Academics Opinions on Wikipedia and Open Access Publishing
Introduction
When it comes to the decision of where to submit academic research papers, relevance to
practice is considered important, as is scholarly rigor (Klobasa and Clydec, 2010). However,
social and technological advances have brought significant changes in publication, particularly
via a shift to electronic or online media (Rowlands, 2007). The idea of open-access publishing is
predicated upon that shift, which enables its works to be freely available online, and has received
significant attention (e.g., Rowlands, 2007; Suber, 2012). There are in general three models in
the current movement towards open-access academic publishing: pushing traditional journals
towards open access by changing policies (e.g., British Medical Journal and College & Research
Libraries); creating open-access journals (e.g., First Monday, Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, Journal of Community Informatics); and using existing online open-access
venue Wikipedia (e.g., Black, 2008; Xiao & Askin, 2012).
Most interest in this topic has focused on the first two models. For example, Suber (2007)
discusses making traditional journals open access, while Peters (2007) examines the conversion
process for a single publisher. Researchers from multiple institutions developed an open-source
system to create and manage open-access journals (http://pkp.sfu.ca/), and Solomon (2008)
issued a practical guide to developing an open-access journal. The third model, on the other
hand, has been little explored. Although there have been numerous studies about Wikipedia
publishing, they have mainly focused on the quality of Wikipedia articles (e.g., Yaari, 2011;
Dooley, 2010; Stvilia et al., 2005), technical elements of Wikipedia (e.g., V�lkel et al. 2006;
Vi�gas et al., 2007) ; demographics, particularly the  gender gap (e.g., Yasseri et al., 2012; Lam
et al., 2011); and Wikipedia as a pedagogical tool (e.g., Forte and Bruckman, 2006; Moy et al.,
2010). Only a few studies examined the possibility of using Wikipedia for academic publishing.
Xiao and Askin (2012) conducted a conceptual analysis to compare the Wikipedia and open-
access publishing models, and identified benefits and challenges of using Wikipedia for
academic publishing. Black (2008) suggests that the Wikipedia model would improve on the
existing peer-review processes of traditional journals. However, there has been little examination
of academia s views on the matter.
Addressing the gap in the literature, we surveyed academics to understand their
perspectives on using Wikipedia for academic publishing in comparison with open-access
journals. We hypothesized that the researchers perspectives would be affected by their
knowledge of Wikipedia s peer-review process, their experiences with Wikipedia and open-
access journals, and their academic environment and status. The research questions in our study
are:
RQ1: What are the perceived advantages and disadvantages of using Wikipedia for
academic publishing?
RQ2: Do the researchers experiences with Wikipedia and open-access journals affect
their perspectives on using Wikipedia for academic publishing? If so, how?
RQ3: Do the researchers academic environments and statuses affect their perspectives
on using Wikipedia for academic publishing? If so, how?
RQ4: Does the researchers knowledge of Wikipedia s peer-review process affect their
perspectives on using Wikipedia for academic publishing? If so, how?
Related Work
In designing this study, we examined literature on both open-access journals and
Wikipedia publishing. In regards to the open-access model, Rowlands (2007) noted that it
represents a  tectonic shift in scholarly communication. Bjłrk (2004) suggested that the current
emphasis on journal prestige is a major barrier to adoption of the open-access model. Papin-
Ramcharan and Dawe (2005) suggest that academics encounter barriers in open-access
publishing, including cost and infrastructure, particularly in the developing world. Nicolas and
colleagues (2005) argue that the solution is a market structure for academic publishing. Peter
Suber s book Open Access (2012) provides a concise yet comprehensive introduction to open
access, including its benefits to research and authors, copyright issues, and future directions.
Open Access @ UNT (https://openaccess.unt.edu) has been maintaining resources related to
open access, e.g., international open access, libraries and open access, etc.
There have been discussions about using Wikipedia for academic publishing, although
the possibility has not been explored in detail. As early as 2006, Frishauf suggested that
Wikipedia might make traditional academic journals obsolete. Forte and Bruckman (2006)
considered Wikipedia as an early publication venue for students. Black (2008) examined
Wikipedia's editing model and concluded that Wikipedia could become a venue for academic
publication. In terms of academic perspectives Eijkman (2010) considered faculty viewpoints on
Wikipedia in the context of Web 2.0 technologies, suggesting that its cautious use by the
scholarly community represents a reformation of the conventional knowledge hierarchy.
Taraborelli and colleagues (2011) examined barriers to expert participation in Wikipedia. Park
(2011) considered the extent to which Wikipedia is cited by academic papers. Chen (2010)
examined the perception of Wikipedia as a student resource among faculty members. Dooley
(2010) found that academics already use Wikipedia as a resource for both teaching and research.
The findings of these studies provided a foundation for our research.
Research Method and Analysis
We designed the questionnaire based on our interests of answering our research questions
as well as Xiao and Askin s (2012) conceptual analysis. In comparing Wikipedia and open-
access journal publishing, they focused on five aspects: authorship, cost, reliability, timeliness,
and peer review. We wrote questionnaire items to compare views on these aspects. The other
three sections of our questionnaire were: demographics, such as age, gender, academic unit and
position, and institutional emphasis on research; experiences, defining terms and querying
participants experience with Wikipedia and open-access journals; and feedback, soliciting
respondents opinions on Wikipedia s web structure with respect to supporting academic
publishing. As Wikipedia has a unique web structure, we sought respondents feedback on its
design and the advantages or disadvantages of using Wikipedia for academic publishing. We
ended the survey by asking  What s your biggest concern of using Wikipedia as a venue for
academic publishing? Why?
Our survey was administered online. We used two techniques to reach potential
respondents. We first randomly selected 41 universities from USA, Canada, China, and India
from rankings for top world universities. We then emailed information about the project to 198
secretaries of six selected departments: three in the natural sciences (chemistry, biology, and
physics) and three in the social sciences (education, psychology and sociology). Of 198 emails
sent, 17 responded with support for forwarding our invitation with the survey URL to the
members of their departments, i.e., potential respondents. The rest did not respond or declined to
participate. Through this technique, we solicited 51 responses in three months, all from Canada
or USA. Because the number of responses was too limited, we sent our email invitation to nine
listserv mailing lists to reach more potential respondents. The mailing lists were
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], edtech@h-
net.msu.edu, [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], and [e-mail]. We were
only able to confirm that it was received by subscribers to the last three lists; furthermore, only
four of the lists (chi-announcements, ciresearchers, edtech and air-l) provided their subscriber
count (2249, 800,  approximately 3500 and  over 2000 respectively). Through this technique,
we solicited 69 respondents in four months. We thus had 120 responses submitted online. For
each full response (i.e., all survey items were completed) we donated CAD$2 to United Way.
Our questionnaire data are mainly nominal. We calculated the descriptive statistics using
frequency counts and conducted chi-square tests to examine relationships between the responses
of different items. The software program SPSS 16 was used in the analysis.
Results
Demographics and Academic Background of Respondents
Of the 120 respondents, 65 were male, 49 female, and 6 respondents declined to identify
their gender. Most participants were older: 30% were between 36 and 45, 22% between 46 and
55, and 19% over 55. Only 28% self-identified as being under 35.
Most respondents were tenured or had an academic rank higher than assistant professor:
24% were professors, 17% were associate professors, and 8% tenured assistant professors. Non-
tenured assistant professors comprised only 21%. The majority had research-oriented positions
(70%). 77% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that research publications were
important in performance evaluations. As shown in Table 1, respondents represented a range of
departments and faculties.
Table 1: Respondents' academic units.
Faculty/department Number of
respondents
Natural sciences (chemistry, biology, physics, etc) 36
Social sciences (sociology, psychology, etc) 27
Computer sciences (information, technology, etc) 36
Other 8
No answer 13
In terms of academic publishing, the results show a trend towards collaboration (see
Table 2).
Table 2: Survey responses on authorship
Question: How many articles in peer-reviewed
journals do you have?
Answer Single author Co-author
(number of (number of
responses) responses)
<3 70 36
3-6 17 17
7-10 13 23
11-15 4 9
>15 13 34
No answer 3 1
RQ1: What are the perceived advantages and disadvantages of using Wikipedia for
academic publishing?
Advantages and Disadvantages Compared to Open-Access Journals
Respondents reported advantages and disadvantages of using Wikipedia for academic
publishing, when asked to compare it with open-access journal publishing. Advantages reported
include cost reductions (40%), timely review (19%), post-publication corrections (52%), and
making articles available before validation (27%). 8% of respondents provided additional
advantages, most related to reaching a wider audience, such as  more widely read and  true
peer review . 26% of respondents did not see any advantage.
Disadvantages of Wikipedia compared to open-access journals included questionable
stability (86%), absence of integration with libraries and scholarly search engines (55%), lower
quality (43%), less credibility (57%), less academic acceptance (78%), and less impact on
academia (56%). 6% of respondents noted other disadvantages concerning impact of general
readership on content (e.g.,  primarily for the general public ,  less detailed ), and Wikipedia s
editorial policies (e.g.,  arbitrary anti-intellectual editorial policies ). 3% of respondents did not
note any disadvantages.
Each Wikipedia article also has an attached discussion page, allowing for changes to be
made in response to feedback without readers editing directly. 56% of respondents reported they
would like to have such discussion pages for their published academic papers.
Given that Wikipedia has been very successful as a volunteer-driven online community,
it was surprising that only 38% of respondents acknowledged the associated reduction in costs,
and 28% of respondents chose  neither agree nor disagree when asked if Wikipedia publishing
costs less than an open-access journal. Most respondents also felt that the author s knowledge
and intellectual contribution could not be demonstrated via Wikipedia.
Other Perceived Impact
We collected respondents opinions on perceived advantages of Wikipedia for academic
publishing based on Xiao & Askin s conceptual analysis (2012). As seen in Table 3, the results
showed some agreement with their analysis, but the advantages are not strongly perceived by the
respondents. A relatively high percentage of respondents chose  neither disagree nor agree .
Table 3 Respondents opinions on various perceived advantages of Wikipedia for academic
publishing
Questionnaire Items Percentage of the Responses (N = 120)
Likert Scale (from  Strongly Disagree to Agree or Disagree or Neither No
 Strongly Agree Strongly Strongly Disagree or response
Agree Disagree Agree
I d like to have a discussion page or forum for 58% 19% 19% 4%
each of my published academic papers for
anyone to comment on my work.
An author s knowledge can be demonstrated 23% 46% 23% 8%
through Wikipedia as an academic venue,
compared to a scholarly journal.
An author s intellectual contribution can be 21% 44% 27% 8%
demonstrated through Wikipedia as an academic
venue, compared to a scholarly journal.
An author s writing skill can be demonstrated 36% 33% 21% 10%
through Wikipedia as an academic venue,
compared to a scholarly journal.
A Wikipedia article can become a reliable source 42% 33% 22% 3%
after it s peer-review process.
The peer-review process of a Wikipedia featured 8% 51% 24% 17%
article is of comparable rigorousness to that of an
open access journal.
The Wikipedia model increases the diversity in 35% 20% 32% 13%
points of view compared to the articles of open
access journals.
Wikipedia s quick turnaround in its peer-review 22% 22% 35% 21%
process is the biggest advantage of the model
over open access journals.
Wikipedia s quick turnaround on post-publication 29% 16% 36% 19%
corrections of an article s content is the biggest
advantage of the model over open access
journals.
Wikipedia allows articles to be edited by anyone. A majority of participants (90 out of
120) do not feel comfortable having other researchers edit their papers-in-progress even if the
researchers are in the same community. 28 participants explained that they prefer to have
authorial control ( my name but no control of content ,  if it s my article, it s my article ), while
some offered other misgivings ( annoying and intrusive gatekeeping ,  rivalries& could lead to
sabotage ). One of the strengths of Wikipedia is its open collaboration (Stvilia et al., 2008).
Despite Wikipedia contributors usually having never met in person, there is the potential for
effective collaboration. As with traditional research partnerships in academia, contributors to
Wikipedia may have developed relationships that enabled them to trust each other s research
expertise. Furthermore, the culture of Wikipedia encourages cooperative editing and provides
venues for discussion of pages being developed.
RQ2: Do the researchers experiences in Wikipedia and open-access journal
publishing affect their perspectives on using Wikipedia for academic publishing? If
so, how?
Respondents Experiences with Wikipedia and Open-Access Journals
77% of respondents reported reading Wikipedia both for pleasure and for academic use.
However, as shown in Table 4, respondents experiences are limited. 57% of respondents had no
experience with Wikipedia other than reading the articles, and no respondent identified
him/herself as a Wikipedia administrator (a user who can delete pages and block editors). On
another survey item, thirteen respondents reported having cited Wikipedia articles in peer-
reviewed papers.
Compared to Wikipedia, fewer respondents had reading experiences with open-access
journals (see Table 4). 23% reported that they read open-access journals regularly, while 43%
read them but not regularly. But respondents had more experience in editing and publishing in
open-access journals: twenty-eight reported that they had published an article in open-access
journals, and seven had been an editor. 41% had cited open-access journal articles in their peer-
reviewed papers. On another survey item, only 3% of the respondents didn t believe in the
quality of open-access journals.
Table 4 Respondents experiences of using Wikipedia and open-access journals
Questionnaire Item Percentage of the Responses
(N = 120)
Have you ever had other experiences with Wikipedia? Choose all that apply:
l� Editing as a non-registered user 21%
l� Editing as a registered user 23%
l� Writing an article 15%
l� Administrator 0
l� Other (bureaucrat, steward, etc) 1%
l� None of the above 57%
Have you ever had other experiences with open-access journals? Choose all that apply:
l� Publishing an article 23%
l� Editor 6%
l� Administrator 0
l� None of the above 68%
In performance evaluations, researchers are often credited for reviewing academic as
service for professional communities. However, there is much less recognition for reviewing
Wikipedia articles: although 32 out of 120 respondents reported that faculty members in their
department were credited for time spent reviewing articles in open-access journals, only four
respondents reported that faculty members were credited for time spent reviewing Wikipedia
articles related to their academic careers.
Another interesting finding is that the researchers experiences with open-access journals
are correlated with their Wikipedia experiences, e.g., those who have not had any open-access
journal experiences are more likely to have not had any Wikipedia experience (N = 120, DF = 1,
Pearson chi-square statistics = 12.81, p < .001). Those who have not read open-access journals
are less likely to have edited Wikipedia as a non-registered (N = 109, DF = 1, Pearson chi-square
statistics = 11.69, p = .001) or a registered user (N = 109, DF = 1, Pearson chi-square statistics =
8.42, p = .004). They are more likely to report no Wikipedia experiences (N = 109, DF = 1,
Pearson chi-square statistics = 14.14, p < .001).
On the other hand, those who have edited Wikipedia as non-registered users are more
likely to have cited an open-access journal in a peer-reviewed article (N = 109, DF = 1, Pearson
chi-square statistics = 4.19, p = .041). Those who have cited Wikipedia are more likely than
expected to have cited open-access journals (N = 106, DF = 1, Pearson chi-square statistics =
5.35, p = .021). Interestingly, those who have published articles in open-access journals are more
likely to disagree that the Wikipedia model increases diversity in points of view compared to
open-access journals, whereas those who have not published in open-access journals are more
likely to think the opposite (N = 97, DF = 1, Pearson chi-square statistics = 5.20, p = .023).
Effects of Respondents Wikipedia Experiences
There are statistically significant relationships between researchers experiences with
Wikipedia and their opinions on the advantages of Wikipedia over open-access journals:
previous experience with Wikipedia seems to lead to more positive responses. Researchers who
have edited Wikipedia are more likely to believe that Wikipedia has the advantage of making
articles available before validation (Non-registered: N = 120, DF = 1, Pearson chi-statistics =
4.85, p = .028, Registered: N = 120, DF = 1, Pearson chi-statistics = 5.63, p = .018), and making
post-publication corrections (Non-registered: N = 120, DF = 1, Pearson chi-statistics = 5.23, p =
.022, Registered: N = 120, DF = 1, Pearson chi-statistics = 7.01, p = .008) . Researchers who
edited as registered users are also more likely to believe that Wikipedia has the advantage of
offering a wide variety of articles (N = 120, DF = 1, Pearson chi-square statistics = 4.45, p =
.035) and being less expensive (N = 120, DF = 1, Pearson chi-square statistics = 8.28, p = .004).
They are also less likely to believe that Wikipedia has no advantage compared to open-access
journals (N = 120, DF = 1, Pearson chi-square statistics = 3.94, p = .047). People who have
written an article on Wikipedia are more likely to believe that Wikipedia has the advantage of
making post-publication corrections (N = 120, DF = 1, Pearson chi-square statistics = 5.78, p =
.016). Those who have cited Wikipedia are more likely to believe that a Wikipedia article can
become a reliable source (N = 111, DF = 2, Pearson chi-square statistics = 8.91, p = .012).
However, there were two cells with expected count less than 5 for the case of having cited
Wikipedia but disagreeing on it being reliable.
Those who have had no experience with Wikipedia are more likely to believe that
Wikipedia has no advantage compared to open-access journals (N = 120, DF = 1, Pearson chi-
square statistics = 5.23, p = .022). They are also more likely to believe that Wikipedia has
questionable stability because of changes by anonymous or pseudonymous readers (N = 120, DF
= 1, Pearson chi-square statistics = 5.99, p = .014), and is lower quality (N = 120, DF = 1,
Pearson chi-square statistics = 5.90, p = .015).
Researchers Wikipedia experiences are also related to their authoring practices and/or
preferences. Those who have had experiences with Wikipedia are more likely to say that they
want an open discussion page for their published papers (N = 115, DF = 2, Pearson chi-square
statistics = 12.62, p = .002).
Effects of Respondents Open-Access Journal Experiences
Researchers experiences with open-access journals also play a role in their opinions of
Wikipedia. Those who read articles published in open-access journals in their discipline are more
likely to believe that Wikipedia has the advantage of being timelier (N = 109, DF = 1, Pearson
chi-square statistics = 4.37, p = .037) and reducing cost of publication (N = 109, DF = 1, Pearson
chi-square statistics = 4.04, p = .045). Those who have published an open-access journal article
are more likely to believe that publishing in Wikipedia has less impact on academia (N = 120,
DF = 1, Pearson chi-square statistics = 5.44, p = .02) and doesn t have more diversity in points of
view (N = 104, DF = 2, Pearson chi-square statistics = 10.56, p = .005). In terms of citations,
those who have cited Wikipedia in their peer-reviewed articles are more likely than expected to
have also cited open-access journals (N = 106, DF = 1, Pearson chi-square statistics = 5.35, p =
.021).
Researchers who have little or no experience with open-access journals seem to have
mixed opinions on Wikipedia publishing. Those with no experience with open-access journals
are more likely to believe that Wikipedia has a wider readership (N = 120, DF = 1, Pearson chi-
square statistics = 5.13, p = .023) and is timelier (N = 120, DF = 1, Pearson chi-square statistics
= 4.57, p = .033). They are most likely to neither agree nor disagree that Wikipedia increases
diversity of points of view (N = 120, DF = 1, Pearson chi-square statistics = 10.09, p = .006).
Those who have not published in an open-access journal also tend to believe that publishing on
Wikipedia will be timelier (N = 120, DF = 1, Pearson chi-square statistics = 3.98, p = .046).
However, those who do not read open-access journals are more likely to believe that writing skill
cannot be demonstrated through Wikipedia (N = 99, DF = 2, Pearson chi-square statistics =
10.17, p = .006). When respondents have negative opinions on the peer-review process in open-
access journals, they tend to have negative opinions on Wikipedia publishing. For example, those
who do not believe that open-access journals have a peer-review process of reasonable quality
are more likely to believe that academic publishing in Wikipedia is even less credible (N = 120,
DF = 1, Pearson chi-square statistic = 6.36, p = .041). Those who chose not to comment on the
quality of open-access journal s peer-review process are more likely than expected to believe
that academic publishing in Wikipedia is less credible. They also tend to believe that intellectual
contribution and writing skills cannot be demonstrated through Wikipedia (N = 110, DF = 4,
Pearson chi-square statistic = 10.38, p = .034; N = 108, DF = 4, Pearson chi-square statistics =
9.57, p = .048). But as there are cells that have expected counts less than 5 in these chi-square
tests, the results cannot be considered valid.
The researchers experiences with open-access journals are correlated with their opinions
on the medium. Those who have some experiences with the journals (e.g., read articles, write
articles) are more likely to agree that open-access journals have a peer-review process of
reasonable quality (N = 89, DF = 1, Pearson chi-square statistics = 5.59, p = .018). They are
more likely have cited an open-access journal (N = 109, DF = 1, Pearson chi-statistics = 36.92, p
< .001).
We found that lack of active Wikipedia experiences (editing, etc) could affect opinions
about open-access journal publishing. For example, those who don t have any active Wikipedia
experiences are less likely to think that open-access journals have a peer-review process of
reasonable quality (N = 89, DF = 1, Pearson chi-square statistics = 5.76, p = .016).
In summary, these results suggest that researchers lack of experiences in open publishing
 either through Wikipedia or open-access journals  contribute to their negative opinions on
these models. We also note that this relationship is correlated not causal. In other words, it could
also be that the researchers negative opinions on open-access publishing made them choose not
to have any involvement. The key finding here is that experiences contribute to positive opinions
not negative opinions. This is consistent with the work of Rowlands and colleagues (2004), who
in a survey study found a relationship between greater knowledge or experience of open-access
journals and positive attitudes towards these journals.
RQ3: Do the researchers academic environments and statuses affect their
perspectives on using Wikipedia for academic publishing? If so, how?
Effects of Respondents Academic Environment
The researchers academic environment seems to have some impact on their opinions
about Wikipedia publishing. It seems that those whose departments give credit for writing
Wikipedia articles most strongly believe that Wikipedia can demonstrate an author s knowledge.
However, as there were only 4 respondents whose departments do so, the chi-square test s
criteria were violated (3 cells have count less than 5). More data are needed.
The academic environment may have an impact on respondents experiences with open-
access publishing. Those who reported that their faculty are credited for time spent reviewing
open-access journal articles are more likely to have had experiences with open-access journals
(N = 120, DF = 2, Pearson chi-square statistics =12.07, p= .002), e.g., read (N = 109, DF = 2,
Pearson chi-square statistics =7.52, p = .023) or written an article in an open-access journal (N =
120, DF = 2, Pearson chi-square statistics = 19.24, p < .001). Those who chose not to comment
on their faculty s policy are more likely to have not had experience with open-access journals.
Effects of Respondents Academic Status
We asked respondents to report their current professional status. Chi-square tests showed
that tenured professors are more likely to think that their departments credit faculty members for
time spent on reviewing open-access journal articles, while non-tenured professors are more
likely to think the opposite, and researchers of other positions (e.g., instructor or other in the
questionnaire) are more likely to choose not to answer this question (N = 119, DF = 4, Pearson
chi-square statistics=25.11, p < .001). One explanation is that with lower and less secure job
status people have more conservative feelings about service in the performance evaluation.
Compared to tenure-track faculty members, instructors and  other academics are more
likely to believe that academic publishing in Wikipedia will be more widely read (N = 119, DF =
2, Pearson chi-square statistics = 8.41, p = .015) and more timely (N = 119, DF = 2, Pearson chi-
square statistics = 8.44, p = .015). They are less likely to think that Wikipedia has  no
advantage over open-access journals (N = 119, DF = 2, Pearson chi-square statistics = 8.39, p =
.015). We asked respondents to explain any other advantages they believe Wikipedia has over
open-access journals. Of the seven respondents who left comments, all but one held non-tenure
track positions (e.g., instructors). These comments are mainly related to Wikipedia s larger and
broader readership.
RQ4: Does the researchers knowledge of Wikipedia s peer-review process affect
their perspectives on using Wikipedia for academic publishing? If so, how?
Respondents Knowledge of Wikipedia s Peer-Review Process
Wikipedia has several peer-review processes, including Good Article Nominations, Peer
Review, and A-Class Review; the most significant and well-established review process is
Featured Article Candidates (FAC). Approximately 0.1% of articles on Wikipedia (3,825
articles) have successfully undergone the FAC process
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates), which evaluates articles
based on their prose, coverage, neutrality, sourcing, images, and adherence to style guidelines
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria). 54% of respondents were
aware that Wikipedia had a peer-review process; of these, 35% considered it to be less rigorous
than that of scholarly journals. When asked if Wikipedia s FAC process was of comparable
rigorousness to the review process of an open-access journal, 51% did not think so, 17% did not
give their opinion, and 24% neither agreed nor disagreed. However, their written explanations of
the process demonstrate lack of familiarity and misconceptions with the Wikipedia model. In an
open-ended question, we asked respondents to explain the peer-review process that Wikipedia
uses. 53 responded to this question. Six of them indicated that they didn t know or could not give
specifics, while others were vague or incorrect (e.g.,  watchdog process ,  country review ).
Most reviewers of featured articles edit under pseudonyms rather than real names. We
wondered whether this would be perceived by the academic community as analogous to a
 double-blinded review process, given that the identities of both authors and reviewers are
unknown. However, only 25% of respondents considered it to be so.
Only 24 respondents felt comfortable with having their research papers reviewed by
Wikipedia users. Of the 50 respondents who provided reasons why they did not feel comfortable,
34 expressed concerns about reviewers background ( not at all clear what their credentials
are ). There were other concerns as well, such as  content can be used for political purposes
and  a lot of people will start doing review in a territorial basis .
We ran chi-square tests between the questionnaire items about the respondents
knowledge of Wikipedia s peer-review process and those about their perspectives on using
Wikipedia for academic publishing. We found that those who, prior to this survey, were aware
that Wikipedia had a peer-review process were less likely to think that academic publishing on
Wikipedia would be less credible than open-access journals (N = 117, DF = 2, Pearson chi-
square = 10.212, p = .006) and more likely to think that an author s knowledge can be
demonstrated through Wikipedia (N = 90, DF = 2, Pearson chi-square = 5.929, p = .052). Those
who agreed that a Wikipedia article can become a reliable source after being reviewed were
more likely to agree that the Wikipedia model increases diversity in points of view compared to
open-access journals (N = 89, DF = 1, Pearson chi-square = 4.621, p = .032), and that
Wikipedia s quick turnaround on post-publication corrections is its biggest advantage (N = 82,
DF = 1, Pearson chi-square = 6.605, p = .01). Those who tend to agree that FAC is of
comparable rigorousness to the peer-review process of open-access journals were more likely to
think that academic publishing on Wikipedia would have wider readership (N = 74, DF = 1,
Pearson chi-square = 7.796, p = .005).
Discussion
Challenges of Using Wikipedia for Academic Publishing
Our results speak to Fitzpatrick s (2011) s viewpoint that changing how we disseminate
research results is more than merely changing the publishing system. Instead, the whole
academic system that influences how we research, write, and review needs to be re-examined.
Our results suggest where some challenges are. It seems that the performance evaluation system
in academia has not adapted well to open-access publishing. A key development would be to
encourage a culture of service to both the community and the public, even among junior faculty
or non-tenure-track instructors. The open-access movement entails the promotion and
promulgation of unrestricted knowledge (Velterop, 2003), which is also one of the primary
motivators cited by Wikipedia editors as their reason for contributing to the project (Glott et al.,
2010).
Wikipedia s web structure
The Wikipedia search engine does not allow one to search for only featured articles, and
they are not automatically distinguished from non-featured articles in the topic-based category
trees. Readers must browse through a list of all Featured Articles according to broad categories
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles), or search for a title using a search
bar.
The respondents were asked to suggest the features that they think Wikipedia s web
structure should include; nine features and an open field were provided. 26 respondents made
suggestions. The three most selected features were all related to searching, with the most selected
being  making the promoted peer-reviewed articles searchable from university libraries . Table
5 provides details of the responses.
Table 5. Respondents suggestions on the Wikipedia web structure for academic publishing
& Wikipedia web structure should (please mark all that apply): No. of the
Responses
Provide separate hierarchical levels for promoted peer-review articles, as opposed to 14
having them in the same hierarchy as regular non-peer-reviewed articles
Provide additional hierarchical levels for different research topics 8
Allow researchers to form their research categories as a collective action to categorize and 13
classify their papers
Make the promoted peer-reviewed articles searchable from university libraries 17
Make the promoted peer-reviewed articles searchable from Google Scholar 14
Have a  Wikipedia Scholars portal, allowing its promoted peer-reviewed articles to be 14
searched
Protect the promoted peer-reviewed academic papers from being edited by anonymous 11
readers
Protect the promoted peer-reviewed academic papers from being edited by anyone 12
Have a separate Wiki site just for academic papers but preserve the current web structure 7
of Wikipedia
Other challenges
The last but not the least identified challenge is related to the perceived negatives
associated with Wikipedia publishing. The respondents were asked to explain their biggest
concern of using Wikipedia for academic publishing. Recurring themes included: editing by non-
experts (e.g.,  ability of non-experts and quacks to edit ); lack of stability (e.g.,  If articles are
continually updated, at some point, the article might not look the way it did at the beginning );
lack of authorial control; lack of rigor and credibility; and lack of recognition by the academic
community. The last theme is related to the challenge of adapting well-established academic
systems to accommodate open-access models, but the others were all related to the researchers
negative perceptions of Wikipedia publishing. These attitudes persist despite studies indicating
that Wikipedia is comparable in quality to traditional encyclopedias (Giles, 2005) or professional
databases (Rajagopalan et al., 2010). Positively, the fact that the more experiences with
Wikipedia publishing the more positive the academic researchers attitudes suggests that
promoting the academic researchers participation in Wikipedia can improve their perspectives
on the idea.
Scholarly communication is crucial in the academic community. Various emerging
technologies have developed to support collaboration and scholarly communication through
informal paths (e.g., Mendeley, ResearchGate). However, the formal scholarly communication
model has not changed much between traditional and open-access journal publishing, despite the
known shortcomings of these models, e.g., long review process, cost, etc. Elbeck and
Mandernach (2008) suggest methods to improve open-access journal quality by reducing effort
costs and involving readers as reviewers through an interactive interface. Their suggestions have
some similarities to the Wikipedia model. Wikipedia s peer review model is different from that
of academic publishing: reviewers sign up for articles to review, during the review process
author(s) can communicate with the reviewers freely and make changes in the article, and the
process is typically completed in weeks as opposed to months or longer. These differences, as
well as the technical interface used and the emphasis on collaborative editing, offer some
potential for updates to the scholarly communication model.
Originality in Wikipedia
One of the primary concerns with the use of Wikipedia as a venue for academic
publishing is the site s discouragement of original research (per its policy WP:NOR). There are
two obvious potential approaches for academics: they may work on Wikipedia within this policy
 which implies building upon previously cited sources in creating a knowledge base, an
approach covered in the current model of publishing by the literature review or the textbook  or
they may adopt Wikipedia s model of peer review and structure into an academic venue that
allows original research (a limited form of which already exists in Wikiversity, a partner site to
Wikipedia).
The first approach is advocated by such organizations as the Association for
Psychological Science (APS) and the American Sociological Association (ASA), both of which
have  Wikipedia Initiatives to encourage members to engage with the site. The APS
( Wikipedia Initiative ) suggests psychology professors use Wikipedia for coursework,
assigning students to improve psychology-related articles. The ASA
(http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/nov11/wikipedia_1111.html) promotes direct editing by
academics as well as students, advocating a  duty to improve coverage of sociological topics in
a manner understandable to the general public. Similarly, the Journal of Medical Internet
Research (Heilman et al., 2011) notes that Wikipedia is a  key tool for global public health
promotion , while PLoS Computational Biology (Logan et al., 2010) encourages those in the
biomedical fields to  share your expertise . More broadly, the place of genres like the textbook
and literature review is well-established in the academic community (Montuori, 2005), and the
field of  publicly engaged academic work is growing in prominence (Ellison and Eatman,
2008), both of which suggest the value of this approach.
The second approach would adopt the advantages of the Wikipedia system  particularly
timeliness and transparency  while still incorporating original scholarship by creating a
publication venue based on the Wikipedia model. This approach has already been partially
trialed by some scientific subdisciplines. For example, WikiGenes (http://www.wikigenes.org/)
promotes collaborative editing in the biomedical field (Hoffman, 2008). WikiProteins and
WikiPathways both enable collective curation and annotation of data sets to facilitate correlation
and semantic association (Mons et al., 2008, Pico et al., 2008). The general concept of open peer
review has been trialed by such journals as the British Journal of Psychology and British Journal
of Medicine (Walsh et al., 2000; Smith, 1999). However, no known publisher has yet combined
elements of open peer review with the wiki collaborative software. We advocate further study to
determine which approach would be most amenable to both the scholarly and Wikipedia
communities.
Study Implications
In our study, we found several implications for future work. First, we noted that increased
familiarity with both open-access journals and Wikipedia is associated with more positive
opinions of these venues. We suggest that both venues expand their outreach efforts to reach
more members of the academic community and enhance their position as viable alternatives to
the traditional journal model. We further suggest open-access journals, and even non-open-
access electronic journals, consider adopting elements that respondents identified as advantages
of Wikipedia, particularly simplifying the process of post-publication correction and reader
comment. For their part, Wikipedia could amend their policies to address some of the concerns
raised about the use of Wikipedia as a publishing venue. In particular, they might increase efforts
to enforce rigor and maintain the quality of reviewed articles. It would also be essential to
integrate reviewed Wikipedia articles into scholarly search engines like Google Scholar and into
library search capabilities. In fact, given the findings by Dooley (2010) that faculty already use
Wikipedia in both teaching and research, we advocate integration as a first step. Finally, we
support further study into the place of Wikipedia in the open publishing movement and the
relationship between Wikipedia and academia.
Study Limitations
The major limitation of our study is the sample size. The power analysis using GPower
3.1.shows that, with statistical power at .95, for chi-square tests with DF = 1, 2, or 4, we would
need a sample size of 145, 172, or 207 respectively to detect medium effect, and 52, 62, or 75 to
detect big effect. This means we could only detect big effect in this study at statistical power of
.95. We call for larger studies to further explore this topic.
Concluding Remarks
We administered an online survey from October 2011 to April 2012 to understand the
academic community s experiences with Wikipedia and open-access journals, and their opinions
on such publishing models. Our survey showed that respondents acknowledged some benefits of
publishing in Wikipedia, but that there are concerns about the qualification of Wikipedia users as
reviewers, the conflict between original research and Wikipedia policy, and the suitability of
academic content for Wikipedia readers. Interestingly, there was no observed complaint about
the unique aspects of the Wikipedia peer-review model, such as its pull style for identifying
reviewers (Wikipedians volunteering to review specific papers as opposed to editors assigning
reviewers), the flexible communication flow between reviewers and author(s), and ambiguous
authorship. These results suggest that such features may be explored in the academic publishing
model regardless of whether Wikipedia would be used as the venue or not.
References
Bjłrk, B.C. (2004),  Open access to scientific publications: an analysis of the barriers to change ,
Information Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, available at: http://InformationR.net/ir/9-2/paper170.html
(accessed 10 March 2013).
Black, E.W. (2008),  Wikipedia and academic peer review: Wikipedia as a recognised medium
for scholarly publication? , Online Information Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 73-88.
Chen, H. (2010),  The perspectives of higher education faculty on Wikipedia , Electronic
Library, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 361-373.
Dooley, P.L. (2010),  Wikipedia and the two-faced professoriate , in Proceedings of the 6th
International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration in Gdańsk, Poland, 2010,
ACM, USA, doi: 10.1145/1832772.1832803 (accessed 10 March 2013).
Eijkman, H. (2010),  Academics and Wikipedia: reframing web 2.0+ as a disruptor of traditional
academic power-knowledge arrangements , Campus-Wide Information Systems, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 173-185.
Elbeck, M., and Mandernach, J. (2008),  Expanding the value of scholarly open access e-
journals , Library and Information Science Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 237-241.
Ellison, J., and Eatman, T.K. (2008),  Scholarship in public: knowledge creation and tenure
policy in the engaged university , Imagining America, Paper 16, available at:
http://surface.syr.edu/ia/16 (accessed 10 March 2013).
Fitzpatrick, K. (2011), Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy,
New York University Press, New York, NY.
Forte, A., and Bruckman, A. (2006),  From Wikipedia to the classroom , in Proceedings of the 7th
international conference on Learning sciences, ICLS, Bloomington, IN, pp. 182-188.
Frishauf, P. (2006),  Are traditional peer-reviewed medical articles obsolete? A pitch for the
Wikipedia concept , Medscape General Medicine, Vol. 8 No. 1, p. 5.
Giles, J. (2005),  Internet encyclopaedias go head to head , Nature, Vol. 438, pp. 900-901.
Glott, R., Schmidt, P., and Ghosh, R. (2010),  Wikipedia survey  overview of results , UNU-
MERIT, available at: http://wikipediasurvey.org/ (accessed 10 March 2013).
Heilman, J.M., Kemmann, K., Bonert, M., Chatterjee, A., Ragar, B., Beards, G.M., Iberri, D.J.,
Harvey, M., Thomas, B., Stomp, W., Martone, M.F., Lodge, D.J., Vondracek, A., de
Wolff, J.F., Liber, C., Grover, S.C., Vickers, T.J., Mesko, B., and Laurent, M.R. (2011),
 Wikipedia: a key tool for global public health promotion , Journal of Medical Internet
Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, p. e14, available at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3221335/ (accessed 10 March 2013).
Hoffman, R. (2008),  A wiki for the life sciences where authorship matters , Nature Genetics,
Vol. 40, pp. 1047-1051.
Klobasa, J.E., and Clydec, L.A. (2010),  Beliefs, attitudes and perceptions about research and
practice in a professional field , Library & Information Science Research, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 237 245.
Lam, S.K., Uduwage, A., Dong, Z., Sen, S., Musicant, D.R., Terveen, L., and Riedl, J. (2011),
 WP:Clubhouse? An exploration of Wikipedia s gender imbalance , in Proceedings of the
7th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration in Mountain View, USA, 2011,
ACM, USA, pp. 1-10.
Logan, D.W., Sandal, M., Gardner, P.P., Manske, M., and Bateman, A. (2010),  Ten Simple
Rules for Editing Wikipedia , PLoS Computational Biology, Vol. No. 9, p. e1000941.
Mons, B., Ashburner, M., Chichester, C., van Mulligen, E., Weeber, M., den Dunnen, J., van
Ommen, G.J., Musen, M., Cockerill, M., Hermjakob, H., Mons, A., Packer, A., Pacheco,
R., Lewis, S., Berkeley, A., Melton, W., Barris, N., Wales, J., Meijssen, G., Moeller, E.,
Roes, P.J., Borner, K., and Bairoch, A. (2008),  Calling on a million minds for
community annotation in WikiProteins , Genome Biology, Vol. 9 No. 5, p. R89.
Montuori, A. (2005),  Literature review as creative inquiry: reframing scholarship as a creative
process , Journal of Transformative Education, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 374-393.
Moy, C.L., Locke, J.R., Coppola, B.P., and McNeil, A.J. (2010),  Improving science education
and understanding through editing Wikipedia , Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 87
No. 11, pp. 1159-1162.
Nicolas, D., Huntington, P., Dobrowolski, T., and Rowlands, I. (2006),  Ideas on creating a
consumer market for scholarly journals , Learned Publishing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 245-
249.
Papin-Ramcharan, J., and Dawe, R.A. (2006),  The other side of the coin for open access
publishing: a developing country view , Libri, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 16-27
Park, T.K. (2011),  The visibility of Wikipedia in scholarly publications , First Monday, Vol 16
No. 8, available at: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/3492
(accessed 20 May 2013).
Peters, P. (2007),  Going all the way: how Hindawi became an open access publisher , Learned
Publishing, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 191-195.
Pico, A.R., Kelder, T., van Iersel, M.P., Hanspers, K., Conklin, B.R., and Evelo, C. (2008),
 WikiPathways: Pathway Editing for the People , PLoS Biology, Vol. 6 No. 7, p. e184.
Rajagopalan, M., Khanna, V., and Stott, M. (2010),  Accuracy of cancer information on the
internet , Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 28 No. 15, p. 6058.
Rowlands, I. (2007),  Electronic journals and user behavior: a review of recent research ,
Library & Information Science Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 369-396.
Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Huntington, P. (2004),  Scholarly communication in the digital
environment: what do authors want? , Learned Publishing, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 261-273.
Smith, R. (1999),  Opening up BMJ peer review , British Medical Journal, Vol. 318, available
at: http://www.bmj.com/content/318/7175/4 (accessed 10 March 2013).
Solomon, D.J. (2008), Developing Open Access Journals: A Practical Guide, Chandos
Publishing, Cambridge, UK.
Stvilia, B., Twidale, M.B., Smith, L.C., and Gasser, L. (2005),  Assessing information quality of
a community-based encyclopedia , in Naumann, F., Gertz, M., Mednick, S. (eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Quality, MITIQ, Cambridge,
MA, pp. 442-454.
Stvilia, B., Twidale, M.B., Smith, L.C., and Gasser, L. (2008),  Information quality work
organization in Wikipedia , Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 983-1001.
Suber, P. (2007),  Flipping a journal to open access , SPARC Open Access Newsletter, 114,
available at: http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4322572/suber_flipping.html
(accessed 20 May 2013).
Suber, P. (2012), Open Access, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Taraborelli, D., Mletchen, D., Alevlzou, P., and Gill, A.J. (2011),  Expert participation on
Wikipedia: Barriers and opportunities , in Wikimania 2011, Haifa, Israel, Wikimedia
Foundation, San Francisco, CA, available at:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Expert_Participation_Survey_-
_Wikimania_2011.pdf (accessed 10 March 2013).
Velterop, J. (2003),  Should scholarly societies embrace open access (or is it the kiss of death)? , Learned
Publishing, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 167-169.
Vi�gas, F.B., Wattenberg, M., McKeon, M.M. (2007),  The hidden order of Wikipedia , Online
Communities and Social Computing, Vol. 4564, pp. 445-454.
V�lkel, M., Kr�tzsch, M., Vrandecic, D., Haller, H., and Studer, R. (2006),  Semantic Wikipedia , in
Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web, ACM, USA, pp. 585-594.
Walsh, E., Rooney, M., Appleby, L., and Wilkinson, G. (2000).  Open peer review: a
randomized controlled trial , The British Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 176, pp. 47-51.
 Wikipedia Initiative , Association for Psychological Science, available at:
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/members/aps-wikipedia-initiative
(accessed 10 March 2013).
Xiao, L., and Askin, N. (2012),  Wikipedia for academic publishing: advantages and
challenges , Online Information Review, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 359  373.
Yaari, E. (2011),  Information quality assessment of community generated content: a user study of
Wikipedia , Journal of Information Science, Vol. 375, pp. 487 498.
Yasseri, T., Sumi, R., and Kert�sz, J. (2012),  Circadian Patterns of Wikipedia Editorial Activity: A
Demographic Analysis , PLoS ONE, Vol. 7 No. 1, p. e30091.