Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/JMIR Wiki Medical Reviews

Relationship between JMIR and Wiki Project Med Foundation

We need to define the relationship between these two entities. I have proposed that WPMEDF have part ownership. How that is to be defined I do not know yet.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions

Note: to abbreviate Jarticle is journal article, and Warticle is wikipedia article. They might be already settled or they might still be pending discussion:

Who qualifies to send a Jarticle? Does he have the main contributor of the Warticle? among the 3 highest contributors? 5? 10? Is this only define through edit count? This should specified.

Has to be one of the main contributors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that "main" is not an operational definition.--Garrondo (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would ideally be the person who brought it through GA or FA and one of the top 10 editors but edit count. Partly at the discretion of the editor in chief as exceptions / common sense may be applied. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many authors can be included in the Jarticle? Do they all have to be among the main contributors of the Warticle? Again, hw is "main" defined? (1,3, 5, 10? in number of edits?).

Lots. Physics articles have hundreds. We will likely be less. Most articles only have a few major contributors.Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lots is neither an operational definition. --Garrondo (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

20-50 would not be a problem. I have not seen an article on Wikipedia with that many significant contributors. Many people of course make a small number of edits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the above: who should be notified of the creation of the article? If the 10 editors with higher-edit number are considered "main", the corresponding author should probably notify them in their talk pages and email of the intention of sending it, so they can say if they are interested in appearing as authors.

The top contributors. While we would like people to appear under their real name this is not required. They can appear under a pseudonom. The lead author must use a real name. Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine what I am going to say: exactly that: Top is neither an operational definition :-).--Garrondo (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this contacting would have to be done by the corresponding author. This, and how should it be done should be specified. --Garrondo (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the lead author should contact everyone who has made a significant number of edits by either their talk page or email on their account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Equilibrium between authentification of identity, autorship, and WP:outing: Some of us have nick-names close to our real names, in which case there would be no real trouble to demonstrate who we are. However others have nick names with no real connection to their real identity. This could bring several problems:

Somebody could say that he has been a main author of an article saying that he is a retired user. There would be no way of demonstrating that he has been that author. Possible easy solution: Editors sending an article should have mail activated in their wiki account. Editor of the journal sends them a password through the wiki system, that they later have to resend through the mail they are going to use in communicating with the journal.

Must be an active Wikipedian with an active account. Must have email on to verify. Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if the jarticle is going to say that the authors have been among the main contributors of the article within wikipedia (which probably should), but what I would not do is giving exact information on who is who so editors who wish so can maintain partial annonimity within wikipedia. Article could say something like: authors were among the 10 editors with higher number of edits to the article but not specifying who is each author.

Yes will say they are the main contributors as they are required to be main contributors to be listed as authors. Only people who do not mind their real identity be know should submit an article for publication. The primary purpose is to give credit to authors of Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was if the nickname was going to be linked to the real name. If yes: it is a 100% outing. On the other hand if it is only said that "real name X" was one of the main contributors of the article without specifying his nick or his number of edits, he would receive the credit for his work and still there would be some annonimity (i.e: if you put in google the nick the Jarticle will probably not appear). --Garrondo (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This effort will potentially reduce anonymity. While the nickname will not be linked to the real name it will often be not that difficult to figure it out. We will not be able to guarantee anonymity going forwards. We can publish under a pseudonym though for non first authors but I am not sure how much good that credit would be for academics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A minor note could be added to the guidelines in this sense.

If one of those W editors does not answer to contacting them (for example if he is retired), is he going to be included as author with only his nick? --Garrondo (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes included as his nick. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is the order of authors going to be decided? By consensus between nominator and answering W editors? By edit-counting? By alphabetical order?--Garrondo (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First authorship will be generally given to the submitting author.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal related to the above two comments: to only include as authors in title top contributors who answer the calling of the corresponding author and who give explicit permission to appear in the article (either with real name or nick). Order among those would have to be consensuated. All other editors would appear in list format as however is required in the CC-BY-SA Wikipedia license. --Garrondo (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typically all significant authors are required to be mentioned. The definition of significant however is vague. As contributions are CC BY SA explicit permission is not required to include a nick from my understanding. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal was in the line of what is done for example with the ADNI innitiative for neuroimaging of Alzheimer's disease, which may have some simmilarities with our case (there are also several examples in the field of genetics). The ADNI data is public (although it is needed to register), but when used for ones research it should include the initiative as one of the authors. This gives in pubmed a corporate author field (Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative[Corporate Author]) in addition to the authors of the final article. Our case could be similar: As authors could appear those interested among the main contributors (maybe even only those who give their real names), and all others could appear as a corporate authorship (e.g: Wikipedia editors of X article), with the link in the paper to the full list. In this sense, as you say it would be quite strange to have many authors under pseudonym who are not even aware of the existence of the paper in the journal, and having only real names might raise credibility in this case. --Garrondo (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are educational titles (MD, phD...) going to be appended to author's names?: while it would help to give more credibility to WP (since most probably several of the main contributors would either be MD or phD) it also to some point undervalues the role of lay people for WP.--Garrondo (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of the article would become the abstract or a new abstract would be created ad hoc?--Garrondo (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to indicate that most of these comments are just to point out some of the things that could or should be clarified in the guidelines for submission or that merit further discussion within the publishing journal.--Garrondo (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks will develop the instructions further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current status

Is this still running? There seems to be no mention of it on JMIR's website. If not, it should probably be clarified on the page to avoid confusion. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 00:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a paper you want to publish in JMIR let me know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]