Hej, this is great. I think you should consider the following combined model:
* Organize [papers] and [reviews] on a wiki. Aim for open collaboration and discussion among researchers in the draft phase. [papers] := drafts, data, analysis, reflists; casual peer review [reviews] := comments, questions, ideas, connections * Publish a less formal monthly update, perhaps in tandem with the WMF Research Newsletter * Organize a selection process every 4-6 months : # an editorial team chooses the best new work, asks the authors for a snapshot to send to formal peer review. # organize more formal blind peer review [FPR], with reviewers who don't take part in the casual reviews above. # make an editorial decision of how much of the backstory (data, commentary, interlinking & cross-refs) to include in the snapshot. * Collate the accepted output of this FPR into a paginated snapshot with a little editorial love: an introduction, cover matter, a description of the journal and submission process [for anyone who finds a printout or epub of just that snapshot]. These are the formal issues circulated to libraries, invited to journal parties, &c. Each article should link to its history page [and in the future, both its article history and its dataset history]. I'm pretty sure that libraries at Harvard and MIT would pick up a subscription. And we could start soliciting submissions from colleagues who do great work and don't mind (or love the idea of) having a possibly seminal paper published in this sort of new-style journal. SJ PS - a few nice features of a successful journal, in my opinion: 1) authors will start to decide for themselves how to credit a crowd of dozens of people who contributed to a final paper, @ varying levels of detail 2) the ratio of (bibliography + footnotes) / (body) will be significantly higher than in other journals 3) the density of interlinks and cross-references will be high 4) in the living / online version of the journal, articles will be published with transclusions from other research On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Piotr Konieczny <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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 > [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 > > -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
