Actually the reputation of journals is usually derived from its impact factor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor which is all about citation rates rather than acceptance/rejection rates. Acceptance rates are sometimes used for newer journals as citation rates aren't available. But it doesn't follow that a new journal must reject reasonable papers in order to achieve some desired acceptance rate. A new journal (properly advertised) will probably attract a lot of papers that have been rejected elsewhere so you probably end up with plenty of worthy-of-rejection material. There is no way to get an immediate "great reputation" for a new journal. But I think a clear focus on topic, a hard-working international editorial team, and a firm but fair reviewing process and reviewers will yield good-quality papers and will attract more good quality papers in response Kerry _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Aaron Halfaker Sent: Friday, 9 November 2012 1:51 AM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Why? "Highly rated" is an interesting property. One of the ways that a publication venue becomes highly rated is by being highly restrictive. In fact, the primary measurement of the quality of a publication venue is the acceptance rate of that conference. WikiSym is not considered highly rated because a high proportion of the submitted papers are accepted. Would a wiki journal be more restrictive in order to gain a "highly rated" status? I think it's interesting to ask why WikiSym needs improvement and why attendance has been falling. If a WikiSym is a wiki conference that is struggling to maintain participation, how might a wiki journal surmount such trouble? Assuming that the answer to my question above is "yes, the wiki-journal would be more restrictive", how would such a journal gather more submissions than an established conference like WikiSym -- enough to both produce regular issues and maintain a high rejection rate? -Aaron On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Joe Corneli <[email protected]> wrote: On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Aaron Halfaker <[email protected]> wrote: > To state it plainly, why do we need yet another publication venue specific to wiki software? I think people want a "highly rated" publication venue. Also, <The reason why WikiSym is changing is for the same reason. People are not going to the conference! I think the attendance has been below 100 for some time now. That's not a sustainable number for the amount of work that goes into organizing a conference.> But what you're saying suggests that maybe work should be done to improve existing venues rather than creating a new one. _______________________________________________ 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
