Wikidata talk:WikiProject Source MetaData

Active discussions

Property to use when describing the methods and equipment used in a scholarly publication?Edit

also mentioned at Wikidata:Project chat

Are there existing properties to state the methods and equipment used in scientific publications, or are new ones needed? For example the publication Q27643422, uses the method Molecular replacement (Q17104122) and used the equipment Advanced Photon Source (Q2825375) (but clearly neither are a main subject (P921)). Eventually I'd like to see the methods and equipment used for all publications listed in their Wikidata items. T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we can extend the scope of describes a project that uses (P4510)? --Stevenliuyi (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@Stevenliuyi: Ah thank you, that's ideal I think! I'd not even come across it previously! It' current usage certainly covers equipment/reagent side of things from its listed examples, but I think it should be clear in context when also using it for a technique/method. I'm not wild about its long label, but no huge problem. (ping @Jura1, Pasleim, TomT0m, JakobVoss, Fnielsen: some ppl involved in its creation/discussion ) T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I’d tend to be usually in favor of creating an item for the experiment. Create an item, link it to the publication, then use the usual properties on the experiment item to describe the experiment. Useless to duplicate all the properties like « uses » with « describes something that uses », « studies » vs. « describe something that studies » in my opininion. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@TomT0m: Interesting, I'd not thought of that structure. Definitely a bit more complex, and a single publication could easily have a dozen experiments as part of it. Inclusion of methods and equipment is going to start of being extremely gappy (low coverage) since it's mostly not automatable yet. To start with I'm inclined to keep the information on the publication's item itself, but I can see it all being automatically migrated into linked items for each experiment later once it becomes more common and we want to make the structure more complex. T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I suppose we would also end up with "Wikidata project" in addition to Wikidata (Q2013). There is some discussion of this at Property_talk:P4510 --- Jura 05:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

How to model scholar articles produced in a project?Edit

Hi, I'm having some trouble to figure this and any help would be appreciated.

Let's say a researcher is associated to an institution (not necessarily paid), and produces articles for that institution's project. How do we model that? funder (P8324) explicitly says the relation involves money; sponsor (P859) doesn't seems right either. I'm thinking something more like on focus list of Wikimedia project (P5008) or a "part of the project" sort of property.

Thanks in advance and good contributions, Ederporto (talk) 04:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ederporto: Conceivably affiliation (P1416) could be useful. T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, @Evolution and evolvability:. Re-reading my question, I think it was dubious what I wanted help with. I am thinking in how to model the articles. How do I say an article is part of a project? Again, thanks for your answer. Good contributions, Ederporto (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
For example, Modelos de redes neurais com neurônios estocásticos e diferentes topologias: construção e análise (Q98799554). I added part of (P361)NeuroMat (Q18477654). As you can access in page 6 of the pdf of this article ([1]), "This thesis was produced as part of the activities of FAPESP Research, Innovation and Dissemination Center for Neuromathematics (grant #2013/07699-0, S.Paulo Research Foundation".
@Ederporto: Ah, I see what you mean now, how to model that the article is part of a project (my previous answer was about modelling a contributors' relationship with an institution). I agree that part of (P361) is pretty sensible. It's also flexible in case there are multiple projects that a single publication could be a part of. T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

merging articles and their peer reviews into single items?Edit

Hello all. I just noticed that the peer review and author response for an elife paper has been created as a separate item (there are likely others that have been similarly imported):

I think it's best to link to the url mentioned in the second item in the former as peer review URL (P7347), since all other information is duplicate. Any opinions? T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Two WikiCite grant programs - applications closing soonEdit

I just wanted to make sure that people who frequent this project page are aware of these two grant programs currently open, highly relevant to this Wikiproject's activities. They were announced on the main project chat a month ago (and various other places) but I wanted to write here specifically too. Apply by 1 October.

1. Project & events [$2-10k]

2. e-Scholarships [per-diem calculated on your city; 1-5 people (single, or as a 'remote group') for 2-4 days, for COVID-era "stay at home" projects. Paid in advance living allowance, no expense report required.]

There is lots of documentation, eligibility requirements, selection criteria, program design principles at those links. Please check them out. Sincerely, LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Predatory publishersEdit

There are two open but out-of-date databases ([2] [3]), and one up to date but proprietary list ([4]). I've put an intended plan of action and some record of what's being done below. Feel free to directly edit. T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

PlanEdit

  1. Check which predatory publishers already have items (First: 2016 StopPP list, Second: 2017 Beall's list)
    • Ensure reference included for instance of (P31) statement
    • Neither database includes easy identifiers (just name and URL, sometimes a common abbrev), so matches will require checking.
  2. Create items for missing predatory publishers
  3. Check which predatory and hijacked journals already have items (2017 StopPP list)
  4. Check for items in DOAJ (evidence against predatory status?)

Record of activityEdit

Note: Relevant previous work by the ScienceSource project. Of course, many of the publishers and journals are included in wikidata, but their instance of (P31) doesn't indicate predatory nature (predatory publisher (Q65770389)/Template:Q65770378). T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Size of predatory journal/publisher lists:
List Last updated Journals Publishers
Beall 2016-12-31 1250 1163
anon update to Beall 2020-06-09 Beall + 168 Beall + 141
StopPP 2017-05-07 1317 predatory + 115 hijacked 1177
Cabell 2020-09-13 13757 + ~500 'under review'
Wikidata (2020-09-21) 2020-09-21 1 0

DiscussionEdit

The most current alternative is Cabells' proprietary paywalled list (terms of use) so probably precludes any use at all. I have access through my institution and have spot-checked random items and there area a lot not covered by the StopPP database.

Questions:

  • What other qualifiers are needed for a predatory publisher?
  • For hijacked journals, any ideas on how to identify dates of hijack?
  • Both main lists haven't been updated since 2017. How can more recent predatory journals best be indicated without those as a reference?

T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Retracted articlesEdit

I've put an intended plan of action and some record of what's being done below. Feel free to directly edit. T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

PlanEdit

  1. Pull all retracted and retraction items from pubmed (retracted+retractions)
  2. Where possible link retracted papers to their notices and vice versa
    • About 10% of retraction notice items indicate the corresponding doi of the retracted article in their abstract (download as 'PubMed' format)
  3. Pull all retracted items from crossref
Return to the project page "WikiProject Source MetaData".