Thanks, added that to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Thanks for the summary.
2012/9/22 Joe Corneli holtzerman...@gmail.com
Thanks, added that to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
There is also an european supported project called Liquid Journals of
LiquidPud. They have realeased a bunch of documents and reports
concerning new ways of dissemination of knowledge and science.
http://project.liquidpub.org/research-areas/liquid-journal
- Liquid Journals: Knowledge
On 09/20/2012 04:19 PM, Joe Corneli wrote:
* If the Wikimedia Foundation could support an online journal, this
would be a great outcome. (I don?t know if there are other ways to bid
for WMF funding other than via chapters?)
There are: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index
--
Sumana
Oops, that's on the Strategy wiki. I'll make corresponding links on
meta and send them around. Sorry.
For the moment real work should take place here anyway, so we can do this fast.
http://piratepad.net/wiki-research-ideas
___
Wiki-research-l mailing
OK, real link: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
In addition to summarizing everything, I've condensed the proposals
down to these (Please feel free to reword, expand, maybe continue the
conversation on the Talk page?):
Proposals
Specifically related to journals
* The field of wiki studies exists but there is no dedicated
journal. This is a
-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Kerry
Raymond
Sent: Monday, 17 September 2012 1:55 PM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Open-Access journals for papers about wikis
I don't think
Hi all
Regarding setting up an English-language online scientific journal in my view
you need:
(a) someone who assumes responsibility for delivering the journal
(b) server space
(c) someone with tech skills to set up and manage the CMS
(d) interesting CFPs that will motivate authors to
Hi all
Just to clarify - the review process at JoPP is _not_ that everything that is
submitted will be published irregardless of quality.
The peer review process page (http://peerproduction.net/peer-review/process/)
states:
1. PAPER PROPOSAL
1.1. Non-special issues
Authors use the contact
hi,
Once the publication process is launched then yes, normally everything
(initial sub, reviews, responses, final paper) is published.
I think one good thing about the standard review process is that
authors are motivated to strive for excellence, since they do not know
if their revised
I think we need to open a page on meta: and compile all the ideas launched
in this tread, that are a lot and good ones.
2012/9/17 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl
hi,
Once the publication process is launched then yes, normally everything
(initial sub, reviews, responses, final paper)
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Ward Cunningham w...@c2.com wrote:
Its a good time to think big, especially if big doesn't cost too much.
Yeah! And for this reason, I think the best and most useful option
(out of the ones that people are suggesting here) is ALL. Why not
have a mainstream
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Mathieu ONeil mathieu.on...@anu.edu.au wrote:
Once the publication process is launched then yes, normally everything
(initial sub, reviews, responses, final paper) is published.
But like I said, it seems that special issues are, at present, exempt from that?
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Joe Corneli holtzerman...@gmail.com wrote:
while continuing to publish
informally (as a pre-print or non-print) all initial submissions
together with their reviews. Including for special issues.
Furthermore, why not have discussion threads attached at the
2012/9/17 Joe Corneli holtzerman...@gmail.com
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Mathieu ONeil mathieu.on...@anu.edu.au
wrote:
Once the publication process is launched then yes, normally everything
(initial sub, reviews, responses, final paper) is published.
But like I said, it seems that
People is doing weird experiments http://tinytocs.org
--
Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com
Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain)
Projects: AVBOT http://code.google.com/p/avbot/ |
StatMediaWikihttp://statmediawiki.forja.rediris.es
| WikiEvidens
Dear all,
For the benefits of being readable to general readers across disciplines
and regions, I suggest that we provide short descriptions on acronyms such
as ISI, SSCI, SCI, etc.
As the discussion on open-access journals here, it may be helpful if we
distinguish the pragmatic purpose of
Joe -- Thank you for bringing this report to my attention. It is absolutely
apropos my interest in this thread. If I could summarize your report I would
say:
There is interest in mass collaboration.
Tools struggle above 10 or 20 authors.
Review and publishing struggle at
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Ward Cunningham w...@c2.com wrote:
The comment you quote of mine is in response to Samuel Klein's lists of more
things that should be published. If we combine his list with your experience
then we have a clear view of the collision that would motivate a new
:12 PM
*To:* dar...@alk.edu.pl mailto:dar...@alk.edu.pl; Research into
Wikimedia content and communities; Samuel Klein
*Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] Open-Access journals for papers
about wikis
The idea of creating a journal just for wikis is highly seductive
for me.The
Emijrp writes:
About the business model, perhaps the journal can't survive by donations but by
entities that receive donations. I'm talking about Wikimedia chapters. There
are some powerfull chapters out there that may want to support this journal
project providing human effort, resources and
Ward Cunningham writes:
If we combine his list with your experience then we have a clear view of the
collision that would motivate a new kind of journal, not just a new journal.
Yes, but if there is a serious desire to get a new journal off the ground, I
would suggest starting with a set of
Joe -- I like all three scenarios because they seem to have been plucked from
reality. However, I worry that there might be a fatal flaw.
Wikipedia has shown that such massive collaboration is possible. But Wikipedia
also operates under some norms that may not extend gracefully to the scenarios
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.plwrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Samuel Klein s...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I've been thinking recently that we should start this journal. There
isn't an obvious candidate, despite some of the amazing research that's
: Monday, 17 September 2012 1:55 PM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Open-Access journals for papers about wikis
I don't think the no original research rule would apply to a research journal
that was hosted/sponsored/whatever by WMF. It's
Hi all
@Samuel Klein: Sorry, don't understand the first part of your question, could
you please elaborate.
As for hosting a new wiki journal, not sure whether it is feasible or
desirable. I can't speak for JoPP about such a big decision, it would have to
be discussed by the board on our (open
hi,
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Samuel Klein s...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I've been thinking recently that we should start this journal. There isn't
an obvious candidate, despite some of the amazing research that's been done,
and the extreme
transparency that allows much deeper work to
The idea of creating a journal just for wikis is highly seductive for
me.The pillars might be:
* peer-reviewed, but publish a list of rejected papers and the reviewers
comments
* open-access (CC-BY-SA)
* ask always for the datasets and offer them to download, the same for the
developed software
emijrp, 15/09/2012 11:12:
The idea of creating a journal just for wikis is highly seductive for
me.The pillars might be:
* peer-reviewed, but publish a list of rejected papers and the reviewers
comments
* open-access (CC-BY-SA)
* ask always for the datasets and offer them to download, the same
hi,
Is wiki the best platform currently [*hides from Ward*]?
Is the software/configuration used by (I think) PLOS for a similar thing
available somewhere to build on?
as mentioned previously, Open Journal Systems is popular
http://pkp.sfu.ca/?q=ojs
PLOS bases on Ambra
2012/9/15 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl
But seriously, starting a journal is not so much about the engine, but
more about the community to drive it.
So... volunteers? Step forward.
It wouldn't be unprecedented to
start a journal by preparing 1-2 issues WITHOUT a system to process
But seriously, starting a journal is not so much about the engine, but
more about the community to drive it.
So... volunteers? Step forward.
it is not really so much about volunteers (even though I am pretty
sure that many members of this list would gladly help the editorial
board), but rather
[mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of emijrp
Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2012 7:12 PM
To: dar...@alk.edu.pl; Research into Wikimedia content and communities;
Samuel Klein
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Open-Access journals for papers about wikis
The idea of creating
Hi all;
I like the journals that work under the same (or similar) principles of
free knowledge projects, a.k.a. open-access journals.
I would like to publish some paper regarding to wikis in that kind of OA
publications, do you have any recommendation?
I found First Monday, which is
I've been thinking recently that we should start this journal. There isn't
an obvious candidate, despite some of the amazing research that's been
done, and the extreme transparency that allows much deeper work to be done
on wiki communities in the future.
Would some of the Wikipapers folks be
Getting First Monday indexed in ISI would be a good step.
I have helped start an open access journal before [1] so I'd be happy to
give advice. But generally, I don't think that we need more journals.
Rather, let's make open access the journals that we have. This has been
done in some
This doesn't solve your problem, but I have two thoughts that might be
useful: publishing an open-access of your pay-wall papers and pushing
WikiSym to the next level.
*Open access version*
I've recently taken up the practice of re-writing my research papers for
the internet with an open license.
So what does it take to get a journal indexed in ISI?
--
Piotr Konieczny
On 9/14/2012 11:33 AM, Jodi Schneider wrote:
Getting First Monday indexed in ISI would be a good step.
I have helped start an open access journal before [1] so I'd be happy
to give advice. But generally, I don't think
This has been proposed before, and I do support it - I think a good case
can be made that there is a field in Wikipedia studies (or on a larger
scale, wiki studies) - yet there is no dedicated journal. This needs to
change.
--
Piotr Konieczny
On 9/14/2012 11:00 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
I've
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Jodi Schneider jschnei...@pobox.comwrote:
Getting First Monday indexed in ISI would be a good step.
Yes.
I have helped start an open access journal before [1] so I'd be happy to
give advice. But generally, I don't think that we need more journals.
Well,
Sure, Journal of Wikiology, imagine that : ))
If an open-access journal about wikis is founded, I will collaborate
sending papers.
2012/9/14 Piotr Konieczny pio...@post.pl
This has been proposed before, and I do support it - I think a good case
can be made that there is a field in Wikipedia
On Sep 14, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
People should be able to publish their work as quickly as they like in a
professional way, especially in fields that change rapidly and need to
benefit from collaborating with one another.
Hmm. What is the quickest way that we would ever
I don't know... how about:
You have a good project idea someone should do. You publish it.
You know some people doing interesting work in the area who need x,y,z to
tackle such a project, and add that.
You start a project. You publish a pointer and project name.
Some collaborators join. You
Yup. I'm thinking the same things. Now, if all of these were the norm, how
would work be different?
On Sep 14, 2012, at 11:31 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
I don't know... how about:
You have a good project idea someone should do. You publish it.
You know some people doing interesting work in
There are lots of other pressures on work. Take for example the principle
investigator who after decades of working within the existing system finds one
day that his grants aren't to be renewed. Nor are the grants of his
professional colleagues. Their labs contract but they are all still there
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Ward Cunningham w...@c2.com wrote:
There are lots of other pressures on work. Take for example the principle
investigator who after decades of working within the existing system finds
one day that his grants aren't to be renewed. Nor are the grants of his
47 matches
Mail list logo
