Thanks a lot for these interesting information. I have given a look at
the French Institute of scientific evaluation (AERES). Their
requirements are very simlar :
(1) Open editorial comittee, with international range and a main focus
of research.
(2) Efficient selection process (which imply a significant rate of
rejection)
(3) International openness.
(4) Institutionnal support (from scientific organization…)
(5) Good quality management (timeliness…)
(6) Implication in disciplinary and community debates.
It's certainly far from the ambitious projects of emirjp, but I have
expanded a bit my shaping device : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal
Concerning the wiki vs. wider thematic, I think the matter ought to be
considered on a strategic level. The wiki is undeniably a good market
niche, as no specific journal covers the topics so far. Yet, as an
experiment in open access, the journal may have some legitimacy to
tackle collaborative and open knowledge wider thema. Therefore, I
would rather support a flexible position : the main focus remains wiki-
research even though the scientific comittee can, from time to time,
go beyond this definite range.
PCL
I'd like to provide some data for comparison in terms of
requirements for traditional academic journals. The Brazilian
committee for my area that rates journals and acts as standard for
cvs, tenures etc, lists [1]:
- editor-in-chief
- editorial committee
- consultive committee
- ISSN
- editorial policies
- submission rules
- peer-review
- at least 14 annual articles
- institutional affiliation for authors
- institutional affiliation for committee members
- abstracts and keywords in at least two languages
- dates for articles receives and for articles published
- must have at least one year of existence
- regular periodicity
My area happens to be History, and I know maybe some of these
requirements are not exactly fitting for the intended goal here.
But, like I said, I'm just listing some elements you might consider
including.
Juliana.
[1]
http://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/avaliacao/Qualis_-_Historia.pdf
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <[email protected]
> wrote:
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
--
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
