Hello, I wouldn't call it a "wiki journal", that gives a wrong impression, and also not call the draft like that. Kind regards Ziko
2012/11/2 Pierre-Carl Langlais <[email protected]>: > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
