Wikidata:Property proposal/Peer review location

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

peer review URL[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

Motivation[edit]

Academic journals are increasingly experimenting with open/transparent peer review. It will therefore be very useful to have the ability to store peer reviewer comment location(s) and peer reviewer identity for each such article. Eventually it could allow summary of which articles have been open reviewed, by how many reviewers, and allow a publons-like Scholia tool for crediting reviewers. Unfortunately, all journals have their own url structure currently so any automatic addition of the urls as articles are published would have to be on a journal-by-journal basis.

Note that we already have a few examples of peer reviewer comments as items in wikidata in cases where those peer reviews were assigned DOIs (e.g. Q57730522 and Q58285151 are peer reviews of Q27133522), but there is not a link from the article to its review. This will be additionally useful for w:template:academic peer review. T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment First, I am expecting this to be multi-valued. Also I suggest renaming the property to peer-review URL. John Samuel (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC).
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment seems to make sense, but I don't quite get the link with review of (P6977). Supposedly this proposal is for reviews prior to publication and P6977 for reviews after publication. --- Jura 18:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Jura1: Oh - I didn't realise that! In that case it might be worth having a review of (P6977) equivalent specifically for peer reviews (I used it over at Q57730522 and Q58285151 for hat purpose before seeing this comment). T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I guess it isn't explicitly excluded .. so you could. Anyways, I don't see the point of using both for peer review, but it could be good to store the name of the reviewers somehow. --- Jura 11:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But I agree with John Samuel, "location" should be "URL" here (when I saw the label I was thinking it was somehow referring to the geographic location the review was conducted in??) ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Jsamwrites, ArthurPSmith: As an additional complication, it might sometimes be useful to point to a QID instead (e.g.:Q58285151). T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Evolution and evolvability: I modified the proposed label (lowercase and change "location" to "URL"). Is this ok with everybody? Where we could point to an item, we do have the reverse relation review of (P6977) available; maybe a qualifier on the URL statement could also link to the item. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
    Makes sense to me, and I agree that 'location' already has established meaning on wikidata so would be easily misleading. T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability, Nomen ad hoc, Jsamwrites:

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Nomen ad hoc, ArthurPSmith, Evolution and evolvability, Jura1: ✓ Done: Peer review URL (P7347). − Pintoch (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)