Hello!
Thanks for the previous e-mails.
I have seen OA journals running on a voluntary bases and without major financial
contribution; but still, I agree with Dario that it involves a very big effort and in
order to have trully significants outcomes you need a robust dedication. Furthemore, I
agree that the type of questions an OA journal I see would solve could be adressed though
other channels (like the newsletter, wikipedia library repository, spread suggestions for
research from the Wikipedia community, feed, etc.).
Cheers! Mayo
«·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·»
«·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·»
«·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
Research Digital Commons Governance:
http://www.onlinecreation.info
Fellow Berkman center for Internet and Society. Harvard University.
Postdoctoral Researcher. Institute of Govern and Public Policies. Autonomous University of
Barcelona.
Visiting scholar. Internet Interdisciplinary Institute. Open University of Catalonia
(UOC).
Member Research Committee. Wikimedia Foundation
Ph.D European University Institute
Visiting researcher (2008). School of information. University of California, Berkeley.
E-mail: mayo.fuster(a)eui.eu
E-mail: mayofm(a)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Twitter/Identica: Lilaroja
Skype: mayoneti
Phone United States: 001 - 8576548231
Phone Spanish State: 0034-648877748
Berkman Center
23 Everett Street, 2nd Floor
Cambridge, MA 02138
+1 (617) 495-7547 (Phone)
+1 (617) 495-7641 (Fax)
Personal Postal Address USA:
The Acetarium
265 Elm Street - 4
Somerville, MA, USA
02144
________________________________________
From: rcom-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [rcom-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Dario Taraborelli [dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org]
Sent: 27 September 2011 03:39
To: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list
Subject: Re: [RCom-l] Peer reviewed journal?
Having founded and run a peer reviewed journal with Springer over the last 2 years (I
stepped down as editor-in-chief a few months ago due to incompatibility with my new WMF
duties) – and having considered an OA option at the time of writing the first proposal for
this journal back in 2009 – I thought I'd share my 2 cents.
Costs of creating a new journal
What are the benefits of creating a dedicated OA journal for Wikipedia research?
Traditional, closed access journals are run mostly by scholarly societies or by editorial
boards to increase the visibility of research within their respective communities. OA is
producing a number of disruptive changes in scholarly publishing. One of these disruptive
changes is in the function and scope of journals. The most promising model OA publishers
appear to be currently pursuing (based on the talks Daniel and I heard last week at COASP
'11– a report on RCom-l will follow shortly) is the one of so-called OA mega-journals.
These mega-journals are blurring the boundaries between traditional, narrow-focused
scholarly journals and large OA repositories such as ArXiV; mega-journals publish papers
in virtually every field and promise a large distribution, a lighter peer-review model
(inspired by post-publication filtering criteria) and in some cases (e.g. PLoS One)
increased visibility and bibliometric impact. These journals appear to be cannibalizing
resources and readers from traditional journals and I think it's fair to expect that
in 5 years from now most research will be published in 5-6 large OA journals acting as
global research repositories and undermining the need of narrowly focused (and closed
access) disciplinary outlets. At the moment, the only serious advantage of creating a new
journal is to bridge a disciplinary gap, to build a new research community or to
create/reinforce a brand, but there are other important costs to consider if one wants to
go for an OA option (see below) and my question is: wouldn't our community be equally
well served if it were to publish its research in one of the many OA journals already
available? Would community and brand creation justify the effort of creating a new outlet
instead of, say, creating and tracking an on-demand collection of articles within one or
more existing, general-purpose OA journals? To put it bluntly: do we need a journal or a
feed?
Costs of going OA
Setting up and running a journal, especially without the support of a traditional
publisher, requires an insane amount of effort. As an author or reviewer of a journal, one
typically sees only the tip of the iceberg of the editorial and publication workflow,
which includes, among other things, effectively triaging and dispatching submissions,
inviting and chasing reviewers, supervising the production process, promoting the journal
in relevant outlets, maintaining relations with organizations that store/consume metadata
and evaluate contents. A self-run journal, without the support of a dedicated production
team, also incurs extra costs related to manuscript handling, copyediting, proof creation.
OA publishers typically offset these extra costs by charging author fees, which are only
waived in particular circumstances. Creating and running a successful OA journal is
definitely not something a group of people can achieve as a hobby or with limited
financial resources.
Supplementary barriers to OA
Crazy as it may sound, in 2011 OA is just starting to get traction. When starting a new
journal, the question you typically face is whether you want to have a high scholarly
impact within your community (i.e. attract and publish the best research within your
field) or change the rules of the game (e.g. embrace OA, publish open-licensed research or
explore new, disruptive editorial models). With the exception of OA mega journals and some
popular niche journals, by creating a new journal you *either* seek impact *or* game
change. The risk is that, as a new OA journal, you'll get to publish papers that have
gone through cascading peer review (rejected by other outlets) and that for some reason
have failed to be submitted to OA mega journals. One could try an experiment in publishing
OA research without focusing on impact, but the effort and risk involved in making this
project successful are even higher.
So my recommendation would be: forget about, "it sounds easy, let's try it"
as this will result in a lot of frustration and wasted efforts. If someone wants to work
on the creation of a new OA journal what's needed is a sound business plan with an
analysis of risks and costs involved and an assessment of all, less costly and equally
effective alternatives (which at the moment I'd be personally in favor of
considering).
Dario
On Sep 25, 2011, at 8:46 AM, Goran Milovanovic wrote:
Hi,
the idea on having a peer-reviewed journal specifically related to
Wikimedia/Wikipedia needed research that Milos and I have discussed
was, of course, to start small.
The idea is to start with a set of dedicated pages that would publish
Wikimedia related research, focusing on the needs generated by the
community, Rcom or the WMF, and trying to establish consistency of
standards and some at least minimal periodicity. The publishing
process would involve peer review from the beginning. I don't believe
it would be hard to establish a journal editorial in this case.
Of course, the merger with initiatives such as Wikimedia Summer of
Research is a natural way to go.
Then we would see what happens. If it happens to be useful (I bet) and
sustainable (the hard part: sustainable in terms of periodicity, norms
and quality), why not start thinking bigger than the initial small and
see if we can push it to a level of a significant journal in the
fields of socio-technical systems, user-computer interaction, online
collaboration and similar.
Best,
Goran
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Ziko van Dijk
<zvandijk@googlemail.com<mailto:zvandijk@googlemail.com>> wrote:
Hello,
The idea of a journal is very sound by itself. I doubt that
Wikiversity will be helpful.
Kind regards
Ziko
2011/9/22 Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com<mailto:millosh@gmail.com>>:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 14:38, WereSpielChequers
<werespielchequers@gmail.com<mailto:werespielchequers@gmail.com>> wrote:
Would this be a logical thing to have as part of Wikiversity?
Peer review does seem to me very like a Featured article process but with
credentialled reviewers.
Huh. Wikiversity has its own problems. Since Cormac Lawler went out of
WV, its integrity is very questionable. However, I agree that
organized boost into the right direction is something which WV needs.
_______________________________________________
RCom-l mailing list
RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
--
Ziko van Dijk
The Netherlands
http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/
_______________________________________________
RCom-l mailing list
RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Truth is much too complicated to allow
anything but approximations."
:: John von Neumann
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.milovanovicresearch.com
_______________________________________________
RCom-l mailing list
RCom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l