Talk:WikiJournal of Science/Editors/Archive 2016
 | 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. |
| Archive 2010 | ← | Archive 2014 | Archive 2015 | Archive 2016 |
I say we begin with Bylaws
Robert's Rules of Order distinguishes between reversible and irreversible decisions. On Wikipedia and Wikiversity, almost all actions are reversible, which explains be bold. In contrast, the editorial board of a journal does make irreversible decision. We cannot "undo" the acceptance of an bad article. Even the rejection of a good article leaves lasting damage to our reputation in that the contributor will forever think that we are not as competent as we should be. Divulging the identity of a confidential referee is even more irreversible.
I believe we can and should begin to design this journal with questions that are reversible, and that we should do it publicly, right here. This would be more expediant, and is consistent with the (proposed) mission that we wish to encourage other's to construct online journals. But it must be understood that traditional peer review journals are not structured in the spirit of open discussion we have on Wikipedia.
- I agree the journal should have bylaws. This is something that hasn't yet been developed for Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, where such formalities are currently based on the underlying Wikimedia bylaws. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 10:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Participants
The page describes a number of roles such as peer reviewer & editorial board which require involvement of more than a few people. It seems, imho, to set a rather high bar for even getting the project off the ground. While this vision is admirable I'm a bit concerned that we will have difficulty implementing the project given the small number of contributors. Decision making (esp. irreversible ones) is quite important, though I would argue not so urgent as we have no pressing decisions to make. It might be a more effective use of our time to identify and/or recruit participants which will increase the pool of ideas for what direction it will take and the procedures to achieve that. --mikeu talk 20:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
My response
I am open to discussing your idea that we "identify and/or recruit participants". Meanwhile, we do have a decision to make right now, namely that we consider only the two traditional Wikipedia articles on First Journal of Science/Publishing:
These have no attached reputations and therefore no hard feelings associated with "rejection". The other two were created by the founder of this journal who did not under any circumstances create this journal as a vehicle for self-publishing. If it's OK with the board, I would like to retain them in the zeroth mockup edition, but clearly indicate that these were never reviewed.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- I accept the challenge and I'll make a suggestion. One of the goals of Year of Science is to have experts review the content on wikipedia. I will also review w:Alpha Centauri as it is currently up for review as a "good article." The criteria that they use is the usual in terms of citations and style guide issues. My review will be more specifically about the thoroughness and accuracy of the content. --mikeu talk 01:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Good. You are proposing to judge a WP article by different standards than those used in the "good article" certification. We need to clearly explain such matters in the abstracts, or somewhere else in the journal. I am primarily interested in articles useful for college students with virtually no background in science. And I am interested in labs for such students. And I have engineering students. I see no reason why one journal can't handle multiple interest categories. Personally, I think the one overarching theme should be college education, not research, and not for the true experts. What do you think?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 04:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- The focus on education indeed makes the journal very suitable for being hosted in Wikiversity. The purpose differs significantly from that of Wikipedia, so it's understandable that the criteria for inclusion and quality assessment are different as well. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 10:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Good. You are proposing to judge a WP article by different standards than those used in the "good article" certification. We need to clearly explain such matters in the abstracts, or somewhere else in the journal. I am primarily interested in articles useful for college students with virtually no background in science. And I am interested in labs for such students. And I have engineering students. I see no reason why one journal can't handle multiple interest categories. Personally, I think the one overarching theme should be college education, not research, and not for the true experts. What do you think?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 04:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Name change to Second Journal of Science
@Guy vandegrift, Mikael Häggström, and Mu301: Am edit protecting FJS to count the changes needed to change the name to Second Journal of Science. Of all the arguments Mikael put forth, I feel only one is compelling: The first Journal of Science on Wikiversity was the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. If we keep the name "First Journal..." I will be constantly clearing up that confusion. In the long run it is less trouble to let the name state the facts. Also, "Second..." captures the whimsical nature of my intent, while "First..." has an unintended grandiose connotation.
Finally, changing the name from "First" to "Second" is very easy because it is a simple work replacement in the textfiles.