Wikiversity talk:Peer review

This is the Talk page for discussing Wikiversity:Peer review
Please join the threads below by beginning your reply with a colon (:) (or colons ::) and sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Start a new thread by clicking the + tab above, supplying a meaningful heading.
This page is used for general discussion of Wikiversity:Peer review. For discussion on a particular subpage, please use its talk page

I added the section, Requests for peer review to this project page with some instructions and an initial item. Is that appropriate or should a listing be somewhere else? CQ 14:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think it belongs under the applicable School(s), personally. The Jade Knight 03:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Proposal:Develop systems for accuracy review
• Proposal:Tutorials for finding peer-reviewed secondary literature, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 19:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

A presentation of this peer review idea (given at the December 2013 meetup in New York City) is available at: File:Peer revieved content from Wikiversity (presentation).pdf. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 11:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

When a resource passes peer review, I think we should make a copy of the peer reviewed passed version as a subpage, then write protect it as a snapshot. Any new peer review changes can be finalized into a new snapshot. Mikael Häggström, what do you think? Also, I don't know if Wikipedia will allow Wikiversity information as a reliable source. I'm not against it, but I don't think Wikiversity is developed enough yet for it. Its a good vision. Also, what about linking the peer review page to external peer review organizations. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 20:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why not use a permanent link to the peer-reviewed page instead? This snapshot is already compiled and requires no maintenance. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good idea! I'll work on that {{Peer reviewed}} to include a permanent link to the peer reviewed version as well. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 06:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've encountered an unexplained problem in making this addition. I've described the problem at Wikipedia:Help_talk:Template#Can't_get_addition_to_template_to_work. I'll appreciate any help in solving this problem. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 11:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Y Done

Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 16:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can I ask where the heck you got the idea that Wikiversity 'peer reviewed' articles would be accepted as reliable sources on Wikipedia? That is for Wikipedia to decide - not Wikiversity. And as the Wikipedia policy on identifying reliable sources makes clear [1], open Wikis are never accepted as reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I cannot recall I've ever gotten such an idea. As described on the talk pages you linked, I regard this peer review process to avail for a possible exception to the general rule. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 11:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

If you didn't have such an idea, why were you citing your own Wikiversity articles on Wikipedia? Anyway, what you 'regard' is beside the point - current Wikipedia policy is that citation of Wikis isn't permitted, and unless and until Wikipedia policy is revised, it is entirely misleading for Wikiversity to be implying otherwise. If the Wikipedia 'peer review' process is to be accepted by Wikipedia as an exception to this rule, no doubt this article can be revised to say so - but that hasn't happened, and Wikiversity:Peer review shouldn't be implying otherwise. If you aren't prepared to remove the misleading assertions, I shall consider doing so myself. AndyTheGrump (discuss • contribs) 21:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The context of the text makes it clear that peer review does not automatically result in being a reliable source for inclusion in Wikipedia, but since this text is obviously disputes I've removed it from the page. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 04:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

• There is a confusion in this discussion. Yes, being "peer-reviewed" doesn't make something reliable source, in itself. What it takes is an independent and responsible publisher. The "publisher" cannot be a wiki or the author or any organization controlled by the author. Nor can it be controlled by a wiki, but, now what may be possible:
• An independent publisher chooses to use a wiki to publish. It may use wiki process as a part of its own peer-review process, generating advice. Not control. If the material is published on a wiki, the "publication" is a specific version of a wiki page or set of pages referenced externally by the publisher. To make this clear, the article would be cited, not by the Wikiversity link, but to a publisher page, that may contain an abstract, perhaps, and a link to a permanent wiki version, approved by the publisher, with the full text being readable from the wiki as the permanent version.
• All this then would create what may be reliable source. The reliable source is the publisher and what the publisher publishes. Not the wiki. however, there are some very substantial advantages which will accrue to the publisher and to the wiki community. The article may be broadly criticized. It may be improved. It may be discussed, and on Wikiversity, the *topic* may be discussed. (And the publisher may subject an improved version to its own editorial process and could update the link.) The publications will likely remain stable, even if the publisher ceases operations.
• To my mind, the present Wikiversity Journal of Medicine does not quite satisfy this. However, it could be made so, and some of the pieces are in place.
• One of the crucial differences is in the attached page. It implies that the author may arrange for peer review. Certainly an author can do that; however, *independent peer review* -- generally anonymous -- is very important to academic publishing. Rather, the publisher must identify peer review resources, assessing their competence, and not under the influence of an author. It will then assign reviewers anonymously. The reviews may be publishable on-wiki, and it's then possible for reviews to be criticized, but the publication decision is entirely in the hands of the *independent publisher.* It is that independent choice, with the publisher having its reputation (and market) at stake, that allows Wikipedia to use independent publication to determine reliable source and notability.
• If this is completed, this could apply to many subjects, not just Medicine. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think the creation of PDF files would serve as a proper link when citing articles, as it would be a substantially more stable than the online wiki versions of articles. The day we reach 40 articles and are eligible for inclusion in Pubmed, the Pubmed page may be used as a reference. Until then, we are planning to upload the PDF files to some sort of academic page, in order to get them indexed and searchable by for example Google Scholar. I'm currently trying to get approval for this at my local med school.

A peer review made by someone directly chosen by the author is theoretically possible, but it is a huge potential conflict of interest. I had to do this in the very beginning of this project, before there were any submissions from other people, but we will definitely work on independently appointing peer reviewers. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply