User talk:Nikitab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Link in Data conversion[edit]

You have added a section named Software Tools in the article, with a link to SiMX TextConverter. Upon investigation, it appears to be a commercial product. Wikipedia does not look kindly upon endorsement of commercial products and services. Please give a good reason for including that link, or it'll have to be removed. --Shlomital 12:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Three days have passed and no answer. I’ve decided to delete your addition. --Shlomital 12:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding to Herpes Simplex Virus[edit]

Hi Nikitab. Why no user page for you? Thanks for the link you added to Herpes Simplex Virus. If you are interested, I could use help transforming HHV_LAT to be a better WP article, and the same information you linked to is present in that article also. ManVhv 18:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the note - I am a pretty new user (in the sense that I am still rather clueless as to how this whole wiki thing works despite using it for years). I'd love to help out as much as time allows. Will read over and see if I can contribute.

JoVE[edit]

Transferred from User Talk:RexxS

Rexxs, you brought into question credibility of JoVE on MrOllie's talk page a while back. JoVE is indexed in PubMed and is recognized as a credible academic journal to the point where JoVE is cited in journals like Nature (examples can be provided upon request). Could you please explain why you question JoVE's credibility? My apologies for not responding sooner. I am quite inexperienced with Wikipedia. Nikitab (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of articles are indexed by PubMed, so that's not really any guarantee of anything. You'll have to explain whom you think is doing the recognising "as a credible academic journal" as I don't see any evidence being brought forward to support that.
I do hope you will accept I make no comment on JoVE's credibility, only on its qualification as a Wikipedia reliable source. It may be helpful to take a look at WP:Identifying reliable sources for an overview of what Wikipedia in general is looking for in its sources: "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The sorts of things that are expected are a peer-review policy and an editorial oversight policy clearly set out. I'm sure you're aware of the "impact factor" of a journal that gives a rough indication of how well-cited the journal is by other, established, journals – it's by no means conclusive, but it is the sort of evidence that we'd expect you to examine before claiming JoVE as a WP:RS in a particular context. I googled "jove impact factor" before I commented at MrOllie's talk page, and the first hit was this blog post from 2010 that you had commented on (at least I assume it's you). So you know the way in which paper journals are biased against those which exist solely online. I sympathise; I hope that things will improve in the future, but the fact is that your site isn't able to demonstrate at present that it is cited by the mainstream to the same extent as the recognised paper journals are. I understand you can quote some examples of articles in JoVE being cited in Nature, and that's an encouraging start, but you're going to need a few tens of thousands of cites before you start to be accepted by Wikipedia's standards.
I must also explain that editors here have reached a consensus that articles making medical claims require particularly robust citations, as outlined in WP:MEDRS, where you'll see that secondary sources (particularly systematic reviews) are much preferred over primary sources. In fact, it is quite difficult for a primary source to meet the standard laid down by MEDRS, and the Journal of Visualized Experiments seems to favour publishing of primary sources (as one would expect from its title). I'm sure that as your publishing model matures – it's less than five years old to date – it will broaden its coverage of secondary sources and be looked on more favourably for the purposes of MEDRS.
I can only offer you advice as I see it, and I hope you'll be prepared to to accept it in the spirit in which it is intended. Your enterprise is worthy, but you can't force the pace of building your reputation. When an editor like MrOllie tells you he sees a possible COI because you may be soliciting traffic to your site (which requires paid subscription), then please take him seriously. He's not malicious, and his comments are nothing personal, but you should understand that his stance would be likely to garner considerable support if brought to the COI noticeboard. When I say I don't think that the citations you made meet MEDRS, I'm not trying to insult you, I just want to alert you to the fact that most members of WikiProject Medicine are quite likely to hold similar views about the necessity of secondary sourcing.
I hope this clarifies what I stated earlier, and that it is a help to you. Regards, --RexxS (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Redxxs, I find the way you and MrOllie dispense moderation to be completely irresponsible and counterproductive. Re: COI - we never hid our identity (the editor at our journal who decided to contribute to wikipedia, who is not me btw, used JoVEscied as a handle) and took great care to contribute in a responsible manner. The edits were removed for no reason other than the potential for COI, which seems to go completely against philosophy of openness that Wikipedia was built upon. To make this even stranger, now you are placing credibility of a PubMed-indexed journal into question citing an old (and initially erroneous, which I corrected) blog entry that, in the end, pointed out a problem with being indexed in ISI, not actual lack of citations which are easy to find should you use Google Scholar or any resource that indexes us correctly. Are you actually aware of requirements placed upon publications to be indexed by PubMed? You may be under the incorrect impression that it is just an indexing service that does not discriminate in what they index. This is not the case and it took us quite a while before they, after a review, agreed to index us. Being indexed in PubMed is actually a badge of credibility in the scientific community. You are right in noting that we do not yet have an official impact factor through ISI - we are working on this. However, as a methods publication, it is quite difficult to get an impact factor since ISI has traditionally indexed results publications. Then you cite lack of editorial board and peer review process, both of which JoVE has - please see here: [Editorial, Veterinary, and Peer Review Boards]. I realize that I am being quite confrontational here, which may be counterproductive, but this feels quite kafkaesque. I understand and appreciate that Wikipedia must be moderated to ensure that COIs do not influence content, but when PhDs attempt to contribute in a careful and measured way and, effectively, get slapped down only because of their affiliation, this feels incredibly wrong and more like exercising power rather than measured moderation. Would you like us to provide more information on why JoVE is indeed a credible peer-review resource? What can I do to ensure that my editors can contribute to Wikipedia? Nikitab (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I find it extremely discourteous that you should come to my talk page and insult me after I've taken the time to explain to you as clearly as I can what Wikipedia views as a reliable source. Please do not post on my talk page again.
  • Rexxs, I apologize that you find my manner of communication discourteous. The original thread was archived, so I went to your page directly. Was there something else that I should have done?
To address your points, as you seem not to have read my post above:
I read it very carefully. Nikitab (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Revealing your affiliation does not give you free licence to spam links to your subscription-required site across Wikipedia. That is not contributing in a responsible manner, and is not welcome on Wikipedia.
  • A) I never suggested as much. B) We have content that is free-access, open-access, and subscription-access. The links were to open-access, which is generally paid for by the publishing author. Nikitab (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The edits were removed because the text was not supported by a WP:MEDRS-compliant source. It probably is not even a WP:RS-compliant source.
  • I make no comment on your site's credibility. I merely say it is not a reliable source for our purposes.
  • Please see above. Nikitab (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I am fully aware of how PubMed works, and I repeat that being indexed by PubMed is the minimum hurdle of recognition for an article. Becoming a WP:MEDRS requires far more than that and the onus is on the editor wishing to use a source to show that it meets our requirements when challenged.
  • This is fair. I explained why we meet requirements above. I am not sure where we fail the WP:MEDRS, but I think that WP:RS is more appropriate to establish our reliability. Nikitab (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I have told you that I sympathise with your lack of impact factor, but without one, how do you intend to demonstrate that your site has "a reputation for fact-finding and accuracy"?
  • Impact factor is not the only thing that establishes credibility. We are indexed by Scopus (mentioned on Wikipedia as a trustworthy indexing indexing service Citation_index) Nikitab (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Look, I admit that I am new to Wikipedia. That's no reason to condescend. This is the page for out authors: [1]. Our Publication Criteria can be found here: [2] and peer review policies are spelled out here: Review Process Nikitab (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • You are correct in assuming that being confrontational on Wikipedia will be counter-productive. I hope that is a lesson you have now learned and that you will not repeat your mistake. Contributors here cannot rely on their credentials, so PhD's who fail to understand our basic sourcing policies are given the same short shrift as anyone else.
  • Rexxs, I am trying to be as civil as I can. While I fully assume responsibility for my editor's participation and acknowledge that I may need to explain why we are a reliable resource, is it not unreasonable of me to expect that Wikipedia moderators will at least look into an academic journal before labeling it unreliable? Nikitab (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I understand and am here to explain why we are a reliable resource. That said, I am not sure if WP:MEDRS is the appropriate classification for us as we are an academic journal focusing primarily on early-stage research. The Clinical and Translational Medicine sections are only a portion of the journal. Nikitab (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Now, to answer the only question that has not already been asked and answered already: "How can your editors contribute to Wikipedia"? – By following the same rules as every other contributor. Find a reliable source (preferably a secondary source) and use it to add content to an article, citing the source. I'll be watching this page for a some time, so feel free to ask here if you need clarification on any of the points above. Otherwise please take this as my last word on the subject. --RexxS (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for clarification. Please let me know if the information I provided is insufficient. I respect the need of the Wikipedia community to ensure credibility of sources and will be happy to provide clarification for why JoVE is a credible source. Is there an appropriate place for me to do so so that I don't have to do this again at a later point in time? Nikitab (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)