Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/General Support Fund/WikiJournal 2024/Final Report
|
|
Part 1: Understanding your work
[edit]Per the recent update on the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy process, Wikimedia Affiliates that are General Support Fund grantees will fulfill their affiliate reporting requirements through their final or yearly grantee report.
If you are a Wikimedia Affiliate, you will use this form for your affiliate reporting and to address the affiliate health criteria. You do not need to submit a separate report to AffCom. Follow the guidance in the green boxes to report on how you met the corresponding affiliate health criteria.
If you are not a Wikimedia Affiliate, aligning your responses with the affiliate criteria is optional and not required.
1. Please share to what extent your programs, approaches, and strategies contributed to addressing the challenges you shared in your proposal. If they did not contribute as you believed they would, please share what obstacles you faced and what, if anything, you learned from them? (required)
For affiliates, use this space (Question 1.) to address Affiliate Health Criterion 1.1 (Goal delivery). Describe how you actively delivered on mission goals, e.g. content creation.
Editorial and Board Restructuring
[edit]Internally, the organization managed volunteer burnout, governance complexities, and the need for scalable operations.
- A notable action was the introduction of a policy to remove inactive board members, which likely increased active participation.
- We worked on having an improved organizational system with defined roles, with both previously existing roles (e.g., Chair, Treasurer, Editorial board members etc) but also introducing Advisors to further address challenges to the project.
- Encouraging associate editors to transition to editor roles.
- Defined the job description for a Handling Editor (Managing Editor). Responsibilities include tracking submissions, ensuring articles have reviewers, finding reviewers, and increasing appropriate article submissions.
- Simplifying the editor application process, including a possible Google Form interface and a “Buddy System” for mentorship.
Funding and Coverage Strategies
[edit]The reduced funding compared to previous years raised concerns in continuing to finance legal and insurance coverage, which is necessary due to the nature of academic publishing. WikiJournal explored more cost-effective insurance options to protect contributors and operations without excessive spending.
- Exploring cost-saving options for insurance, including potential coverage under Wikimedia Foundation.
- Discussion on insurance requirements for maintaining 501(c)(3) charity status.
- Suspending WorkMarket due to funding constraints while ensuring payments are processed before termination.
Journal Development and Management
[edit]WikiJournal faced multiple challenges in maintaining efficiency while relying on a global team of volunteers with other full-time commitments, both on the administrative and the editorial side. The continued contracting of technical editors helped a lot in alleviating the burden, by performing many rather repetitive and tedious tasks.
- Technical editors were able to train new associate editors across three journals on the peer review process.
- We focused on recruiting new board members and editorial staff, particularly addressing the need for more WJM editors.
- We encouraged alow threshold approach for associate editor applications to diversify editorial board composition.
- We focused on handling desk rejections efficiently, meaning that article submissions would not necessarily need external peer reviewers to be declined if the article quality is clearly not up to standard.
- We also decided to encourage submissions of review articles rather than primary research, as such content is generally more useful for sharing with other Wikimedia projects.
- We reminded editorial board members to review outstanding editorial applications, as there were several potential editors that have applied but who had not yet received a decision.
- We improved documentation for navigating WikiJournal (journals, preprints, peer reviews, etc.).
- We are now putting more responsibility on authors to watch their own submission pages.
Community and Outreach Initiatives
[edit]Outreach initiatives help attract contributors to the project, which in the long term can fill gaps such as handling article processing.
- WikiJournal members participated in WikiConference North America 2024, and were able to receive additional advice including long-term funding.
- The project was also presented at Wikimedia Ukraine Educator Conference.
2. Is there a plan to build on the key successes you had? If yes, please describe the plan and if no, please share the limitations to do so. For instance, did the activities lead to any new priorities, ideas for activities, or goals for the future? (required)
Yes, despite having technical editors to help out with certain tedious tasks, the strongest asset of WikiJournal is arguably its base of volunteer contributors (editors, authors, peer reviewers etc) who are willing to contribute through scholarly publishing. WIkiJournal is exploring new ideas to maximize the participation and efficiency from its contributors:
- Improve mobile usability of web pages.
- Clarify the official status of creating PDF files of articles and communicate this effectively.
- Encourage more engagement from authors, including helping them spread awareness of WikiJournal.
- Investigate ways to integrate postgraduate students into peer-reviewing.
- Collect data on user experience and board engagement to improve accessibility.
- Continuing to explore the advantages and feasibility of becoming a Wikimedia Thematic Organization or Sister Project. We will continue to review previous comments on what WikiJournal needs to achieve in terms of administration and activity in order to move forward.
- Develop a strategic approach to AI integration (e.g., AI-generated article verification).
- Improve promotional materials (posters, flyers) for distribution by authors.
- Reviewing and possibly expanding the executive board structure.
- Streamlining editorial processes, including simplifying the associate editor application process.
- Introducing clearer expectations for handling peer reviews and ensuring articles move smoothly through the editorial process.
- Creating a more diverse editorial board by lowering the threshold for some editorial roles, particularly to increase involvement from underrepresented regions like Nigeria.
- Exploring the possibility of special issues for different topics, such as Ukrainian authors or specific academic themes like Business Process Management.
- Reach out to potential guest editors or collaborators for article submissions.
3. Please provide a link to reports that detail the activities that took place in the last year. This can include an annual report, Meta pages, and websites. If there are no links available, briefly describe the implemented activities and programs below or upload any files. (required)
For affiliates, use this space (Question 3.) to address Affiliate Health Criteria 2.1 (Affiliate health & resilience), 4.1 (Internal engagement), 4.2 (Community connection), and 4.3 (Partnerships and collaboration):
- Describe your activities engaging new users, new members for your decision-making body(ies), and developing leaders and organizers (2.1).
- Describe your activities creating or hosting spaces to encourage greater collaboration and engagement among your members (4.1).
- Describe how you engage with the contributing community that you serve and/or support (4.2).
- Describe your partnerships with other affiliates or with non-Wikimedia entities (4.3).
4. Are you interested in sharing what you achieved or learned this year with the wider community through different peer learning programs (e.g. Let's Connect program, Diff)? (optional)
Yes
5. Did you collect feedback from your community or target groups on how the activities implemented impacted them? If yes, please attach/provide information on the results (e.g. community surveys, stories, impact booklets/reports, interviews with partner institutions, etc). Did you collect other impact-specific data? (required)
For affiliates, the response to Question 5. also partially addresses Affiliate Health Criteria 4.1 (Internal Engagement), 4.2 (Community Connection), or 4.3 (Partnerships & collaboration), where applicable.
No
6. During the fund period, did your efforts do any of the following? (required):
For affiliates, the response to Question 6. also partially addresses Affiliate Health Criterion 2.2 (Diversity balance).
- 6.1 Bring in participants from the following groups: people from lower socioeconomic status, speakers of minority languages, underrepresented geographical regions (ESEAP, LATAM, SSA, MENA, SA)
- 6.2 Develop content about the following underrepresented topics or groups of people: underrepresented geographical regions (ESEAP, LATAM, SSA, MENA, SA)
- 6.3 Support the retention of: Editors, Organizers, Partnerships
7. What, if any, effective tactics or approaches can you share that worked well when dealing with the programs under points 6.1-6.3 that you selected? (optional)
Underrepresented geographical regions: The system of offering publications free from any author fees ensures that authors, regardless of location or background, are supported.
Speakers of minority languages: The presentation at Wikimedia Ukraine Educator Conference helped bring attention to the project, helping to pave the way for article submissions with dual English and Ukrainian language content. WIkiJournal made progress in publishing articles in multiple languages, which highlights an effort to be inclusive of speakers of minority languages.
8. If you developed partnerships, which of the following factors most helped you to build partnerships? Please pick a MAXIMUM of the three most relevant factors (optional):
N/A
Part 2: Metrics
[edit]| Metrics name | Target | Result | Comments and tools used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of all participants | 150 | 100 | Count of editorial board members, associate editors and technical editors. |
| Number of all editors | N/A | 96 | Part of initiatives for the past year has been to limit editors to those who are actively participating. |
| Number of new editors | N/A | ||
| Number of retained editors | N/A | 96 | |
| Number of all organizers | 90 | 20 | Administrative board and technical editors. |
| Number of new organizers | N/A |
| Wikimedia project | Target - Number of created pages | Target - Number of improved pages | Result - Number of created pages | Result - Number of improved pages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wikipedia | 5 | 5 | 1 | 20 |
| Wikimedia Commons | 20 | 20 | 20 | 30 |
| Wikidata | 10 | 25 | 10 | 20 |
| Wiktionary | ||||
| Wikisource | ||||
| Wikimedia Incubator | ||||
| Translatewiki | ||||
| MediaWiki | ||||
| Wikiquote | ||||
| Wikivoyage | ||||
| Wikibooks | ||||
| Wikiversity | 40 | 40 | 15 | 30 |
| Wikinews | ||||
| Wikispecies | ||||
| Wikifunctions or Abstract Wikipedia |
11. Did you set other quantitative and qualitative targets for your project (other metrics)? (required): No
11.1. Other Metrics.
In your application, you outlined some other open metrics that you would like to measure. Please fill out the achieved results for each of the open metrics you defined.
| Other Metrics name | Metrics Description | Target | Result | Tools and comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Submission | We aim to have at least 40 new article submissions each year. For more information on the metrics please refer to the attached metrics document. | 40 | ||
| Citations | We aim to have at least 5 new article academic citations each year. For more information on the metrics please refer to the attached metrics document. | |||
Part 3: Skill Development / Capacity Building
[edit]12. Reflecting on your programmatic (external) and organizational (internal) work, did your grant support you to undergo any skill development that made a difference to your success? If yes, what skill was developed, and how did it lead to success? (e.g. received coaching on public speaking, attended training on nonviolent communication, hosted professional development conversations on leadership, learned and used a new tool for project management, etc.)? Can you share any materials? (required)
For affiliates, use this space (Question 12.) to address Affiliate Health Criteria 2.2 (Diversity balance) and 3.1 (Diverse, Skilled, and Accountable Leadership):
- Describe actions taken to prioritize gender balance in affiliate leadership, as well as any areas of diversity relevant to your affiliate's context (2.2).
- Describe the management, financial, or other leadership skills of your affiliate leaders. If you have a succession plan, please include it here (3.1).
- Describe any training or skill development (as outlined in the question above) (3.1).
- Incorporate into the annual report a disclosure of conflict of interests (if any) from the leadership (3.1).
2.2:
The international scope of the project, and publication without any cost for authors or readers, opens up for people of diverse socioeconomic background to participate, which in turn leads to a responsibility to adapt the leadership accordingly:
- Associate Editor Applications: The leadership has actively encouraged a broader and more inclusive selection process for associate editors, aiming for gender diversity in applications and appointments.
- Board Composition Considerations: While discussing the restructuring of the WikiJournal Executive Board, there has been a focus on ensuring a balanced and diverse leadership team.
- Recruitment and Volunteering Advisor Role: The establishment of a recruitment/volunteering advisor role on the board can aid in targeted outreach to underrepresented groups, helping to enhance gender balance and diversity.
- Lowering Barriers to Entry for Editorial Roles: Discussions were held on adapting less strict criteria for associate editor positions, particularly to encourage participation from diverse academic backgrounds, including early-career scholars and those from underrepresented regions.
- Targeted Recruitment: Acknowledgment of the need to expand recruitment efforts globally, with a recent influx of associate editor applicants from Nigeria. There has been a willingness to accommodate applicants with non-traditional academic backgrounds to ensure a diverse editorial team.
- Mentorship and Training Programs: Consideration of a "Buddy System" to help new editors integrate into the team and receive guidance, fostering a more inclusive and supportive environment.
3.1. Leadership and management skills of administrative board:
Mikael Häggström: Long experience in organizing and leading WikiJournal as current administrative board member and previous editor-in-chief of WikiJournal of Medicine.
Frances Di Lauro: Academic leadership in digital humanities and higher education. Strong in interdisciplinary collaboration, research innovation, and digital literacy initiatives.
Guy Vandegrift: Experience in academic governance, particularly in physics education. Likely involved in curriculum planning and departmental administration.
Daniel Mietchen: Leadership in open science, including coordinating international research collaborations and promoting open-access policies. Expertise in science policy, data management, and interdisciplinary research networking.
Sarah Haggstrom: Writing, editing, and proofreading skills with marketing expertise. Experience in business development, project coordination, and open-access initiatives.
There are no conflicts of interests to declare in relation to WikiJournal positions. The project is entirely non-profit, with no personal financial gain among administrative board members.
13. What is one capacity/skill area that you would like to focus on for the next year? And how do you plan to achieve this capacity? (required)
Strengthening Operational Capacity
[edit]One key capacity that we would like to focus on is streamlining editorial workflows to ensure that peer review and publishing processes are smooth and efficient. This is crucial because academics will only contribute if they are confident that submissions are handled promptly and professionally.
Plan to Achieve This Capacity:
[edit]Implement Better Workflow Management Tools
- Introduce tools that track submission status and send automated reminders when an activity is overdue.
- Use project management platforms to improve coordination among editors, reviewers, and authors.
Provide Administrative & Technical Support
- Assign dedicated support personnel to assist with submission management.
- Offer training for editors unfamiliar with Wikimedia platforms to help them navigate technical aspects efficiently.
Refine Editorial Guidelines & Structure
- Establish clearer guidelines for editors and reviewers to reduce confusion and inconsistencies.
- Introduce a buddy system where experienced editors mentor new contributors.
Expand Advisory Roles
- Bring in a consultant and additional advisory board members to provide strategic oversight and support editorial management.
- Encourage experienced academics to take on leadership roles to improve governance.
By focusing on these strategies, we aim to create a more efficient, scalable, and sustainable editorial system that encourages greater participation from academics while maintaining high publishing standards.
14. If you have additional information or reflections that don’t fit into the above sections, please write them here. Use the space below to upload any additional documents that would be useful to understand your report.
For affiliates, also use this section (Question 14.) to address Affiliate Health Criteria 2.3 (Good governance & communication) and 3.3 (Universal Code of Conduct compliance).
- Describe and link to any public-facing information on affiliate leadership, membership, elections, and/or decision-making processes (2.3).
- Describe any activities incorporating, promoting awareness about, or enforcing the Universal Code of Conduct in your affiliate's activities (3.3).
2.3: Leadership is provided by the Administrative Board, which elects a Chair and Vice-Chair, and maintains uniformity in editorial and financial management. The Editorial Board of each journal decides on the inclusion or rejection of journals and. Each Individual WikiJournal may have its own organization and governance, provided they align with WikiJournal’s bylaws. Elections and decision-making processes involve community participation. Voting eligibility includes board members, editors, peer reviewers, authors, and active contributors.
The Chair and Vice-Chair manage operations and policy execution, while the Treasurer handles financial matters. Officials serve four-year terms with no term limits and can be removed through a voting procedure.
Financially, WikiJournal is dedicated to charitable purposes, with no personal benefits to board members. Upon dissolution, assets will be transferred to a mission-aligned organization. Amendments to the bylaws require a voting process and public notice.
Bylaws: [2]
Editorial guidelines: [3]
3.3:
WikiJournal enforces an ethics statement which conforms to Wikimedia Foundation’s Universal Code of Conduct:
Compliance with Ethical Standards: The requirement to state whether experiments were approved by ethics committees ensures adherence to legal and institutional guidelines, maintaining research integrity and transparency.
Informed Consent: Authors must confirm proper consent has been obtained, ensuring participants understand the implications of publication. This includes safeguards for privacy and the right to revoke consent, upholding ethical responsibilities.
Privacy and Protection: Consent forms emphasize the protection of participants' privacy and the risks of identifying them, ensuring confidentiality and ethical treatment, especially for vulnerable or deceased individuals.
Animal Research Compliance: Similar to human research, animal studies must comply with relevant guidelines, ensuring ethical treatment and scientific necessity.
Data Integrity: Confidentiality of consent forms must be maintained, ensuring data is handled ethically and can be reviewed in cases of suspected misconduct.
These provisions ensure that research is conducted ethically, respecting participants’ rights while maintaining scientific rigor.
Ethics statement: [4]
More resources: [5]
Part 4: Financial reporting
[edit]For affiliates, also use this section (Part 4: Financial reporting) to address Affiliate Health Criterion 3.2 (Financial & Legal Compliance).
| Description | Planned / received budget for this category (USD) | Amount spent (USD) |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel costs | 97005 | 57653 |
| Operational costs | 66919 | 39314 |
| Programmatic costs | 15996 | 565 |
| Total General Support Fund | 32000 | 97533.19 |
| Other revenue | ||
| Remaining funds from General Support Fund | 480 |
15. Please state the total amount spent from this fund in your local currency. (required)
97533.19 USD
16. Please provide an overview of the amount spent from this fund in the following budget categories in your local currency. (required)
- Operational costs: 39314 USD
- Programmatic costs: 57653 USD
- Staff and contractor costs: 565 USD
17. Did you have any other revenue sources (e.g. other funding, membership contributions, donations)? (required): No
- 17.1. Provide the total amount received from other revenue sources in your local currency. (required): USD
- 17.2. Provide the total amount spent from other revenue sources in your local currency. (required): USD
18. Provide a financial report document which will provide the details of funds received and spent in the currency of your fund. (required)
- Upload Documents, Templates, and Files.
- Report funds received and spent, if template not used.
See also attached financial report for spending in 2025 for work completed in 2024.
18.2. If you have not already done so in your financial spending report, provide information on changes in the budget in relation to your original proposal. (optional)
Due to receiving less than the amount applied for, there needed to be spending cuts, mainly in programmatic activities.
19. Do you have any unspent funds from this funding?: Yes
- 19.1. Please list the amount of unspent funds in your local currency. (required)
- 480
- 19.2. Explain why you did not use the amount. (required)
- The project did not secure a grant to cover the period of January 2025 until now, and needed to cover necessary operational expenses.
- 19.3. What are you planning to do with the underspent funds?
- B. Propose to use them to partially or fully fund a new/future request with PO approval
- 19.4. Please provide details of hope to spend these funds.
- These have been used to maintain necessary operational expenses from January 1, 2025 until now. A separate explanation of expenses during this period can be provided upon request.
20. Final confirmations (required)
- 20.1. Are you in compliance with the terms outlined in the fund agreement? You must be in compliance with relevant tax laws and regulations restricting the use of the Funds as outlined in the grant agreement. In summary, this is to confirm that the funds were used in alignment with the Wikimedia Foundation mission and for charitable/nonprofit/educational purposes.
- Yes
- 20.2. Are you in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the grant agreement?
- Yes
- 20.3. Are you in compliance with provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), and with relevant tax laws and regulations restricting the use of the Funds as outlined in the grant agreement? In summary, this is to confirm that the funds were used in alignment with the WMF mission and for charitable/nonprofit/educational purposes.
- Yes
This is an automatically generated Meta-Wiki page. The page was copied from Fluxx, the web service of Wikimedia Foundation Funds where the user has submitted their report. Please do not make any changes to this page because all changes will be removed after the next update. Use the discussion page for your feedback. The page was created by CR-FluxxBot.