Talk:WikiJournal of Science/The aims and scope of WikiJournal of Science
WikiJournal of Science
Open access • Publication charge free • Public peer review • Wikipedia-integrated
Previous
Volume 1(1)
Volume 1(2)
Volume 2(1)
Volume 3(1)
Volume 4(1)
Volume 5(1)
Volume 6(1)
This is an editorial article and is published without peer review.
Accepted:
PDF: Download
DOI: 10.15347/wjs/2018.001
XML: Download
Share article
Email
| 
Facebook
| 
Twitter
| 
LinkedIn
| 
Mendeley
| 
ResearchGate
Suggested citation format:
Thomas Shafee; WikiJSci Editorial Board (1 June 2018). "The aims and scope of WikiJournal of Science". WikiJournal of Science 1 (1): 1. doi:10.15347/WJS/2018.001. Wikidata Q55120284. ISSN 2470-6345. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiversity/en/8/8b/The_aims_and_scope_of_WikiJournal_of_Science.pdf.
Article information
Renaming the page
editCan the page be renamed to WikiJournal of Science/Aims and scope? If not, how else can the page be more accessible and recognizable? --George Ho (discuss • contribs) 21:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- This is a draft for an editorial to publish along with the first set of peer reviewed articles (similar to this article). It'll essentially be a summary of the information pages published as a standalone introduction to the journal. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
On the abstract
editIt would be nice if the abstract could say why the journal exists, and what distinguishes it from other open access journals. Surely Wikipedia should be mentioned by name, and maybe there should be something about publishing encyclopedic review articles written by specialists. Sylvain Ribault (discuss • contribs) 19:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Agree, the abstract should better reflect the contents as the article gets updated, since it was only a rough initial outline. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Authorship
editAn option would be to have 'the editorial board' as the author. This would avoid having to determine who the authors are. This would make the board collectively responsible. And this would incite all board members to at least have a look at the editorial before it is published. Sylvain Ribault (discuss • contribs) 18:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- I've added an 'et al' link. I think for the moment, it'd be best to mark both the people who's words it is written in, as well as link to the collectively responsible list. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 13:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for this improvement. Still I would favour an unsigned editorial: this text is not so much a scholarly work, as an opinion piece/statement of purpose/manifest. We should be signing the text to indicate not who did the work, but who commits to these ideas. In this sense, having some individual names risks diluting the commitment of the rest of the board. Of course we could distinguish 'redactors' from 'signatories' but this would be awkward. Sylvain Ribault (discuss • contribs) 19:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- I've updated a version with group authorship vs the previous individual authors. We can check at the point of publication to ensure that editorial board members agree. I've seen it done both ways in a journal, e.g this editorial about Topic Pages and this editorial thanking reviewers in PLOS CompBiol. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Very good! However we do not need to be fully impersonal: I propose to have a 'Corresponding author: Thomas Shafee (Editor in chief)', rather than send correspondence to a nameless email address. But I do not know how to do this with the template. Sylvain Ribault (discuss • contribs) 19:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- I've updated a version with group authorship vs the previous individual authors. We can check at the point of publication to ensure that editorial board members agree. I've seen it done both ways in a journal, e.g this editorial about Topic Pages and this editorial thanking reviewers in PLOS CompBiol. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for this improvement. Still I would favour an unsigned editorial: this text is not so much a scholarly work, as an opinion piece/statement of purpose/manifest. We should be signing the text to indicate not who did the work, but who commits to these ideas. In this sense, having some individual names risks diluting the commitment of the rest of the board. Of course we could distinguish 'redactors' from 'signatories' but this would be awkward. Sylvain Ribault (discuss • contribs) 19:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
What about Scholarpedia?
editWe should say how and why WJS differs from Scholarpedia. Say that Scholarpedia has failed? Sylvain Ribault (discuss • contribs) 20:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think that's a good idea. Indeed, we might also mention citizendium, which had a similar model and similar problems. Scholarpedia's publication rate has reduced 10-100 fold. The reason is unclear, since they don't list much public information. Their blog has also been silent since 2014. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Plagiarism check
edit
Pass. Almost 100% unique according to the WMFtool copyvio detector.
Short phrases such as " science, technology, engineering and mathematics" and "supported by the Wikimedia Foundation" were detected in external pages but not regarded as plagiarism. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Article examples
editI updated the editorial draft with example articles from the first issue. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)