We have two journals already as listed here https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity_Journal
We are currently in the process of creating a user group to support them. James On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Chris Sherlock <chris.sherloc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > The following post on HN states the following: > > > About fifteen years ago I was working on a venture to make an > open-content journal publishing system. It didn't pan out for various > reasons, but the general argument we were making this. Here are various > services, and who (or what) handles them: > > > > - Peer review and top-level decision-making. This is handled entirely by > the editorial board. > > - Typesetting. We have a free system for this: it's called LaTeX. > > - Copy-editing and typeset-checking. This is handled by the publisher. > > - Publishing and archiving. This is handled by the publisher. > > - Famous Name. This is controlled by the publisher and is pure > rent-seeking. > > > > It used to be that the publisher handled much more than this. But with a > decent online publishing, workflow, and archiving system, and with a > near-zero cost in publishing and archiving online nowadays, essentially the > only useful service the publisher provides is copy-editing. That is very > minor. > > > > If a free online business model can figure out how to fund copy-editing > and automatic standards enforcement (for example, people make awful bibtex > entries, including Springer's auto-generation system), and a university > institution willing to host the journal's archives, the entire utility of a > publisher disappears > > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11637251 < > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11637251> > > In all seriousness, what would stop the WMF from attempting to setup > journals? > > With the WMF’s reputation, I can't see what would stop them from > recruiting reputable people who can be reviewers on the panel. Copy editing > could be done over the Wiki. > > This would take the control of information away from for-profit companies, > give maximum transparency, increase the stature of Wikimedia, allow for > verified content and allow Wikipedia to keep its user generated, no > original research model and allow for WMF expansion into area that it > didn't have the ability to be part of before - like research! > > Heck, it could then allow the WMF to serious consider funding pure > research, or make it easier to run a reputable online university. > > The case for disrupting the current business models of Elsevier is > compelling. In 2015, Elsevier reported a profit margin of approximately 37% > on revenues of £2.070 billion. [0] I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation > of the economic benefit of allowing publication of free journals to > countries such as Afghanistan. My calculation may be way off, but as an > example according to Elsevier they charge an individual researcher "$31.50 > per article or chapter for most Elsevier content [and] select titles are > priced between $19.95 and $41.95 (subject to change).” [1] > > My calculation, on the assumption that the median wage in Afghanistan is > 50,000 AHD per year and the exchange rate for USD to AHD of 68.3 AHD to 1 > USD shows that for one article it is about 2,150 AHD, or half the monthly > wage of an Afghani with a median income! > > We could step into this space. And we could do our disruption legally, and > make things like Sci-Hub less necessary for those in countries who cannot > afford the extraordinary prices of journal publishers! > > So what do people think? > > Chris Sherlock > > > 0. "2015 RELX Group Annual Report" (PDF at > http://www.relx.com/investorcentre/reports%202007/Documents/2015/relxgroup_ar_2015.pdf > < > http://www.relx.com/investorcentre/reports%202007/Documents/2015/relxgroup_ar_2015.pdf>). > RELX Group Company Reports. RELX Group. March 2016. > > 1. https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/sciencedirect/content/pay-per-view < > https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/sciencedirect/content/pay-per-view> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
