Wikidata:Property proposal/Peer-review-process properties for journals

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Transpose Peer Review properties[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

   Not done
DescriptionTranspose has a set of metadata about journals classifying aspects of their peer review process. Most of these don't yet exist in WD.
Data typeString
Domainaspect
Allowed valueslists of allowed values
Example 1MISSING
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
Sourcehttps://transpose-publishing.github.io/#/
Planned useadding data from the Transpose project to ~4k journals that are on WikiData
Number of IDs in source1-4k
Expected completenessalways incomplete (only for journals that disclose peer review processes)

Motivation[edit]

The Transpose project is a A database of journal policies on peer review, co-reviewing, and preprinting. This includes whether peer review is part of the publishing process, what sort of review, and the date of the last self-report of third-party check. These are important parameters to know when evaluating the reliability of journals. Some of these may be equivalent to existing properties, but most don't exist. Is it appropriate to propose these one at a time, or as a group?

Example properties:

Type of peer review: (list)
Peer review policy: (URL)
Peer review form: (URL? screenshot?)
Peer review credit policy: (URL)
Publons/ORCID credit: (list)
Peer review transfer policy: (URL)
Peer review reports published: (Y/N/Not specified)
Author responses to reviews published: (Y/N/Not specified)
Editorial decision letters published: (Y/N/Not specified)
Previous versions of the manuscript published: (Y/N/Not specified)
Reviewer identities published: (Y/N/Not specified)
Reviewer identities revealed to author: (Y/N/Not specified)
Public commenting: (Y/N/Not specified)
Reviewers consult with each other: (Y/N/Not specified)
Co-reviewer policy: (URL)
Reviewer invitation explicitly allows co-reviewers: (Y/N/Not specified)
Peer review form explicitly accepts co-reviewer names: (Y/N/NA)
Preprint policy: (URL)
Preprint licensing policy: (license list)
Version of paper allowed in preprint server: (list)
Article links to preprint: (Y/N/Not specified)
Can cite preprints in journal article: (Y/N/Not specified)
Scoop protection policy: (URL)
ORCID/Publon credit for co-reviewers: (list)
Preprint media coverage policy: (URL)
Preprint community review policy: (URL)

Sj (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In most cases like this we would just attach the ID used by the project (1 property) and point people to the metadata there, rather than copying all the data into Wikidata. Wikidata doesn't have a boolean datatype, for example, which some of these would be. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    So the property might be "TransposeID" with an associated URL? How to specify that this ID is related to peer-review metadata? I see that's how we do it for Sherpa-Romeo metadata. At what point does an individual metadata field in that schema become important enough that we want to include it directly in the Wikidata fields about a journal? Sj (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Sj: You could call it "Transpose Peer Review ID", or if "TransposeID" is the term used by the project that might be more appropriate as the main label and just describe it well in the description field. If there seems a real use case for re-use of the metadata from Wikidata rather than via a redirect to another site then maybe it would be worth having that data here - you'd have to argue the case (and each piece of metadata might need a different use case/argument). ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please give some examples. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC).
  • Can you move this to out of "Wikidata:Property proposal/" and formulate proposals once you know what you are looking for? You can do several on the same page. --- Jura 12:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    • BTW, maybe what you are looking for is just something like exact match (P2888) --- Jura 14:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jura, that this looks like it isn't yet in a state for a good property proposal. Maybe have a discussion page on Wikiproject SourceMetadata? String is the wrong datatype for list of possible states. The datatype likely should be item. Maybe create test items on test.wikidata.org? ChristianKl❫ 15:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Not done per comments above. --- Jura 21:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)