My answer is the fact that many of us are
reading this mailing list, reading papers in various draft and final forms that
people are writing, discussing the topic, etc. I see a community forming here.
A journal would seem a natural evolution of that.
I don’t think the editorial team has to be
expert in everything in itself; it might need to be able to find reviewers in “everything”
though.
Kerry
From:
wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Brian Keegan
Sent: Friday, 9 November 2012 8:35
AM
To: Research into Wikimedia
content and communities
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l]
Wiki Research Journal? - Why?
I keep coming back to this same question Aaron's raised as well. Wiki
is obviously the glue holding everything thematically as well as logistically
together in the proposals I've seen here-to-for, but it seems nigh-impossible
to assemble an editorial board that is simultaneously open and qualified to
reviewing submissions that almost certainly cover the gamut from journalism and
media studies, computer and information sciences, complex and network sciences,
sociology and organizational behavior, business and economics, legal and policy
studies, education and outreach. Any single issue risks incoherence including
articles across all these fields and the possibility of having rotating special
issues dedicated to any single domain for this Wiki-journal to ensure
some coherence would seem to suggest simply organizing a special issue in
pre-existing journals.
It comes down to
this: someone needs to clearly articulate why active wiki-researchers
like myself should take the risk of publishing our research in a new journal
when we potentially have higher-impact journals and better-tailored special
issues as alternative and ready outlets.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfaker@gmail.com>
wrote:
So, if I can re-ignite and re-frame the
original question I posed,
-Aaron
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Manuel Palomo Duarte <manuel.palomo@uca.es>
wrote:
Nice post, Kerry. Let me add that the citation rates are calculated
using the cites in reputated journals already indexed ...
2012/11/8 Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond@gmail.com>
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: wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] 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 <holtzermann17@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 8,
2012 at 3:02 PM, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfaker@gmail.com> 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
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
Prof. Manuel Palomo Duarte, PhD
Software Process Improvement and Formal Methods group (SPI&FM).
Degree Coordinator for Computer Science.
Department of Computer Science.
Escuela Superior de Ingenieria.
C/
11002 -
Tlf: (+34) 956 015483
Mobile phone: (+34) 649 280080
Mobile phone from University network: 45483
Fax: (+34) 956 015139
Aviso legal: Este mensaje (incluyendo los ficheros adjuntos) puede
contener información confidencial, dirigida a un destinatario y objetivo
específico. Si usted no es el destinatario
--
Legal Notice: This message (including the attached files) contains
confidential information, directed to a specific addressee and objective. In
case you are not the addressee of the same, I apologize. And I ask you to
delete this mail, and not to resend, copy or distribute its content, as well as
develop or execute any action based on the same.
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l