Talk:PLOS Biology
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hello
[edit]Hi, For full disclosure- my name is Katie Hickling and I'm the Editorial Manager of PLOS Biology. This page is really out of date so I'm going to make factual changes and updates here and also add some more information to enrich this article over the coming days/weeks. Anyone who thinks any of my edits are promotional or biased in any way please edit away or let me know of any objections on this talk page. Thanks all! Katieplos (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Katieplos Hello Katie! You seem to know something about Wikipedia editing already, so I will be brief. Thanks for coming here. You are welcome to edit this article. Feel especially free to delete claims in this article which are made without a citation. If you add something to this article, please put a citation after whatever you add, and never cite PLOS itself. In general, the most useful thing that an organization can do for Wikipedia is to share a list of sources which are about the organization, but not written by the organization or its partners. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry Thanks Bluerasberry, I've done a little editing before but am still pretty new to wikipedia, I actually got into this due to a wikipedia event encouraging women in science to start editing- which was awesome (thanks wikipedia!). I've actually started drafting a proposed page in my sandbox, feel free to take a look and let me know if there's any problems with it, otherwise I'll just start making changes. Thanks for your help! Katie Katieplos (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Katieplos I checked User:Katieplos/sandbox. The content you have there seems reasonable, but the only source there which meets Wikipedia's reliable source criteria is the Discover article. Most of the rest of the sources are self-published, so these can be used to present facts that are of the same sort as any publication would have, but not ideal and could be deleted when they are used to make a brand distinction. Some brand distinctions that are made in this draft is that PLOS presents audience metrics and PLOS has a certain scope. Per Wikipedia's policies, this kind of promotional information is best left out. I like PLOS, but I hope you understand that quality control here means that we restrict presenting what brands say about themselves.
- Is there no third party journalism or any written or video interview published outside of PLOS that you can cite as a source for this information? I do not doubt the veracity of what you are saying, but what needs to be established is that this information is important enough that someone not paid by PLOS actually thought it was worth publishing. If you absolutely cannot find sources then you can move content over as you say, but it is out of compliance, could be deleted, and is not an ideal precedent. In the long term I would love for PLOS leadership to seek out more opportunities to be profiled and featured because having a body of third-party conversation around PLOS over a long period of time would add credibility to the journal.
- I work with a wiki-women's group also through Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism. I am glad to hear of your past positive experiences. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry Thanks for the feedback on this and I want to get this in line with wikipedia policies whilst giving as much information as I can about the journal - I'll head back into my sandbox and try and find some external source to get this improved. I'll let you know how I get on. Thanks again for your assistance here Katieplos (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry Hi there, I've added some secondary sources which I think should resolve these issues back in User:Katieplos/sandbox I'm going to post this next week (after a few more tidies, realise there are some formatting errors/improvements to be made) if you think this now better meets wikipedia's criteria. Thanks again for your help Katieplos (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry Thanks for the feedback on this and I want to get this in line with wikipedia policies whilst giving as much information as I can about the journal - I'll head back into my sandbox and try and find some external source to get this improved. I'll let you know how I get on. Thanks again for your assistance here Katieplos (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry Thanks Bluerasberry, I've done a little editing before but am still pretty new to wikipedia, I actually got into this due to a wikipedia event encouraging women in science to start editing- which was awesome (thanks wikipedia!). I've actually started drafting a proposed page in my sandbox, feel free to take a look and let me know if there's any problems with it, otherwise I'll just start making changes. Thanks for your help! Katie Katieplos (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Katieplos Thank you for continuing to engage. Except for the following issues, everything looks good to me:
According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2012 impact factor of 12.690, ranking it first in the category 'Biology'[1] and ranking it tenth in the category 'Biochemistry & Molecular Biology'.[2]
- ^ "Web of Science". 2013. Retrieved 2013-06-20.
- ^ "Web of Science". 2013.
These are citations to primary data sources. To include these statements based on those citations is original research because it assesses objective data as being something worth interpreting and presenting. This information should not be included if it is backed by that kind of source. You could include the information if a third-party and unaffiliated writer saw that data and published the same statement, because that establishes that the fact is notable enough to include in Wikipedia.
PLOS Biology is staffed by a team of in-house editors (employees of PLOS) and is also supported by an Academic Editorial Board. [1] The current joint editor-in-chiefs of PLOS Biology are Christine Ferguson and Emma Ganley .
- ^ . PLOS Biology http://www.plosbiology.org/static/edboard. Retrieved 2 April 2014.
{{cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=(help)
This is on the border of being suitable for inclusion. More commonly, names are merely listed in the "infobox" in the top right. Currently Theodora Bloom is listed as editor there. In theory, non-controversial non-promotional statements of fact about organizations, like leadership, revenue, office location, can go in the infobox with self-published references because these things are presumed to be fundamental to understanding the organization. Statements like this one can stay in the article only if no one challenges them. I do not expect anyone would challenge this one.
There is no source presented about PLOS's use of the "free to readers" funding model, which is citation 1.
Thanks. Your sourcing is much better. I know how difficult it is to make articles about academic journals because it is so difficult to find third-party reviews of what makes individual journals special. If I can help you again then just ping me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Bluerasberry Thanks so much, I'm happy to remove the impact factor data which is out of date at this point. I'll find a source for (1) and move Emma and Chris' names to the infobox, thanks for your continued support with this update. Katieplos (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Bluerasberry! I've made those changes and updated the page. I think this gives us a nice basic up to date page now. I'll aim to continue to enrich this with more citations and with further images from the journal, I cannot thank you enough for your help in getting this correct and up to date. Do let me know if there's any other wikipedia pages you feel need updating around journalology or science as I'd be happy to help out. Best Katieplos (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)