Use this community portal to ask for help, ask questions or to make project announcements. Newest items are at the end. create new post

External linksEdit

Add your questions, comments, announcementsEdit

  • What is the status of efforts to grow the Academic Publishing Wikia community?
See the list of on-going community events and activities at Current events.
  • Where is the discussion of how to perform wiki publishing?
Sorry to say, it is all over the place. See Talk:Main Page and User talk:Sarge Baldy <-- decisions need to be made about rules for articles that are formally published after peer review. Should wiki publishing adopt a conventional Journal:Volume:Issue system or is there a better way to organize and cite published articles in wiki format?
    • Formal articles about wiki publishing:
  1. Flexibility in wiki publishing: author desires, peer review and citation

Potential logo?Edit

Open book 01

For some reason I can't insert Commons images on this wiki. Anyway, see what you think of that. :) Garrett 01:08, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Anything is better than nothing, so the open book could be a temporary logo. I would like to see something other than a dead tree book; something that is iconic for wiki publishing, not print publishing. I have been trying to think of the perfect screen shot......maybe of something like the acceptance notice for the first peer-reviewed and approved article. We need a very flash template that says "this article passed peer review." --JWSchmidt 02:51, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't worry about the logo for now, I actually have someone working on one. He made an initial one but didn't like it and I'm expecting a replacement soon. I'll set up his original version for now though. Sarge Baldy 03:33, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
As for the flashy peer review notice, maybe something like Wikipedia's Featured Article banner and star? Or maybe a little book beside it? Something... Garrett 10:04, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, the star could work for an article passing peer review. Or really anything else. One advantage with a wiki is that it's terribly easy to change things later if someone comes up with something nicer. Oh, and as for not being able to use Commons images, that's because Wikimedia (which owns Wikipedia, Commons, etc) and Wikia (which owns Wikicities) are separate (although related) companies. So you'll have to upload things to Wikicities locally. Sarge Baldy 11:08, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

new Peer Review templateEdit

It's going to be a while before we need it no doubt, but I've fiddled with the template.

Compare the old one...:

This article has been peer-reviewed. This article was judged by the reviewers to meet established community standards for article style and intellectual content.

To this one with Clockwork Soul's Coffee Roll theme applied...:

Open book 01
Community Portal has been peer-reviewed. It was judged by the reviewers to meet established community standards for article style and intellectual content.

See what you think :) Garrett 11:11, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Each journal should have its own template for articles submitted to it and approved by peer review. This looks fine for the "open review" option where an article is not submitted to any specific journal. --JWSchmidt 14:51, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Well, I have two problems with updated version. One being that the image drifts off the borders of the template (or at least it does for me). The other is that I don't think it needs to say a submitted article needs to be "one of the best" before it can pass peer review, since that gives off the impression that only a few written articles will eventually get published. Sarge Baldy 20:24, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Drifts off the page? I assume you're using IE. No way I can fix that, it's MediaWiki's IE compatibility templates generating a hugely oversized image.
I rewrote it to use MediaWiki table code (generates <table> instead of <div>), so should be more compatible now.
I've reworded it as you suggested. Should sound better now.
Yes at some point there could be journal-specific templates, but that would assume some sort of icon is designed for each. Certainly I can see using something like the Wiktionary logo for the Language Journal and maybe an Ionic column for the Journal of History and Classics... hmmm... Garrett 00:48, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I use Firefox, but it seems to be correct now. And it does look better to me than the old version. Sarge Baldy 01:00, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I also made a quick little favourite icon File:Favicon.ico (as always, based on a freeware source). But it doesn't work. According to WP once the functionality has been turned on at a particular wiki the image with that name becomes the site-wide logo. So, um, yeah, I kind of broke the icon... :) Garrett 00:48, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Be sure that you reset the image cache of your browser. After I dumped my cache, I can see the new favicon. --JWSchmidt 13:23, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Yes I tried that but then I had NO icon! But when I incidentally restarted it displayed again. Strange. But it's there now, that's the main thing. :) Garrett 22:52, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Optimum article length?Edit

How long should the average article be? Right now mine's pushing 2377 words (and there's still more old drafts I could merge with it to make it longer) but what sort of length are we aiming at here?

I've got some other essays that would also make nice starters, but this is about the longest of them, and ideally the ones I put on here should be near the optimum size to begin with rather than "stubs" (in comparison to the ideal length) that might never get worked on enough to be satisfactory.

I know I've seen traditional journal articles around this length or even much shorter, but I'm not sure if that's the norm. What are your thoughts on this? Garrett 09:04, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about something like Least Publishable Units, just to clarify. :) Garrett 10:00, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Each article should state what its purpose is. It should be long enough to accomplish its purpose. The peer reviewers will judge if the author made the article too short, either by
  1. selecting a trivial purpose
  2. not including enough content to accomplish the stated purpose.
So as long as it's self-contained it's OK? Ah, I see now. :) Well then, heck, I could even convert some of my psychology reports... they're not very long at all, but they were exhaustive as far as the experiments/research I had to conduct goes. And all those red-links are looking so lonely... :) Garrett 22:34, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Problem with the ref templateEdit

There seems to be a problem with the template for references. See template at Wikipedia for how the in text citations to the reference list should look (no arrow). --JWSchmidt 14:06, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Posted this on wikicities:Talk:Technical support#reference links acting like external links?. I had noticed this myself but it didn't "click" that it was wrong! Hopefully there will be a solution. It could be just a 1.4<->1.5 difference, but they say that should be up and running here in a couple of weeks anyway. So it's all good. :) Garrett 22:50, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)


People editing here should make themselves aware of the m:Wikiversity proposal. It is possible that the original research and publication happening here could become part of that project if/when it really starts. See also Wikibooks:Wikiversity which is starting to place Wikibooks into different schools. If Wikiversity does launch in a form which allows this sort of content, the content database of this Wikia (though not the user database) could be moved there. Angela (talk) 14:24, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that will happen. The goal of Wikibooks is to provide books, the goal of Wikiversity is to supply courses, and the goal of us is to provide journals.
While each can support the other two I'm not convinced that content is going to be moved. Just as Wikibooks doesn't want non-book entries to be added, I'm not sure that Wikiversity will want content not directly related to teaching or learning a particular class they offer.
Also we are (in the process of) establishing a set of rules aimed at effective online publishing, while Wikiversity's rules will be aimed at teaching in the same medium. There will inevitably be some crossover, but I'm not sure absorption will be the way it turns out. But we'll see... Garrett 22:26, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
There are differing opinions on what Wikiversity should be. Currently, most of the discussion has focused on providing courses, but I expect it could be much more than that, including anything you would get from a traditional university, which includes original research. Angela (talk) 01:17, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Any wiki that wants to start a peer-reviewed journal first needs to think about how they license their content. For a wiki that uses GFDL, there is no barrier to just setting up a journal here and linking to it from outside. However, if a wiki has reason to want to host a journal in their own domain (maybe they do not use the GFDL license), it would be nice to have a simple way for them to have the option of lifting out of the core files needed to quickly start a new journal. --JWSchmidt 01:35, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)

New tour layoutEdit

I've completely restructured the tour to show a sample of articles at each stage of production. Check it out!

It'll be even better to be able to show a peer reviewed article at the end, but that's a long way off I guess.

Anyway, see what you think! :) Garrett 01:22, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

PDF editionsEdit

My goal was always to have PDF editions of the articles, but it wasn't until Angela fixed the reference links that I was able to do this. You can see an example PDF edition, generated word-for-word from the original using PDF Creator's virtual printer.

I made minor alterations (as you can see from the wiki version's history) to make it look better in print, but other than those fixes this allows instantaneous generation of PDF editions without even owning Adobe Acrobat! See what you think. :) Garrett 00:15, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

That did come out good, it looks more professional in that format I'd say. Is there really an intended use beyond that though? Sarge Baldy 03:09, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Well, just the inherent advantages of the PDF format. For example you can save it to read later/offline (even on the "complete" setting the HTML pages will be without CSS so hideously formatted), and it allows tidy printing for those with older web browsers (that would print the ads and interface as well as the content). Also you could easily email it to a friend or put it on a floppy or whatnot.
Also for (potential) referencing of the work it would be easier for writers to link to the PDF at the date they read it (the history also works, but if a revision is ever deleted all the version IDs after it change), and, in turn, provides their readers with a much more professional presentation if they decide to look it up. :) Garrett 05:33, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I think we should have a page with descriptions of utility software for converting from other text formats to MediaWiki and from MediaWiki to other formats. Anything that helps people move into the world of wiki publishing will help. --JWSchmidt 19:14, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Certainly there are a variety of tools for converting to MediaWiki, but I'm not sure there are many that convert from it. But I've seen them around on Wikipedia etc. so I'll look into making a list of some sort. :) Garrett 23:32, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Appropriate? Edit

I have just created the Journal of the South Asian Health Research Institute - It is something that I had started at another wiki site ( I would like opinions/comments on whether this is the right place for it. If you look at the main page for j of SAHRI, you will see what we want to do.


Um, our original intention was to start journal articles, while yours seems to be to have a sort of medical encyclopedia as well, but these differing goals aren't necessarily too conflicting. Of course it's not "my" wiki and the others may disagree.
Or are you only intending to carry over the articles and not the database? Either way, looks like some fascinating information you've got there.
If in the end the decision is made that your database content be elsewhere (for example, onto a wikicity all of your own), we could still host the journal articles here, much as we're doing for the Language Journal.
Oh and you can't just copy-'n'-paste the content over, the formatting used is different on this wiki, for example bold isn't **bold** but instead '''bold'''. If you need any help with formatting or conversion don't hesitate to ask. :)
Anyway, hope that clears things up, now we just have to wait to see what the others think. :) Garrett 23:28, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Go for it! The journal topics listed at present are very broad simply because that's the easiest place to start. Certainly if you have the means for creating one on a more specific topic, then it's very much welcome here. Nice to have you on board. Sarge Baldy 01:52, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Thanks folks! Appreciate your comments. One of the problems is, I am not 100% sure what the right tools are to get the job done. I am in uncharted territory. New to wiki(didn't know what it was until early last month). In addition, there is no model for what I want to do. I am trying to create an open source experiement in medical research, something that has never been done (to the best of my knowledge). One of the biggest hurdle is: most of the contributors are afraid of the "new" technology, like wiki/blogging. To overcome that, I need to find the easiest interface. And this seems like a good interface. The best would be an interface like word processing software which allows hyperlinks.
In terms of where this experiment goes: I see this as a "city" not just a "journal". A Health Care City with "buildings" of specific health topics which collaborators can build on their own. Since building a city starts with a single building, I figured let's start with a journal first. Sarge, if I start with journal, can it be moved to a city later?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "city", but if you mean you want to start with a journal here and then start a new wikicity to expand your project, that's perfectly fine. Note some of the journals are already off site. More than anything this is a hub to coordinate various academic journals, and a means for getting these projects started. They don't necessarily need to remain here once they are successfully established, they can simply be linked to here as an offsite journal. Is this what you had in mind? Sarge Baldy 02:30, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Yes! I think so!

Options for wiki publishing?Edit

Convert from Word document or HTML to Wiki markup?Edit

I wrote an academic thesis in 1997 on "Water management in Indonesian cities". I'd like to put it on the web somewhere so it can be of use to others. The ideal place seems to be either here or at the Development and Sustainability Wikia.

Either way, I need to convert it to wiki format. The only solution I can think of is to save it as HTML, and post the HTML, which wikia should be able to read. However, that's not ideal - is there a better way of converting *.DOC (or HTML) files to wiki? It would be difficult to do manually - especially as there are about 350 footnotes and many subheadings.

Thanks --Singkong2005 14:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. There actually is a script to convert that sort of thing here. Don't ask me how well it works though. If nothing else it would at least do some of the work, and maybe the rest could be handled manually.. But I wouldn't have too much faith in a converter knowing quite what to do with footnotes. Sarge Baldy 17:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Academic Publishing Wiki's first birthday Edit

2006-12-03 Article in: Journal_of_Computer_Science_and_Software_Engineering Edit

Hello everybody, I have created a small article here. Could someone have a look please? Thx --Erkan Yilmaz 19:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Co-authoring Edit

Is Academic Publishing Wiki intended for publishing drafts which could then be edited by others so receiving a free co-authoring?

Can I create an article that way and afterwards publish it in a traditional peer-reviewed journal (not wiki).

Any problems with this? Will traditional journals accept drafts copied from the wiki?

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.