241:
32:
58:
311:. Note how the logo was inserted into the "pseudo-accepted" version without permission of the article's current editors. In other words, all of Knowledge (XXG)'s 5 million articles are candidates for publication in this journal, and in a manner of speaking, have already effectively submitted their manuscripts to
298:
is that edited versions of
Knowledge (XXG) articles are welcome, and are presented as Knowledge (XXG) articles on the Wikiversity journal via permalinks to the history of Knowledge (XXG) articles. This is currently accomplished in a rather awkward fashion, by moving the Knowledge (XXG) article into
114:
All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of one of the many
Science WikiProjects. While there is a general intent to expand this process to ensure review by subject experts in a more formal way, possibly through the use of an elected Board, consensus on how to achieve this has not
97:
deemed us, on scientific articles, as error-laden as
Britannica. Knowledge (XXG) has now matured from a small intellectual exercise into a serious and respectable source of information. As such, we are trying to find ways in which our articles can provide reliable information to the public—the
126:
is created to collect the review comments. Interested participants scan the notice board, and participate in the reviews of articles in which they are interested. This mechanism builds on proven and successful WP methods for handling and managing requests.
106:
The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles, and in particular for editors who are experts in the topic involved, to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.
299:
the editor's user space, and after proper attribution, deleting all that extraneous prose that
Knowledge (XXG) articles tend to acquire. An example of this shown in one of the three "pseudo-articles" that were used to create a
110:
The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality; however, requesting reviews on very short articles may not be productive, as there is little for readers to comment on.
102:
and a validation feature are just beginning. From now on, we must do our best to ensure that as many articles as possible, especially our scientific articles, are factually accurate and of a high standard.
158:
91:
is one of the most important tools on
Knowledge (XXG). Over the past few months we have been under the spotlight over our accuracy, receiving reviews from newspapers and academic journals.
170:
263:
will be a peer-reviewed journal that should alleviate this problem for recent college graduates who are not expected to have published in the established scholarly journals.
164:
186:
57:
343:
123:
46:
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the
278:, but will have a somewhat more informal flavor, consistent with this new journal's intent to focus on teaching at the undergraduate college level.
99:
122:
process. Indeed it has been suggested that we work in part through that process, but this is something for the future. A special page, such as
47:
303:
issue. Of the three "pseudo-articles" in this mockup, I consider only one to be suitable for publication. It is
Knowledge (XXG)'s
202:
please do any work in consensus with other editors. Removing large sections leaving bare headings is not the right way to proceed.
140:
338:
306:
248:
255:
survey, the prime disincentive against making scholarly contributions to
Knowledge (XXG) is that it will not advance careers.
152:
181:
Peer review at this project is no longer active and scientific articles should be directed to the general
Knowledge (XXG)
286:
274:
199:
312:
294:
280:
268:
258:
87:
on
Knowledge (XXG). It aims to offer a high-calibre, content-oriented critique of articles on scientific subjects.
146:
320:
231:
182:
134:
119:
66:
39:
31:
284:
will attribute with bylines that list usernames only, in contrast with the use of real names by the
316:
227:
240:
266:
The word "First" in the title is intended to suggest that we need more journals like this. The
324:
235:
224:
I think I posted this on an archived discussion and will look for a better place to post
212:
93:
332:
206:
17:
171:
The discussion page for SPR methodology and philosophy of scientific peer review
88:
61:
This compass symbolizes the process of evaluating articles in a precise manner.
300:
26:
239:
167:
deals with their articles in a similar way to this proposal.
56:
74:
161:
deals with computer and video games-related topics.
38:
This page is currently inactive and is retained for
143:of the overall quality of Knowledge (XXG) content
185:. Reviews of articles that were completed are
124:Knowledge (XXG):Scientific peer review/Science
8:
155:rates articles from a particular topic.
344:Knowledge (XXG) scientific peer review
7:
313:Wikiversity:First Journal of Science
295:Wikiversity:First Journal of Science
281:Wikiversity:First Journal of Science
269:Wikiversity:First Journal of Science
259:Wikiversity:First Journal of Science
141:Knowledge (XXG):External peer review
153:Knowledge (XXG):Article assessment
25:
307:Introduction to quantum mechanics
219:A refereed journal on Wikiversity
30:
287:Wikiversity Journal of Medicine
275:Wikiversity Journal of Medicine
159:Knowledge (XXG):CVG Peer review
118:The process here resembles the
85:peer review of science articles
1:
147:Knowledge (XXG):Expert review
325:05:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
236:09:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
200:Talk:Environmental chemistry
165:Military history Peer Review
135:Knowledge (XXG):Peer review
120:Knowledge (XXG):Peer review
360:
292:Another unique feature of
149:an older similar proposal.
64:
213:08:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
272:was patterned after the
83:This page concerns the
339:Inactive project pages
244:
177:Scientific Peer Review
62:
243:
60:
100:Knowledge (XXG) 1.0
18:Knowledge (XXG):SPR
245:
63:
55:
54:
16:(Redirected from
351:
211:
77:
51:
34:
27:
21:
359:
358:
354:
353:
352:
350:
349:
348:
329:
328:
221:
203:
195:
179:
130:Related pages:
81:
80:
73:
69:
45:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
357:
355:
347:
346:
341:
331:
330:
317:Guy vandegrift
228:Guy vandegrift
220:
217:
216:
215:
194:
191:
178:
175:
174:
173:
168:
162:
156:
150:
144:
138:
115:been reached.
79:
78:
70:
65:
53:
52:
44:
35:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
356:
345:
342:
340:
337:
336:
334:
327:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
309:
308:
302:
297:
296:
290:
289:
288:
283:
282:
277:
276:
271:
270:
264:
262:
261:
260:
254:
253:
252:
247:According to
242:
238:
237:
233:
229:
225:
218:
214:
210:
209:
208:
201:
197:
196:
192:
190:
188:
187:archived here
184:
176:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
132:
131:
128:
125:
121:
116:
112:
108:
104:
101:
96:
95:
90:
86:
76:
72:
71:
68:
59:
49:
43:
41:
36:
33:
29:
28:
19:
315:for review--
305:
304:
293:
291:
285:
279:
273:
267:
265:
257:
256:
250:
249:
246:
223:
222:
205:
204:
198:As noted at
180:
129:
117:
113:
109:
105:
98:process for
92:
84:
82:
48:village pump
37:
183:peer review
89:Peer review
333:Categories
42:reference.
40:historical
193:Comments
67:Shortcut
207:Velella
301:mockup
94:Nature
75:WP:SPR
321:talk
251:this
232:talk
335::
323:)
234:)
226:--
189:.
319:(
230:(
137:.
50:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
