Talk:Jessica Polka

Comment

Maybe there shoudl be an article about ASAPbio, but I don't see why Jessica Polka's career warrants an article yet. As is, this essentially serves as a self-promoting CV.

ThisIsAnAdvert (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

User:ThisIsAnAdvert is a troll. Using a one time throw away user.. Really why consider it? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@ThisIsAnAdvert: I agree. I have proposed it for deletion, see template on the main page. Bishonen | talk 16:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC).

Polka has received an academic award at the national level (Beckman Coulter Distinguished Graduate Student Prize from the American Society for Cell Biology) as well as numerous prestigious fellowships (Jane Coffin Childs Memorial Fund for Medical Research has its own Wiki page for example), her research was featured by The Atlantic (written by Ed Yong who is a notable science journalist) and she has been recognised by Nature and Science for her work outside research to improve research and encourage preprints. The criteria for notability (academics) is meeting any one of the above conditions therefore I do not think this page should be deleted. As of 15th August 2018 Polka has over 6000 twitter followers. I have tried to restructure the article and include further information; if the tone remains 'like a CV', this can be changed, and please do if that is the case. Opto kitty (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment Regarding WP:NACADEMIC & why this article should be kept on Wikipedia.

Number 2 - Dr Polka has won the ASCB Americal Society for Cell Biology (a UK premier institution in her discipline) award for her graduate work. Dr Polka is one of 20 fellows who ahve won the Jane Coffin Childs Memorial Fund for Medical Research WP:Jane_Coffin_Childs_Memorial_Fund_for_Medical_Research.

Number 7 - Dr Polka has achieved a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity, in improving research culture. This has received national and international attention in major scientific press (5 authored articles in Nature and science). She was an invited & initial founder ASAPBio effort. I further note that Dr Polka has 6,000 twitter followers which is a quantified metric, in support of the view that she is reaching beyond an academic bubble and influencing the wider community . Dr Polka is also invited to sit on panels and other major discussion forums to further understanding of the issues affecting the progression of early career researchers (these are referenced in her article).

These are cited clearly in the Wikipedia page which notes here past and present achievements. This article should be kept for the benefit of wikipedia readers.

In addition to these referenced comments, the editors of Wikipedia should re-consider NP academic and how single editors can trigger a deletion request based upon limited interpretation of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria.

The article is well referenced and written by third parties who are unconnected to Polka.BenBritton (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Self promotion? Not even close

Hoi, @Bishonen: the start of this article came with me adding her to Wikidata because she is a panellist on a relevant conference. This conference was mentioned on Twitter. I added all keynote speakers and panellists. I asked many of these people for an image. Jessica provided us with one of her standard images, I added it to Commons and this was taken as an inspiration to write an article about her.

At no time was Jessica Polka involved in either my actions nor on the actions of the author of this article. It resulted in a lot of attention on Twitter where very relevant and senior academics applauded the news of this article. Dario, of Wikimedia fame, was flabbergasted that she did not have an article yet.

What you have achieved is proving the notion that Wikipedia is a hostile environment and to make it worse you are so wrong. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Preprints

Surely the point of pre-prints is not to reduce the time to publication for young researchers. Pre-prints allow everyone to see data earlier and more importantly they help to grab the academic agenda back from the publishers and place it back in the scientists hands. Victuallers (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I didn't summarise the issue particularly clearly. Reducing the time that the paper is visible is the key point; often embargoes stop that information passing to the public (The Journal of the American Medical Association is one that does that). Helps with CV's/fellowship applications/appraisals to cite a preprint too. Thanks for the edit! Opto kitty (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

history of the use of preprints

Preprint distribution as a way of rapid communication has bee here even in the 1960s. The use of electronically posted manuscripts for rapid communication started with the founding of arXiv by Paul Ginsparg at Los Alamos in 1991, about as early as was technically feasible, relying upon email and then FTP even before the internet. Its gen eral use n was widely publicized by Stevan Harnad beginning in 1995, and was proposed formally as a total replacement for convention journal publication by Harold E. Varmus at the NIH in 1999 . It has been expanding in importance ever since nd is required by most granting agencies; it has unfortunately been prevented from universal use by a desperate fight of the journal publishers to maintain their business. (see our article Open Access) It was not developed by the subject in 2015. What she has done in this field is to have given several recent talks about it, explaining this to beginning professionals like herself. This is valuable work to be sure, just as important as the work of all the rest of us who have been similarly advocating. If her advocacy happens to have been noticed by the science media, all the better. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@DGG: what on earth are you saying.. It is notable but not historic or it may be notable but not in your perspective.. You lost me totally. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the implications that the subject has had a major role in developing or even popularizing the use of preprints for scientific communication or for the development and promotion of open access are greatly exaggerated. I'm doing some more detailed checking for whether the references actually support the content. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

And my first result is that ref 2 does not support that "She is recognized as one of the leading voices of the preprint movement in [[scholarly communication]" The only 2 paragraphs that mention her in the article are, in full,scholarly communication

What would a new system look like? It's not "publication." Is it ... release? Posting? Version control, a la GitHub? Nobody’s really nailed down the terminology, or the exact methodsSo that’s what last week's meeting aimed to discuss. "In order for it to be constructive we needed to have anti voices, so it wasn't just an echo chamber," sayJessica Polka, a Harvard postdoc and one of the meeting's organizers.

The 75 invite-only attendees spent two days listening to presentations, including one from Paul Ginsparg, the physicist who built the successful physics preprint server arXiv.org in 1991. Then they broke out into group discussions. “It was exhausting,” says Polka. “The conversations were starting at breakfast and continuing all the way to the closing of cocktail hour.”

Deducing "recognized as one of the leading voices" from "one of the meeting's organizers" is OR. I've replaced the sentence by one that does reflect the content. "She was one of the organizers a recent meeting they held on scholarly communication." DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Deduction ad nauseam .. :| GerardM (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Notability

I’m not sure this person warrants a wiki page. I recommend deletion. Genetikbliss (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The existence of this page can only be explained as the result of direct or indirect self-promotion because many far more notable people lack wikipedia pages, even in closely related areas. For example, several notably successful faculty at Whitehead Institute, where Polka was postdoc, lack wikipedia pages: Sebastian Lourido (https://wi.mit.edu/people/member/lourido), Peter Reddien (https://wi.mit.edu/people/member/reddien) and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.4.1.146 (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Photo of Jessica Polka.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Photo of Jessica Polka.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Split off ASAPBio?

It may be worth considering splitting off ASAPbio to its own article some time. Amongst other activities, it now maintains a couple of databases that are getting close to the significance of SHERPA/RoMEO:

• TRANSPOSE - journal policies on peer review, co-reviewing, and preprinting
• [1] - preprint server policies

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 07:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)