well - I'd prefer simply Wikijournal of Medicine, but I haven't heard yet with the people that currently own the wikijournal.org domain.

I've changed the chronology of the journal issues on the main page. Right now I don't think it's extensive enough to motivate an archive, but I do hope that there will soon be enough material for doing so. I'll look into the possibility of displaying abstracts as well.

Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Request consideration for board membership

• I am a tenured professor of physics at Wright State University on the Lake Campus with 28 years of teaching experience and 21 refereed publications. A short resume is posted here. I guess the most interesting thing about my personal life is that I lived a Doctor-Zhivago-like existence as the cold war was ending. I met my wife in Siberia during a one year visit to the Institute of Nuclear Physics in 1984, and spent the next several years bickering with Soviet authorities, first to get married, then for me to live in Russia, then for us to stay together, and finally because my wife did not like the US at first, to return to Russia. I think I was "exliled" from Siberia a total of four times, but am happy to report that neither the US nor Soviet governments actually mistreated us in any way, and that we are still together making music.
• I am very involved with Wikiversity and somewhat involved with Wikipedia and Commons. A summary of my Wikimedia contributions is posted here. I am a Wikiversity Custodian. Although it doesn't seem that way today, my top priority is using this dashboard to induce students to improve and expand this bank of 760 multiple choice exam questions, which was inspired by the following idea: If Google can make a car drive in traffic, we should be able to greatly reduce the cost of college education by creating an open source instrument that not only contains much of the knowledge associated with a college degree, but provides people with the opportunity to verify competence. So to help lure students into contributing to Wikiversity, I created this journal so that students may be recognized for making significant contributions, which triggered an invitation to apply for membership on the board of this journal.
• "I will act in accordance with the confidentiality policies of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine".

But you should know that I know almost nothing about medicine, biophysics or biology, and not much about chemistry.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Requesting to be allowed to join the editorial board

Hi

I am Dr. Diptanshu Das, a medical doctor with a MBBS, MHSc (Master in Health Science in Clinical Child Development) and a PDCR (Professional Diploma in Clinical Research). I hail from Kolkata, the capital city of West Bengal, India. I have been a long term editor of Wikipedia. I am currently a Veteran Editor II with more than 12,000 edits. I usually edit medical articles and have received The Medicine Barnstar for being one of the top 10 medical contributors to Wikipedia in 2013 and also the The Cure Award a couple of times in 2014 and 2016. You can find more about me by visiting my userpage at w:User:Diptanshu.D.

Lately I had been a bit wikibonked but am back after my exams. Interestingly enough, I had been aware of the existence of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. I have grown very interested about it and wish to contribute to it, especially because I see a significant room for development. I have my plans of submitting a couple of academic works soon to this journal. I would be attending WikiConference India, Chandigarh in August 2016 and have made my submission for a presentation on Wikiversity Journal of Medicine as listed at meta:WikiConference India 2016/Submissions/Wikipedia Journal of Medicine.

I am eager to join your team at the editorial board of this journal. I affirm that I will act in accordance with the confidentiality policies of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. Awaiting you people to accept me amongst yourselves.

-Diptanshu.D (discuss • contribs) 18:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diptanshu!

I am delighted to see your application, and I will notify the others in the editorial board now.

Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 18:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• • Agree excellent to have you join us. Doc James (discuss • contribs) 18:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting me as a part of the team. Glad to become a member. Diptanshu.D (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Editorial board application

I am a biochemist and bioinformatician at the La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science in Melbourne, focusing on how evolutionary insights can inform protein engineering. This is either by directly evolving enzymes in the lab (directed evolution) or designing proteins based on analysis of existing sequence diversity. My focus is currently on small, cysteine-rich proteins, which are relevant for biopharmaceuticals, in particular as antimicrobial proteins.

I have been active on Wikipedia since 2013, mainly in pages within the scope of the biochemistry and molecular biology wikiproject, and have helped to bring a few articles to GA and FA status. I've also particularly focused on adding new diagrams. I now also teach Wikipedia editing workshops for academics (PDF). My hope is to improve the participation by experts as Wikipedia matures from primarily article creation to article improvement.

I confirm that I will act in accordance with the confidentiality policies of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 01:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It's good to see your application! I will shortly bring it to the attention of the rest of the editorial board. You have my support. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

You have my support too. Wish you all the best. Thanks for all your efforts, upto now, and henceforth. Diptanshu.D (discuss • contribs) 14:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Editorial Board membership

Dear all,

I got a message on my Wikipedia talk page regarding this journal. I'd like to support such an effort by becoming an Editorial board member. I must admit I am not sure how much time I will be able to spend on this activity in the future. I'm quite busy with clinical and scientific projects and I have a family with two young children.

Some of you may now me from long time ago. I created my first Wikipedia article in 2005 when I was finishing my bachelor degree in medical school. I got more involved in 2006, became a Wikipedia admin in 2008 (I've now been de-admined due to inactivity) and was active until about 2010, totalling 11,000+ edits on the English Wikipedia. Along the way I got interested in Wikinews and citizen journalism like Indymedia. I was an accredited reporter and admin on Wikinews with ~8000 edits and about 100 news articles. On Wikiversity I made some organization to Wikiversity School of Medicine. I became inactive in 2009 when finishing medical school and starting internal medicine residency, which coincided with family commitments. In part I also felt frustrated when for the first time I was faced with what I considered a really frustrating experience at w:Talk:Adverse_effects_of_fluoroquinolones (although I am happy to see trolling there has stopped).

I am now an MD specialty registrar in geriatric medicine in Belgium at w:UZ Leuven and I am about to finish my PhD in molecular endocrinology at w:KU Leuven. See my profiles here:

• http://www.kuleuven.be/wieiswie/en/person/00079515
• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Laurent
• https://www.uzleuven.be/pno/509243

I have co-authored about 40 peer-reviewed medical articles indexed in PubMed, including the infamous http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19390105 (which is my most cited publication!) and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21282098 . See a complete index here:

• https://lirias.kuleuven.be/cv?u=U0079515

I often participate in peer review for many journals and I will of course abide confidentiality for any activities on this editorial board. I have some current conflicts of interest which you can also find in my research articles, basically lecture fees from Flanders' Agricultural Marketing Board, and consultancy fees from w:Alexion Pharmaceuticals and w:Novartis.

looking forward to hearing from you,

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Steven Fruitsmaak, I'm delighted to see your interest in the project! You have my support for joining the board. I'm not letting the rest of the board know as well. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 07:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

We would be happy to have you on board. You have my support. You have a reasonable number of publications. Could you start with the planning for making another one here? Diptanshu.D (discuss • contribs) 13:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I have a case report I would consider submitting for publication. However I'd have to ask my co-author first. Also I don't expect to contribute a huge number of papers. To me, the main purpose of an Editorial Board, apart from making smart decision about the journal, is to lend it credibility and ensure the scientific quality of published articles by attracting serious investigators. I hope my membership could contribute to that. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Netha Hussain

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

Editorial board application of Dr. Jitendra Kumar Sinha

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

Editorial board application of Roger Watson

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.