Review "Citation needed? Wikipedia bibliometrics during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic" after revision

[Daniel-Mietchen]

as per https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.01.433379 .

See http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4909923 for earlier round.

[Daniel-Mietchen]

I just read the authors' responses to the reviews.

Quick notes on this:

• the link between Wikimedia and citizen science pops up. On this, see also the poster Presentation Open Access A wiki approach to collecting, curating and managing citizen science data
• the comment "it is not easily possible to get the citation count of a scientific publication two years ago" resonates with me because I am currently experiencing the same issue in another context, yet it could be addressed in principle by way of making the WikiCite graph more complete, which can then be easily filtered by things like publication dates (although these are ambiguous as well, due to things like "online early").
• their Zenodo repo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3901741 has not been updated, so its lack of structure persists
• the GitHub repo at https://github.com/jsobel1/WikiCitationHistoRy has been updated though
• still not even a nod to non-English or to non-Wikipedia; perhaps point to the paper on Wikidata's COVID coverage and maybe mention that there was a Wikimania session on Wikimedia's COVID coverage, followed up by a presentation on Humanitarian Wikimedia next week.

[Daniel-Mietchen]

Here is what I wrote as my review this time:

I welcome the changes the authors have made - both to the manuscript itself (of which I read the bioRxiv version 5) and to the WikiCitationHistoRy repo - in response to the reviewer comments. I also noticed comments they chose not to address, but as stated before, none of these would be ground for rejection. What I am irritated about is whether the proofreading has actually happened before the current version 5 was posted. For instance, reference 44 seems missing (some others are missing in the bioRxiv version, but I suspect that's not the authors' fault), while lots of linguistic issues in phrases like "to provide a comprehensive bibliometric analyses of english Wikipedia’s COVID-19 articles" would still benefit from being addressed.

At this point, I thus recommend that the authors (a) update the existing Zenodo repository such that there is some more structure in the way the files are shared (b) archive a release of WikiCitationHistoRy on Zenodo

There was also a detailed set of questions about conflicts of interest, to which I responded as follows:

I have been contributing to the Wikipedia ecosystem since 2002, including to the coverage of the Ebola, Zika and COVID-19 epidemics on Wikipedia and Wikidata. In this context, I received a stipend from Wikimedia Germany to attend Wikimania 2018 (see my notes about the event at https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Mietchen ), where one of the activities I organized was a Disaster Response Meetup (cf. https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Disasters_meetup ). I have served as PI of a project funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (cf. grant proposal at https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e35820 ) to improve Scholia, a Wikidata-based scholarly profiling tool used to explore the COVID-related literature. Similarly, I was co-PI of a Wellcome-funded project (cf. proposal at https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.7.e66490 ) aimed at making metadata about clinical trials more readily available in underserved languages via Wikipedia and Wikidata.

That was beyond the 300-char limit, so I shortened it to

I contribute to the Wikipedia ecosystem's coverage of COVID-19 and related topics. I received a stipend from Wikimedia Germany to attend Wikimania 2018 and funding from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and Wellcome to improve Wikidata-based scholarly profiling software and coverage of clinical trials.

but requested the longer text to be included.

[Daniel-Mietchen]

I updated the Zenodo record accordingly: