I like the draft design. Here's an idea on how to do tackle the double
blind peer review, wiki way:
1) anonymous submissions: let's have a public account for submissions
(username and password either listed on the journal page, or given out
by editor through email). This being meta or wikiversity, vandalism
shouldn't be an issue. Interested authors can contact editor(s) by
email, providing them with real name, and submit the anonymous paper
through the submission account.
2) anonymous reviews: interested reviewers would use a similar anonymous
reviewer account to make comments, signing as Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2,
etc. Editor(s) would of course now their identities (through it is not
as necessary as in the case of the author).
Things to consider:
a) should we accept anonymous reviewers, as in - even the editor(s)
don't know their identity? This would be an issue if the reviewer
username/password are made public.
b) should be accept non-anonymous reviews, i.e. what to do if a regular
wikieditor comments using their normal account? I think we should allow
this, to encourage people to make small comment, without committing
themselves fully to a review, with the understanding that the
non-anonymous reviews are not counted as "official" reviews, for the
purpose of double-blind peer review / indices assessment.
--
Piotr Konieczny
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's
laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
On 11/2/2012 8:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais 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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
www.domusaurea.org <http://www.domusaurea.org>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[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
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
