WikiJournal User Group/Meetings/2019-01-28

WikiJournal User Group
Open access • Publication charge free • Public peer review • Wikipedia-integrated

Submit

Authors

Reviewers

Editors

About

Journals

More resources

WikiJournal User Group is a publishing group of open-access, free-to-publish, Wikipedia-integrated academic journals. <seo title=" WJM, WikiJMed, Wiki.J.Med., WikiJMed, Wikiversity Journal User Group, WikiJournal WikiMed, Free to publish, Open access, Open-access, Non-profit, online journal, Public peer review "/>

Minutes originally drafted in Google doc and copied here after 48 hours

Attendees

Monday, 28 Jan 2019 @ 22:00 UTC

• Eric Youngstrom (first 20 mins only)
• John Lubbock (WMUK)
• Melanie Stefan
• Markus Pössel
• Thomas Shafee
• Gwinyai Masukume
• Jackie Koerner
• Mikael Häggström
• Jack Nunn
• Sarah Vital (last 20 mins only)

Agenda

• Guest attendance - John Lubbock (Wikimedia UK Communications Coordinator)
• Last meeting’s action items
  • Double blind review wording update for declaration form (Working group: Jeffrey Keefer, Mark Worthen, Sarah Vital)
  • Code of conduct aims/draft (Rachel Wexelbaum, Mark Worthen, Jeffrey Keefer, Markus Possel + Advice from Patrick Earley and Christel Steigenberger of community safety team)
• Current topics
  • 2019 Rapid Grant application (to be assessed end of Feb)
  • Editorial boards
    • Composition: rebalancing gender, ethnicity, location bias?
    • Process: fixes for low engagement in application voting?
    • Volunteers for specialised tasks? (treasurer, meeting organiser, soc media, etc) X
  • Indexing goals? (examples) X
  • When declining article, how much of the reasoning should be public? X
    • example pre-review
    • example post-review
  • Plan S feedback by WikiJournal User Group (draft) X
• Ideas for 2019
  • Article about WikiJournals in Publications “Frontiers in OA publishing”? X
    • Deadline = 31 March 2019
  • Outreach possibilities?
  • Procedure improvements? X
  • Article invitations topics? X
  • An email to wikijournal mailing list with 2018 summary and 2019 plans? X
  • A research contribution framework (authors/stakeholders/researchers/public) to describe who was involved and how (e.g. tasks, methods, impacts). (Proposal document)

Ran out of time before full agenda finished (marked ‘X’)

Notes

1. Double-blind peer review working group:
   • Unfortunately no members able to attend
   • They have had a separate meeting to discuss and draft
2. Code of Conduct working group
   • Invitation for other board members to join (Jack Nunn agrees)
   • WMF community safety team assisting
   • CoC being drafted off-wiki until ready for feedback
   • Working group has started with discussion aims, with wording to be drafted after
   • Suggested deadline: Draft ready to send to wikijournal-en general mailing list for community feedback end of March?
3. Prototype some info set that can be provided to universities thinking of organising student courses through WikiEdu
   • Typically student-written articles by students may still be quite short
   • Perhaps students work on article sections to contribute to single article
   • Note: often students struggle with wikipedia preference for secondary/tertiary sources (espec MEDRS)
   • Understand Kelee Pacion's experience of giving students credits for editing and writing papers - look into giving credits for peer review
4. Explore links with Cochrane to have systematic reviews added to Wiki https://consumers.cochrane.org/
5. Rapid Grant ready to be resubmitted 1st Feb (had to be reduced under $2000)
   • Funding for Technical editor included
     • may need wiki page to list activities/process
   • Possibly next year project/annual plan grant (>$2000, deadline 30th Nov)?
   • Wish to avoid unnecessary budget expansion, but likely to exceed $2000 in coming years.
6. Journal boards have bias in gender, ethnicity, geography - ideas for fixing
   • Contacting specific people (e.g. Jess Wade, Alice White)
   • Social media for 11 Feb (International Womens’ Day)
   • WMUK has contacts with Tim Berners Lee foundation
   • Is there any way to blind applications? Have people apply and be reviewed by numbers?
   • Note added after meeting:
     • Could currently gather geogrpahy statistics for authors
     • In future could gather geography statistics for board applicants
7. Editorial board activity
   • Editor terms currently 4 years - would shortening affect activity/turnover
   • Do we want to keep an eye on editor’s activity?
   • Agreed this is a complex issue, though, and needs to be discussed further.
8. Possible contribution framework?
   • Contribution frameworks (i.e. who did what for article) increasingly common
   • Could implement more flexible optional versin for WikiJournals that also includes info on e.g. who does followup outreach.
   • e.g. CRediT / GRIPP2 / National Institute for Health Research Public Involvement Standards / BMJ 2019 pledge ‘to describe plans for dissemination of their findings to research participants and other relevant communities. We want to know how patients and the public were, or will be, involved in choosing the methods and developing plans to share research findings, and when and how dissemination has been or will be done’
   • System could provide an ongoing ability for authors to update any impacts of involvement or research - it's a living impact assessment attached to the paper (like a living-systematic review) - it would perhaps require a review of the submitted update, but this could be added to the proposed self-reporting matrix. This could help create new impact metrics for research (other than just ‘tweets’ etc) which measure research translation.
   • System could provide an ongoing ability for authors to update any impacts of involvement or research - it's a living impact assessment attached to the paper (like a living-systematic review) - it would perhaps require a review of the submitted update, but this could be added to the proposed self-reporting matrix. This could help create new impact metrics for research (other than just ‘tweets’ etc) which measure research translation.
9. John (WMUK): Some of you might be interested to take a look at a couple of videos I've made with Contentmine and Dr Alice White the Wellcome Library Wikimedian:
   • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBMqRkE8BSE
   • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAL2mM4_Mqk
10. 10pm UTC time slot for this meeting seems to work well - can reassess if necessary

Action Items

1. Rapid Grant to be submitted 1st Feb (Mikael Haggstrom)

1. Jack to join CoC working group
2. Prepare social media for women and girls in science day  (none assigned)
3. Share thoughts on research contribution framework for the journal (working group: Jack Nunn)
4. Explore links with Cochrane to have systematic reviews added to Wiki (none assigned)
5. Share these minutes to metawiki with any confidential info redacted
   • This Google Doc will be emailed to the boards immediately (Thomas Shafee)
   • Its contents will be posted to a public wiki page after 48 hours to give time for any additional notes to be added, and any private info redacted (Thomas Shafee)
6. Organise next meeting - Poll to decide times in late Feb. (Kelee Pacion, Feb 14th)

Items discussed after meeting

1. Email sent about two agenda items that we ran out of time for but have short deadlines:
   • Plan S feedback by WikiJournal User Group (draft)
   • Article about WikiJournals in Publications “Frontiers in OA publishing”??
2. Additional suggestion by John Lubbock
   • Short post for WMUK blog about how WMUK members could engage?