Grants talk:Project/Rapid/WikiJournal 2018/Report

Transparency

Vide this discussion and this, the issue of transparency of board matters was raised. I would like to ask if there has been a progress in this regard. The report of the editorial meeting is a welcome step. But would it be too much to ask for the data on how many discussion threads were held in 2018 in each of the board specific google groups and how many of them were specific to submitted articles? Diptanshu 💬 16:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: Archived versions of the above discussions are here and here. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Report accepted

Hi, Mikael Häggström, thank you for submitting your expense documentation and this final report. I have reviewed and accepted both. Please note that this grant will not be complete until we make a decision regarding the remaining funds. In the meantime, here are some comments and questions for you to review at your convenience:

Comments & Questions

1. Congratulations on taking the important step of creating and ratifying an ethics statement for all WikiJournals and on obtaining membership to COPE for WikiJMed. Besides granting a stamp of legitimacy to WikiJournals in an academic context, what benefits does membership in COPE bring to the initiative?
2. As the journals grow it is certainly necessary to streamline or automate some of the administrative tasks. Did you find transferring some of those tasks to Google forms helpful? Are there other ways in which you can streamline the workflow in the future?
3. Are there any statistics available on the number of articles submitted vs. the number of articles published? If so, please add them to this report.

Once a decision is made regarding your WikiJournals 2019 grant we will update the "Remaining funds" section of this report. Thank you for all your hard work on this grant, and for sharing what you learned with WMF and the community.

Best regards, MMontes (WMF) (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, my response to these would be:

1. The main benefit of ongoing COPE membership is it provides publication ethics and process information, and allows submission of case studies for detailed forum discussion. This may be particularly useful for getting professional advice on new ideas for handling journals in a wiki way.
2. Eventually a lot of the features that google is used for would be better to implement on-wiki (in my opinion). Technical solutions on mediawiki could simplify, automate, and ideally avoid keeping the records on third-party platforms. For example:
   • Peer reviews (~25% of reviewers request confidential identities) are submitted via this google form, which deposits them to a google spreadsheet like this, where they're copied to the relevant article talkpage, and noted down on this tracking table, and maybe at some point will have their metadata added to Wikidata.
   • Confidential passwords for crossref doi deposits, social media accounts etc are held in googlegroups.
3. I'll add the stats and and relevant categories to the report. Eventually, it'd be great to develop tools to auto-calculate them.

T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 07:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree fully with the response of T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk. Also, as COPE membership gives us the possibility to influence their international guidelines on the structure and procedures of journals in general, hopefully integrating the possibility for creating and reviewing articles in wiki platforms.Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)