Yes, that's a good point. Nevertheless, readership is not an inherent quality. It depends on several factors, most of which are attractiveness (is the journal layout fine to read? does the selection brings up insightful content?), positioning (which scientific disciplines are concerned?) and mediatization (how do we come to guarantee a specific notability of the journal per se?). To this extent, the journal has some valuable assets : *Us :) There have been already a lot of discussion since september. So far, the issue is well-debated and well-explored. *The Wikimedian communities, that comprise many academics. *The Open Access communities that may well be interested in this kind of experiment. In the specific context of the Academic Spring, the journal may possibly receive some comment in the general press. *Having the advantage of Eprint (wider access) without its drawback (economic model…). *International scale. I have actually given some publicity to the concept on my French well-read blog : http://blogs.rue89.com/les-coulisses-de-wikipedia/2012/10/23/libre-acces-le… So far, the editorial board may have a good latitude in managing (or not managing) to attract readership… PCL Le 4 nov. 12 à 20:00, Joe Corneli a écrit :

I wonder if a better place to innovate might be in the conduct of research, rather than the reporting, review and publication of research? While wiki speeds collaboration within a community, the research literature favors long-lasting contributions outside the community. Wiki or wiki-like collaboration tools might be better applied to stimulating and conducting high-quality research that will then usefully feed existing publications. I assume here that Wikipedia and the like have been sufficiently successful to raise more research questions and to enable more research methods than this community has time and/or ability to pursue. (If topics were scarce then they might be usefully hoarded.) Of course there are many ways to share methods and directions and lots have already been applied in this community. However, I get the impression that results still take months or years to produce. Aside: I have built a data mining tool and methodology, Exploratory Parsing, that can read all of Wikipedia in 10 seconds for a useful notion of "read". I have also created a Federated Wiki that promotes wiki-like sharing without need for a common vision or agreed social norms. I intend to combine the two to make an experiment manager where setups are easily shared and where methodological improvements and/or research redirections easily build on other's work in progress. What would our environment have to be like before our collaborative cycle time is reduced to days? On Nov 4, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Chitu Okoli wrote:

I just watched Stephen Friend's presentation. 15 minutes well spent. Thanks. -- Ward On Nov 4, 2012, at 5:13 PM, Jack Park wrote:

Le 5 nov. 2012 à 01:57, Ward Cunningham <ward(a)c2.com> a écrit : I may sound a bit overractive, but can't we do both? I would easily imagine the following two-way system: *A wiki-laboratory, which hosts quick and less quick projects in progress. That could also include some reactive analysis by social scientists to recent wikimedian and collaborative knowledge phenomena. *A wiki-journal, that should give a definitive and quotable form to the preceding researches and enlarge the discussions to wider disciplinary debates. By publishing external submissions it could give some new food for thought to the wiki-laboratory. The relationships between the two structures would be a relevant analogy to the mutually-rewarding dialogue between the practical and theoretical side of scientific research.

I think two things can be done in parallel. 1. Allow folks to create descriptions of research in progress on the wiki, which can be progressively updated. This enables others to make suggestions on methodology, give feedback on drafts of papers and so forth. Open and collaborative and experimental in the meta-sense. Clearly many on this list desire to experiment with new ways of working. 2. Have a more formal traditional review process, so that the journal mets the criteria for "reputable" that is important for people's CVs, tenure, promotion and so forth. As much as many of this don't like this way of working, it is the reality for earning your salary. I don't think it should be a requirement that you engage in 1) before engaging in 2). But I would like to believe that people who engage in 1) are far more likely to be have an easy acceptance through 2) because their work has already had the benefit of "many eyes". Where I think this plan is likely to come unstuck relates to the question of authorship of the final papers for the purposes of 2). If someone feels that they have made a lot of contribution to the research through 1) they might feel entitled to author rights. In this regard, it is worth reminding ourselves of the Vancouver protocol, which many journals either mandate or will resort to in the event of authorship disputes: http://www.authorder.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&… mid=47 (a short version) http://www.icmje.org/urm_full.pdf (a long version see pages 2-3) An open way of working will clearly enable people to contribute to the research and the writing in ways that might make them eligible to be an author under the Vancouver protocol. The argument will tend to hinge on the question of whether the contributions were "substantial". But I don't think this concern is a reason not to enable more collaborative ways of researching. It's just something that everyone should be aware of up-front, that opening your research up to input from others might mean you have to add some co-authors to your work if they make "substantial" contributions. Kerry

I would note that the use of 1) would render double-blind irrelevant in 2). We would all know ... Sent from my iPad On 06/11/2012, at 6:05 AM, "Kerry Raymond" <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com> wrote:

+1 Jodi! I agree it would be great to experiment on-site as you suggest Claudia On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 10:39:34 +0000, Jodi Schneider wrote hl=en_US&authkey=CMeCqOYD thanks & cheers, Claudia koltzenburg(a)w4w.net

Following the discussion of yesterday, I have enhanced a bit the design draft: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas/Design It now includes a specific thema for each issue. For instance, I have chosen « Wikipedia Verifiability ». In order to visualize what kind of content we could get, I have replaced the "Lorem ipsum" stuff with « fake » summaries. As you can see, the journal may include both social science analyses (cf. the quellenkritik to wikipedia thing), and computer science experiment (the device from wikisource). Those who are interesting in taking part to the project may add their names here : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas/Volunteers Kind regards,

I equally see the journal as a way to bridge research as it is, and research as it's likely to become. The main work the editing committee is liable to do is social: enforce usual procedures, keep in touch with the ISI and other certification centers, find partnerships with scholar institutions, ensure communication toward scientific and general public. Is such a work inessential? I am not so sure. During the OA Week meeting at the UNESCO, we all came to agree on one point: the main (if not the sole) obstacle to the generalization of new scientific practices consists in current, unquestioned, hard to get rid off habits. Designing some kind of intermediary between pioneering initiatives and mainstream reflexes may have some relevancy, not in the long-term perspective, but now. The journal may have therefore two valuable objectives: *It practices an extended version of open access. The mere facts of publishing peer-reviewing debates and getting outsiders to take a small, albeit definite, part in the writing and reviewing process are already quite unusual novelties. If the journal becomes a success wide enough to encourage other journals in imitating it, I think the whole project would have been rewarding. *It's a good way to recruit new scholars, especially for the wiki- laboratory. I know a lot of French academics who are interested in Wikis. Yet they mainly issue solitary analysis without taking part to wider wiki-research. Le 5 nov. 12 à 19:35, Ward Cunningham a écrit : I'm agreeing with you on the refactoring factor. Wiki is a place where people act rather than say. It may not be the most convenient structure to host a journal, although Wikipedia has already imported some tools and behaviors from scientific journals: footnotes, FA/GA reviewing and so on. It is a powerful device to reveal social and textual interactions. As such, it seems to have all the requirements to experiment extended open access, by showing the elaboration of editorial decisions, peer-reviewing discussions, corrections, works in progress from a proposal to a complete article… PCL

I think a compromise position is to use single-blind unless the authors request double-blind and are therefore prepared to undertake the "ridiculous gymnastics" required. Certainly (in computer science) I would agree that it is very hard for any established researcher publishing in their normal field to successfully disguise their identify. Sent from my iPad On 05/11/2012, at 8:30 AM, "Chitu Okoli" <Chitu.Okoli(a)concordia.ca> wrote:

The woman discrimination is something the journal should care about. Any idea on how to face it? 2012/11/6 Chitu Okoli <Chitu.Okoli(a)concordia.ca> -- 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/ Chile, 1 11002 - Cadiz (Spain) University of Cadiz http://neptuno.uca.es/~mpalomo 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 del mismo le pido disculpas, y le pido que elimine este correo, evitando cualquier divulgación, copia o distribución de su contenido, así como desarrollar o ejecutar cualquier acción basada en el mismo. -- 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.

just out of curiosity, what could be the reasonable expected purposes for requesting a single-blind review instead of a standard double-blind in your model? best, dj On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Chitu Okoli <Chitu.Okoli(a)concordia.ca>wrote;wrote: -- __________________________ dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

well, then I think I basically disagree on this one. I think that the fact that the authors CAN be identified after doing some more or less advanced research, does not mean that the reviewers are going to actively seek to break their anonymity (in fact, I'd assume this would be discouraged by most journal policies, and there are many traditional research projects where identifying the authors after some investigation is possible). Double-blind review is a process which is sustained and secured by good-faith participants (both the authors and the reviewers, too). Even if the authors can be guessed with some probability just from the references list, it does not mean that eliminating all elements of doubt serves a good purpose. I, for that matter, would rather avoid checking SSRN/Academia/wiki for the authors' names, to protect the rules of the game, and I would report that i may know the authors if I had known about their project from before hand. best, dj On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Chitu Okoli <Chitu.Okoli(a)concordia.ca>wrote;wrote: -- __________________________ dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

Most of my reviewing for conference and journals was double blind, although the effectiveness of it was always a bit questionable, as in many cases you can, as a reviewer, identify the author from the style and argument. This tends to get worse in specialised areas, where the pool of researchers is necessarily small. Adam On 7 November 2012 06:16, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com> wrote:

agree, ... so it is up to you as a reviewer what you do with your "blindness" :-) doesn't this point in the direction of - plus - is + ? I mean: why not do open peer reviewing? Claudia On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:43:39 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote thanks & cheers, Claudia koltzenburg(a)w4w.net

well, any attempts at pressures or bribes could easily be made known, couldn't they? On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:56:35 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote thanks & cheers, Claudia koltzenburg(a)w4w.net

Manuel asks: let us look at this from another angle, maybe: As reviewers in open reviewing we get a chance of becoming more aware of our own inclinations in the face of public visibility vis-a-vis objectivity, well-reflected arguments and more transparency in general. Q: Why should authors of research have to bow to any authority that is hiding its identity and tendencies? actually, so far I have heard no convincing arguments why in the age of open Wikis any reviewer's identity should stay behind closed doors. Maybe you have another argument to convince me? Claudia On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:29:25 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote > I don't agree. I a hard argument can be considered by some people as a > preasure, while other could not. > > > 2012/11/8 <koltzenburg(a)w4w.net> > > > well, any attempts at pressures or bribes could easily be made known, > > couldn't they? > > > > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:56:35 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote > > > I don't thnk opening peer reviewing would be a good idea. Reviewer must > > > keep unknown, or she could suffer preasures (even bribes) from authors. > > In > > > my opinion only the editor must communicate with the reviewers > > > > > > 2012/11/8 <koltzenburg(a)w4w.net> > > > > > > > agree, > > > > ... so it is up to you as a reviewer what you do with your "blindness" > > :-) > > > > > > > > doesn't this point in the direction of - plus - is + ? > > > > I mean: why not do open peer reviewing? > > > > > > > > Claudia > > > > > > > > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:43:39 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote > > > > > Even more, you can easily identify the authors because usually they > > > > include > > > > > references to their previous publications to build the new > > hypothesis ... > > > > > > > > > > 2012/11/8 Adam Jenkins <adam.jenkins(a)gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > Most of my reviewing for conference and journals was double blind, > > > > > > although the effectiveness of it was always a bit questionable, as > > in > > > > many > > > > > > cases you can, as a reviewer, identify the author from the style > > and > > > > > > argument. This tends to get worse in specialised areas, where the > > pool > > > > of > > > > > > researchers is necessarily small. > > > > > > > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7 November 2012 06:16, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> I cannot speak for other disciplines but double-blind is not > > standard > > > > > >> in Computer Science. **** > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ** ** > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Kerry**** > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ** ** > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ** ** > > > > > >> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > > >> Wiki-research-l mailing list > > > > > >> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > > > > > Wiki-research-l(a)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/ Chile, 1 > > > > > 11002 - Cadiz (Spain) > > > > > University of Cadiz > > > > > http://neptuno.uca.es/~mpalomo > > > > > 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 del mismo le pido disculpas, y le > > pido que > > > > > elimine este correo, evitando cualquier divulgación, copia o > > distribución > > > > > de su contenido, así como desarrollar o ejecutar cualquier acción > > basada > > > > en > > > > > el mismo. > > > > > -- > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks & cheers, > > > > Claudia > > > > koltzenburg(a)w4w.net > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > > > Wiki-research-l(a)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/ Chile, 1 > > > 11002 - Cadiz (Spain) > > > University of Cadiz > > > http://neptuno.uca.es/~mpalomo > > > 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 del mismo le pido disculpas, y le pido que > > > elimine este correo, evitando cualquier divulgación, copia o distribución > > > de su contenido, así como desarrollar o ejecutar cualquier acción basada > > en > > > el mismo. > > > -- > > > 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. > > > > > > thanks & cheers, > > Claudia > > koltzenburg(a)w4w.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > Wiki-research-l(a)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/ Chile, 1 > 11002 - Cadiz (Spain) > University of Cadiz > http://neptuno.uca.es/~mpalomo > 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 del mismo le pido disculpas, y le pido que > elimine este correo, evitando cualquier divulgación, copia o distribución > de su contenido, así como desarrollar o ejecutar cualquier acción basada en > el mismo. > -- > 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. thanks & cheers, Claudia koltzenburg(a)w4w.net

no. Also, academic world may be quite small in some disciplines. If a reviewer knows that s/he may be evaluated by the author some time in the future (be it in a journal review, or possibly also in career promotion reviews, too) s/he will be definitely motivated not to report any major flaws, especially if the reviewed author is a big shot. Single blind review is a must. In my view, the advantages of double blind review are also important, even if practically the actual anonymity may not always be preserved. In double blind review the bottom line is that it sometimes may and up as a single blind review, but in many cases it does not and then it is more fair. best, dj On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:08 AM, <koltzenburg(a)w4w.net> wrote: -- __________________________ dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

hi, On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:17 AM, <koltzenburg(a)w4w.net> wrote: well, not only officially, but also practically. It is an important ethical responsibility of the managing editor to ensure anonymity of the reviewers, so that they can be honest. Yes, that is my experience. In fact, I have never seen the editor revealing the reviewer's identity. I have heard of one such instance, when the author discovered the reviewer's identity simply because of the high praises the reviewer was making for his work, and because of pushing the reviewer's works as suggested needed literature, but the only reaction from the editor was matter-of-factly allowing not to incorporate these suggestions from the review and excluding the reviewer from further process. "a new research journal about Wikis and about research done by using Wikis" that's true and experimenting with the format is a good idea! I think, for example, that publishing reviews and responses to them, and allowing commenting on them is a good idea. I'm quite convinced though that the anonymity of reviewers helps. Of course, it can be probably be also played with and tested. best, dj

the question may also be "how to set up a journal relevant for research specific for wiki-communities, that stands a chance of becoming the leading journal (ranked, listed, prestigious, etc.) in some related fields" and then questions on which traditional academic practices of a journal are necessary, and which are optional, obviously is both important, and of interest for this list. Just saying. dj

thanks, Joe, for opening a new wiki page for the peer review model debate from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas/Review_model Claudia koltzenburg(a)w4w.net