Hello, I find it a very good idea (I expressed it in 2008 or 2009); the focus should be somewhat defined, e..g wiki's and open content; and it should be done in a way that others respect the journal. Kind regards Ziko
2012/11/2 Juliana Bastos Marques <[email protected]>: > 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
