I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea of what the
journal could be : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal
It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises all the
working and contextual texts that are not visible in most academic
journals.
PCL
As far as my experience goes, the required group of editors would be
an editor-in-chief, an executive committee and a scientific
committee, mostly responsible for the peer reviews. Since I would
like to participate, this reminds me what criteria would be adopt
for recruiting these, and how this decision will be taken. I also
assume that one or more universities (or an academic institution,
for that matter) would have to provide support - as of, "published
by...".
Of course, this is the traditional way... Some things can be
changed, but others need to be retained in order for the journal to
receive academic recognition.
Juliana.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <[email protected]
> wrote:
One idea would be to appoint one or several volunteer editor(s).
They could ensure all the formal and administrative aspects of the
journal: receiving and anonymizing the propositions, publishing them
on the wiki, editing the final Wiki and PDF versions, keep in touch
with ISI and other evaluation system and so on…
@emirjp : well you can already count me in :)
Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that
situation. This story was the same in 2001, when people thought that
only an expert-written encyclopedia with very rigid methods would be
successful.
Good for you, but it is somewhat irrelevant. I'd speculate that
possibly even most of the academic journals' production is done by
people who do have to care where they publish. Per comparing the
situation to Wikipedia in 2001, I want to firmly state that oranges
are much better than apples.
Entering the journal rankings is based on citation numbers, right? I
did this suggest thinking on the valuable researchers in this list,
which may be interested in publishing/peer-reviewing stuff in the
journal. Won't you cite that papers?
The JCR journal ranking, which so far is the only one that matters
(in spite of its major flaws, methodological issues, etc.), bases on
the number of citations counted ONLY in other journals already
listed in it.
But there are also threshold requirements to be even considered for
JCR ranking, and obviously a double-blind peer reviews is a must.
For practical reasons of indexing, paper redistribution, etc., PDFs
and numbered pages also make life of a person who wants to cite a
paper much easier.
While I support your idea in principle, I think that it requires
much more effort, planning, and understanding of how academic
publishing and career paths actually work, than in the concept of
"all we need is wiki".
cheers,
dj
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
www.domusaurea.org
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
