This is a really exciting proposal. Looking forwards to working on it. -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Summation: It's a lame, pretentious and creatively stifling idea. 7mike5000 ( talk) 01:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is a really exciting proposal. Looking forwards to working on it. -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Summation: It's a lame, pretentious and creatively stifling idea. 7mike5000 ( talk) 01:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)