Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

This compass symbolizes the process of evaluating articles in a precise manner. This is a page intended for peer review of science articles on Wikipedia. It aims to offer a high-calibre, content-oriented critique of articles on scientific subjects. Peer review is one of the most important tools on Wikipedia. Over the last few months we have been under the spotlight over our accuracy, receiving reviews from newspapers and academic journals alike. Nature deemed us, on scientific articles, as error-laden as Britannica. Wikipedia 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 be safely used by the public without them being misled – the process for Wikipedia 1.0 and a validation feature are just beginning. From now on, we must do our most to ensure that as many of our articles as possible (and especially our scientific articles) are factually accurate and up-to-standard. In light of this, a modified "peer review" (which differs substantially from the general peer review page) is being implemented to raise our scientific articles to their highest possible standards. It will incorporate free-for-all commentary as used in our featured article discussions, general peer review and article assessment discussions but also a review by an approved board. The board will consist of a dozen Wikipedians who belong to the scientific academic community. These members will be familiar with scientific literature (theses, articles, etc.) and will judge our articles by the standards with which they are familiar. Their grounds for critique will include factual content, prose, referencing, presentation, and compliance to standards and manuals of style. Preferably, the board will cover a number of scientific disciplines such that any scientific article will get an appropriately in-depth grilling. Each article will receive criticism and ratings from members of the board and the wider Wikipedia community. After a week or two of peer review the board will release a recommendation as to the course of action the nominator should follow in terms of improving the article, summarising the main points of criticism until that point. Related pages: Wikipedia:Peer review Wikipedia:External peer review deals with peer reviews by external agencies Wikipedia:Article assessment rates articles from a particular topic Wikipedia:CVG Peer review deals with computer and video games-related topics

Shortcut [[:|WP:SPR]] Roadmap to establishing SPR proposal - done, but feel free to add to the suggestions nomination for seat on board - until 00:00 2006/03/31 (N.B. extended - we need more time) voting on nominations receive first nominations for peer review Nominating yourself This is the general format for nominations: ===[Username]=== A brief text about yourself summarising your scientific specialisation (including science-related Wikiprojects you are active in), your experience and history. Specifics are desirable but not necessary. Nominating another This is the same as above except the nominated user has to sign their approval of the nomination. Voting Wikipedians may vote on as many of the nominees as they wish, keeping in mind a spread of expertise would be most efficacious to the process. Tenure The members of the board will have a term of a year. At the end of the year they may renominate themselves. At any time during their term they may resign and a replacement will be voted for. If a member becomes inactive for a month without explanation a replacement will be sought.

Nomination procedure Anyone can request peer review here. When posting your request, include a brief description of the kind of comments/contributions you want, and sections of the article you think need to be reviewed. The best way to get lots of reviews is to reply promptly and appreciatively on this page to the comments you do get. Procedure for adding nominations: Place {{scipeerreview}} at the top of the article's talk page (not the article itself) to let other editors of the article know that the article is being peer reviewed. From there, click on the link request has been made that appears in the new "peer review" box. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article. Place the code in the section immediately after this one on the new subpage. Place {{Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of nominees found on this page (Requests). (Optional) Politely request feedback on the discussion pages of one or more articles in the same or a related field, related Wikiprojects, and/or send messages to one or more individual Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a closely related field who are not on the board. How to format the subpages ===[[articlename]]=== Why you think the articles needs the peer review, and sign it with ~~~~. ====Board comments==== =====[boardmembername]===== ====Non-board comments==== =====[nonboardmembername]===== ====Recommendation==== How to respond to a request Scan the list of requests below, and if one catches your fancy, follow the link to the article and read it. If you think something is wrong with the article—e.g., it's too long, there's no lead section, poor grammar/spelling, factual errors—you're welcome to post a comment in the appropriate section on this page. Feel free to give area-specific ratings, for example on presentation, factual accuracy, &c. If you have the time and knowledge to resolve relatively minor issues in the article itself, this will be appreciated. If you do so, please consider making a note of this on the page to keep others informed about the progress of the article. Include a permalink to the page you reviewed so that comments have a context in the future after changes have been made. How the board will respond to a request In the first week or two after the request members of the board will post comments individually, preferably commenting on different aspects of the article and discuss its factual accuracy. The board member may rate aspects of the article to give clarity to the nominator. Just before it is removed from peer review the board will make a recommendation to the nominator as to the course of action they should take. This will summarise the main sentiments expressed in the discussion. Someone will then replace {{scipeerreview}} on the article's talk page with {{oldscipeerreview}}. How to resubmit a request Procedure for requesting a brand new peer review request: Move the peer review page to Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/example/Archive1 Edit the page Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/example, remove the redirect. Restructure the article as described above. Resubmit the request and make a note where the old request is via a wikilink.

Nominations for the board

Samsara

Right. Someone has to make the first (self-)nomination, so I'll take up the gauntlet.

I have broad training in evolutionary biology and ecology, with a range that encompasses bioinformatics and genomics, population and quantitative genetics, behavioural ecology, life history theory and experimental microcosms, as well as questions about large-scale diversity patterns in ecology. I also have an interest in organising fieldwork expeditions, with a focus on including remote sensing as part of the scientific methodology.

Since my work is mostly theoretical, I have a good background in maths (for a biologist, mind!), computer programming (stochastic simulations especially), computer algebra systems, operating systems, unix tools, ...

My PhD is in Optimal sex ratios in the Trivers-Willard scenario, which actually is of much broader interest than it sounds.

As a Wikipedian, I have over 2,000 main namespace edits to my name, one featured article (frog) and over 4,000 total edits (edit count). I also help maintain Portal:Biology, Wikipedia:Science Collaboration of the Week, and initiated Wikipedia:Join in, which I now also help maintain.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worldtraveller

Well, I think this is an excellent idea and I feel I might be useful in it so I'll nominate myself.

I'm an astronomer, though currently taking a break from research. My PhD was on Heavy element abundances in emission line nebulae - analysing the chemical makeup of planetary nebulae and H II regions, but I'm also interested in lots of other aspects of astronomy, particularly planetary geology and stellar astronomy. I am an observational stronomer so I don't understand maths. If anyone wants to read my PhD thesis, the best bit is the acknowledgements section.

On Wikipedia I have made about 6,000 edits[1], and have produced 19 featured articles, mostly on astronomical topics, including planetary nebula and the Cat's Eye Nebula, but also some on geological topics (and perhaps oddly one on a long-forgotten Victoria diplomat). I've also done a lot of work maintaining Portal:Astronomy.

Worldtraveller 22:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]