Wikipedia talk:Wiki to journal publication

Discussion[edit]

This is a really exciting proposal. Looking forwards to working on it. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc James! Indeed, very exciting. Gonna go peruse the proposal and see if I can help flesh it out. Tarek (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, let's see what's wrong with this proposal:

It is geared toward ego: "I want credit and want everyone to see that it was me, me, me!"

It is self-centered: "I want something out of the deal, if not cash then at least, I need academic credits."

Selflessness by helping others should be paramount. The first spot in the search engine, or at least a spot on the first page is available for the taking. A person especially a medical professional shouldn't need carrots to utilize this opportunity for the greater good. Suicide is a prime example. It's pretty effing sad that a layperson (me!, me!, me!) should be the one to utilize that space in an effort to disseminate information which may give somebody on the verge of killing themselves pause for thought that they have not pursued all options. Anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge of neurology, the mental health field etc., is cognizant of the fact that an inordinate amount of people don't receive a proper diagnosis. This is for multiple reasons, chief amongst them, in addition to finances is ignorance, including on the part of clinicians.

It alienates and shuts out laypersons some of whom are at least somewhat competent. Who wrote the articles on silent stroke and the differential diagnosis of depression? Two topics which affect millions and which received NOT A MENTION on Wikipedia? Who wanted to delete them? Physicians. Who has plagiarized whom? Physicians have plagiarized a layperson who writes medical information on Wikipedia. Not the other way around.

Wikipedia is for the general public (and plagiarizing doctors), it should cite peer-reviewed journals, not try to be one.

Summation: It's a lame, pretentious and creatively stifling idea. 7mike5000 (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike. You would be free to use this process. It is not restricted to "doctors". Its other importance is that it would provide peer review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Audience[edit]

We could even potentially look at adapting the content for those with intellectual abilities below age 12 through Wikijunior in collaboration with Hesperian but that of course would be a different project.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Hesperian's policy was semi open access, but certainly not CC-By-SA? At least I'm talking about Where there is no doctor, but I think it applies to all their stuff Tarek (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we are currently in discussion on this point. They are considering switching to CC BY SA but have not done so yet.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship[edit]

Agree that this sounds reasonable [1]. I do not see it as being a problem with respect to the CC license.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship: Academics depend on having work attributed to their CV - legitimately. When I check the author link it says 'server busy' and had done so every time I try. To be of interest to academics - more attention to this issue of attribution will be needed and more clarity about co-authorship - ie intellectual input and also co-editing - different ways of saying.

Academics also thrive of being cited. So if the idea is to generate authored articles - then at the top needs to be a 'cite as' line - so that others can attribute this to wikipedia. When I cite wikipedia in articles (and I do) academics don't take it seriously - there is no author byline, no date of publication etc etc.

Citation Count: Also authors need a record of how many times visits are made / and who has cited? Is this possible.

Being very clear about these would lead to others alerting other authors - using social media.

Glyn Elwyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anturiaeth (talk • contribs) 07:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC) --86.140.114.95 (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes good points. We have tools that give us the number of visits in a given month. Here is the list for 80 key medical articles [2]. Which link are you having trouble getting to work? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: got it to work. I think this edit list format is nice but will NOT workas authorship- these user names (like mine = Anturiaeth) are too odd - and are not the real name of the authors. And 'editing' is not exactly authorship. So here I suspect is the flaw - academics need their real names, and they put great store by author position. Think also of 'contributorship'- who did what and who added the icing on the cake etc. Maybe this is oil and water - academics put great store by naming and owning - whereas wikipedia is essentially an accumulation of wisdom - and trying to figure out an attribution of authorship in the usual sense might be a fool's errand. --86.140.114.95 (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree with you, Glyn, that this project will seriously challenge the ways in which academics and publishers work. The measure of 'edit count' is seriously imperfect. For example, what of an author who edits offline, and contributes a massive change in one edit that seriously enhances the piece. However, these are fringe cases that shouldn't scupper the project, methinks. I imagine the default being a 'by edit count', which usually correlates, and then there could be a period on the article's talk page in which people may challenge author position and arbitrate via some Wikipedia process if there is no agreement.Tarek (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those who have been here a long time know who has contributed what and the tools are fairly good for determining this. Most of use who are serious also have our real names prominently listed. Check out my user page for example (and this long standing user is Dr. Wolff User:Jfdwolff).

Wikipedia is only partly anonymous. All the pages I have brought to WP:GA or WP:FA have me by name listed on that talk page for example Talk:Common cold. I would be able to easily pick up people trying to "game the system" and while this may be a potential concern I think we can deal with it when it arrives. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases[edit]

One interesting journal to collaborate with could be Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases. Their content is already licensed CC-BY, which I think is compatible with Wikipedia's licensing, and as their name says they publish articles on rare diseases which may have only short/low-quality articles on wikipedia. Perhaps it would also be possible to upload their images to commons (semi-)automatically? --WS (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. Yes the CC-BY content can simply be added to Wikimedia. Do they have reviews on rare diseases? All we may have to do is wikify them and they can be included with proper attribution. Do you know anyone at the journal with whom to discuss this sort of collaboration? We do not necessarily need permission with the licensing but it is always nice to ask first. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they mainly publish reviews (alternated with a few rare clinical trials). I don't know anyone involved with it. One thing that would help a lot would be an easy way to convert the references in html to proper wiki-code. --WS (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other examples of same wikipedia / publishing project[edit]

Check out some of these links re: the comp bio example:

Also, here's approved funding that may apply to this project from the Wikimedia foundation in Germany:

User:OpenScientist/Open grant writing/Community-Projektbudget 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarek (talk • contribs) 12:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those links! Biosthmors (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Priorities[edit]

Can we get a short list of articles in "the pipeline"? Maybe we could put this on WP:MEDPUB itself. That way interested editors can start to collaborate and work towards this model. I know dengue is a priority (see its talk page for details). What is the second article that might be sent in to Open Medicine, or another journal? For me, I've been working on deep vein thrombosis and I'd like to get it accepted to a journal after I get it past FAC (or possibly before). I'd love to get malaria (which I've been working on with Sasata) up to a publishable level too. Does anyone else have articles they are targeting for submission? Biosthmors (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We still have a number of hurdles to address. I will ping BMJ open about DVT. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks. I'll keep working towards featured status. My friend mentioned trying Chest. It's published by the ACCP after all. I still need to incorporate other English language guidelines though. Can you email me a copy of a letter you send to journals and I can ask them? Or you could ask them if you'd like. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please let me know if you think there's anything I could potentially assist with. I'm curious which issues pertain to which journals, etc. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrating W2J publication[edit]

I've created these two very schematic images to illustrate how a Wiki to Journal publication process differs from a conventional process. They may be useful to this project, but I'll leave that decision to others. Suggested improvements are welcome. MartinPoulter Jisc (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Active?[edit]

When will this initiative be launched? I am interested in this, and I have an article in mind that is not currently a good article, so it would require significant work. Everything that has been said is true. I would love to edit Wikipedia articles much more, but the lack of personal gain compared to publishing in a journal prevents me from doing what I want to do. It's that little selfish voice that says don't waste time on anything that isn't directly beneficial. I would prefer to keep my user account on Wikipedia anonymous, but I guess this process would work just as well if I made all the edits as an IP. --Anon, 00:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Get it to GA/FA and submit the article for publication. It is semi live right now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty getting the article to FA status...[edit]

I am not sure if the requirement that any submitted article need be FA status should stand. Given the FA nomination process, it adds indefinite delays before the real peer review can begin. E.g. this situation, I have wanted to submit the article for some time, but have been forced to wait for this step. [3] FA status seems like a waste of time, it appears to be mostly arguments about how references should be formatted rather than any assessment about content. 92.40.94.150 (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we want the article follow the Wiki MOS. Might make exceptions.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jmh649, I am permitted to re-nominate aphthous stomatitis for FA in under 2 weeks time, where the nomination will be allowed to exist for approximately 1 month before being closed again if there are no "votes". All sources which support health info are MEDRS-compliant, although some RS exist in society and culture section. References are all correctly formatted, images all OK in terms of copyright. There is no content unsupported by sources. MEDMOS recommended headings are utilized. I feel the article is ready for submission. What do you think? 94.197.43.109 (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. We have one, one sentence paragraph in the history section. Let me check on publication. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which are active / in prep?[edit]

I've been doing a bit of an update and tidyup of wp:J2W, wp:W2J, and wp:External peer review. @Doc James and Anthonyhcole: would you be happy to briefly update the status of the JMIR and BMJ collaborations? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update in what way? JMIR is still willing to publish Wikipedia articles but it is expensive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Oh, splendid! I didn't realise that. Have the URLs changed (http://wikimedical.jmir.org/author seems to have stopped working)? If they still agree to do the first 20 free of charge that is excellent. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 23:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would need to follow up. There has not been much interest (to be specific no interest) from the Wikipedia side of things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attending a couple of meetings in London during November and will write up a summary when they're done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]