Wonderful initiative! Much luck with it. Shani. On 1 Jul 2016 01:44, "Robert E. Cummings" <cummings(a)olemiss.edu> wrote:

Great news, Bob. I will motivate our group of researchers in Brazil to participate. Wait for us! Marcio Gonçalves www.ciencianasnuvens.com.br Em 30/06/2016 20:44, Robert E. Cummings escreveu: Links: ------ [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l [2] http://wikistudies.org/

True, it's probably not in the interests of the traditional publishers, but equally many of the OA journals are very new and may or may not have a sustainable business model. There's not the same level of track record to show whether they attract good papers or are a journal of last resort. The fact that the author pays in some OA journals smells a little of "vanity publishing" (if the journal wants the money, won't they say Yes to lots of papers regardless of merit). OA journals that draw heavily on volunteers rather than paid staff may find the volunteers enthusiasm wanes over time and the journal collapses. Senior academics whose research is published in traditional journals, where they may serve on those editorial boards of those journals, and so on, are often dubious about any new journal (OA or not), and those senior academics are the same people who sit on the committees that decide the "quality" of a journal and sit on selection/promotion committees. So there is a lot of "inertia" in the system around anything new. This creates in turn its own problem, if the older traditional journals are more valued for academic purposes, then they will inevitably attract the better papers, leaving the papers going to the new journals to be more mediocre, which then in turn may give the new journal a mediocre reputation. I note that all of the above applies to universities too. New universities struggle to attract the best students who tend to be attracted to the proven reputations of older universities. Older universities have bequests and endowments from their early students that newer universities don’t possess. Incumbency is a powerful factor in both universities and in publishing. But with Wikipedia, we saw incumbency overturned, because, despite the fear of low quality, Wikipedia's availability and price (free!) overtook the old model of encyclopedia. This is what we have to hope for with OA journals. That their availability and price (free!) will make it easier for other researchers to read and then CITE them, leading to a rise in their citation index, which is an important aspect of reputation. But, yes, there's a lag before that happens, and so in that lag time, you need lots researchers committed to OA to publish there or researchers compelled to publish there (thinking of WMF grant conditions). Kerry -----Original Message----- From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Piotr Konieczny Sent: Monday, 4 July 2016 12:41 PM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] A New Journal: Wiki Studies Second everything, with a note that sadly, until it is in SSCI, I doubt I will be able to contribute much :( Frankly, I wonder if the near impossibility for most new and OA journals to get into the high-end indices isn't some sort of conspiracy on the traditional parasites, I mean, publishers part... :> -- Piotr Konieczny, PhD http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEAAAAJ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus On 7/1/2016 14:56, Andrew Krizhanovsky wrote: _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l