I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and

On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote: What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity seem rather appropriate? *Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less. *Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to start. WMF grants procedure is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/** wiki/Grants:Index <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index> Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a WMF wiki, and run by volunteers. -- Piotr Konieczny "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski ______________________________**_________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.**wikimedia.org<Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wiki-**research-l<https:/…

This is not a list for researching collaboration support software, this is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a focus on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and I am surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe itself. Perhaps it makes sense for a conference, although I am not convinced. For journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal limited to wiki studies. There is already a number of journals dedicated to collaboration support software (International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning - http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of e-Collaboration - http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/…; The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices - http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some more broad journals on collaboration (International Journal of Collaborative Practices - http://collaborative-practices.com/ ; Journal of collaboration - http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/). Starting an n-th journal on that topic seems rather pointless to me, the only redeeming grace would be that ours would be open source (most others are closed). Much better, IMHO, to start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more narrow field, yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the broader field of collaboration support software, which already has several related journals. -- Piotr Konieczny "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote: nothing less. I don't think that this is a good strategy. Wiki's are just one type of collaboration support software. What if the artifact of collaboration is not hypertext? Most people would not consider a open source code repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the contribution model goes, it is nearly the same. Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of the problem of branding the conference around a single open collaboration technology and has started a transition from "WikiSym" to "OpenSym". On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny &lt;piokon(a)post.pl&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing listWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://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

unfortunately, if you want to make impact in the Academia, the approach of "all we need is a wiki" will not work. Even the most avid enthusiasts of open publication models and of wiki usually do have career-paths, tenure reviews, etc. As long as reality is as it is now, we'd have to have a "proper" journal, with PDFs, page numbers, etc., and an aim to enter the journal rankings, because otherwise the top researchers will have a strong incentive not to even consider our journal in their publications. best, dj On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM, emijrp &lt;emijrp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- __________________________ dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that situation. This story was the same in 2001, when people thought that only an expert-written encyclopedia with very rigid methods would be successful.

Entering the journal rankings is based on citation numbers, right? I did this suggest thinking on the valuable researchers in this list, which may be interested in publishing/peer-reviewing stuff in the journal. Won't you cite that papers?

Great Dariusz : ) I will launch the Journal of Wikis project and I will learn a lot. It won't be just a journal in the old sense, it will be something new. I remember when people on this mailing list talked during years about a way to compile wiki literature, but no advances were done. Until I decided to create WikiPapers. I don't care about making mistakes, I care about discussing these topics in a loop for years. 2012/11/2 Dariusz Jemielniak &lt;darekj(a)alk.edu.pl&gt; -- Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine

Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that situation. This story was the same in 2001, when people thought that only an expert-written encyclopedia with very rigid methods would be successful. Good for you, but it is somewhat irrelevant. I'd speculate that possibly even most of the academic journals' production is done by people who do have to care where they publish. Per comparing the situation to Wikipedia in 2001, I want to firmly state that oranges are much better than apples. Entering the journal rankings is based on citation numbers, right? I did this suggest thinking on the valuable researchers in this list, which may be interested in publishing/peer-reviewing stuff in the journal. Won't you cite that papers? The JCR journal ranking, which so far is the only one that matters (in spite of its major flaws, methodological issues, etc.), bases on the number of citations counted ONLY in other journals already listed in it. But there are also threshold requirements to be even considered for JCR ranking, and obviously a double-blind peer reviews is a must. For practical reasons of indexing, paper redistribution, etc., PDFs and numbered pages also make life of a person who wants to cite a paper much easier. While I support your idea in principle, I think that it requires much more effort, planning, and understanding of how academic publishing and career paths actually work, than in the concept of "all we need is wiki". cheers, dj _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

As far as my experience goes, the required group of editors would be an editor-in-chief, an executive committee and a scientific committee, mostly responsible for the peer reviews. Since I would like to participate, this reminds me what criteria would be adopt for recruiting these, and how this decision will be taken. I also assume that one or more universities (or an academic institution, for that matter) would have to provide support - as of, "published by...". Of course, this is the traditional way... Some things can be changed, but others need to be retained in order for the journal to receive academic recognition. Juliana. On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais &lt;langlais.qobuz(a)gmail.com One idea would be to appoint one or several volunteer editor(s). They could ensure all the formal and administrative aspects of the journal: receiving and anonymizing the propositions, publishing them on the wiki, editing the final Wiki and PDF versions, keep in touch with ISI and other evaluation system and so on… @emirjp : well you can already count me in :) Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that situation. This story was the same in 2001, when people thought that only an expert-written encyclopedia with very rigid methods would be successful. Good for you, but it is somewhat irrelevant. I'd speculate that possibly even most of the academic journals' production is done by people who do have to care where they publish. Per comparing the situation to Wikipedia in 2001, I want to firmly state that oranges are much better than apples. Entering the journal rankings is based on citation numbers, right? I did this suggest thinking on the valuable researchers in this list, which may be interested in publishing/peer-reviewing stuff in the journal. Won't you cite that papers? The JCR journal ranking, which so far is the only one that matters (in spite of its major flaws, methodological issues, etc.), bases on the number of citations counted ONLY in other journals already listed in it. But there are also threshold requirements to be even considered for JCR ranking, and obviously a double-blind peer reviews is a must. For practical reasons of indexing, paper redistribution, etc., PDFs and numbered pages also make life of a person who wants to cite a paper much easier. While I support your idea in principle, I think that it requires much more effort, planning, and understanding of how academic publishing and career paths actually work, than in the concept of "all we need is wiki". cheers, dj _______________________________________________ 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 -- www.domusaurea.org _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

I'd like to provide some data for comparison in terms of requirements for traditional academic journals. The Brazilian committee for my area that rates journals and acts as standard for cvs, tenures etc, lists [1]: - editor-in-chief - editorial committee - consultive committee - ISSN - editorial policies - submission rules - peer-review - at least 14 annual articles - institutional affiliation for authors - institutional affiliation for committee members - abstracts and keywords in at least two languages - dates for articles receives and for articles published - must have at least one year of existence - regular periodicity My area happens to be History, and I know maybe some of these requirements are not exactly fitting for the intended goal here. But, like I said, I'm just listing some elements you might consider including. Juliana. [1] http://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/avaliacao/Qualis_-_Historia… On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais &lt;langlais.qobuz(a)gmail.com I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea of what the journal could be : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wi… It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises all the working and contextual texts that are not visible in most academic journals. PCL > As far as my experience goes, the required group of editors would > be an editor-in-chief, an executive committee and a scientific > committee, mostly responsible for the peer reviews. Since I would > like to participate, this reminds me what criteria would be adopt > for recruiting these, and how this decision will be taken. I also > assume that one or more universities (or an academic institution, > for that matter) would have to provide support - as of, "published > by...". > > Of course, this is the traditional way... Some things can be > changed, but others need to be retained in order for the journal to > receive academic recognition. > > Juliana. > > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais &lt;langlais.qobuz(a)gmail.com >> > One idea would be to appoint one or several volunteer editor(s). > They could ensure all the formal and administrative aspects of the > journal: receiving and anonymizing the propositions, publishing > them on the wiki, editing the final Wiki and PDF versions, keep in > touch with ISI and other evaluation system and so on… > > @emirjp : well you can already count me in :) > > Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that > situation. This story was the same in 2001, when people thought > that only an expert-written encyclopedia with very rigid methods > would be successful. > > Good for you, but it is somewhat irrelevant. I'd speculate that > possibly even most of the academic journals' production is done by > people who do have to care where they publish. Per comparing the > situation to Wikipedia in 2001, I want to firmly state that oranges > are much better than apples. > > Entering the journal rankings is based on citation numbers, right? > I did this suggest thinking on the valuable researchers in this > list, which may be interested in publishing/peer-reviewing stuff in > the journal. Won't you cite that papers? > > The JCR journal ranking, which so far is the only one that matters > (in spite of its major flaws, methodological issues, etc.), bases > on the number of citations counted ONLY in other journals already > listed in it. > > But there are also threshold requirements to be even considered for > JCR ranking, and obviously a double-blind peer reviews is a must. > For practical reasons of indexing, paper redistribution, etc., PDFs > and numbered pages also make life of a person who wants to cite a > paper much easier. > > While I support your idea in principle, I think that it requires > much more effort, planning, and understanding of how academic > publishing and career paths actually work, than in the concept of > "all we need is wiki". > > cheers, > > dj > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > -- > www.domusaurea.org > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- www.domusaurea.org _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Thanks a lot for these interesting information. I have given a look at the French Institute of scientific evaluation (AERES). Their requirements are very simlar : (1) Open editorial comittee, with international range and a main focus of research. (2) Efficient selection process (which imply a significant rate of rejection) (3) International openness. (4) Institutionnal support (from scientific organization…) (5) Good quality management (timeliness…) (6) Implication in disciplinary and community debates. It's certainly far from the ambitious projects of emirjp, but I have expanded a bit my shaping device : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wi… Concerning the wiki vs. wider thematic, I think the matter ought to be considered on a strategic level. The wiki is undeniably a good market niche, as no specific journal covers the topics so far. Yet, as an experiment in open access, the journal may have some legitimacy to tackle collaborative and open knowledge wider thema. Therefore, I would rather support a flexible position : the main focus remains wiki-research even though the scientific comittee can, from time to time, go beyond this definite range. PCL I'd like to provide some data for comparison in terms of requirements for traditional academic journals. The Brazilian committee for my area that rates journals and acts as standard for cvs, tenures etc, lists [1]: - editor-in-chief - editorial committee - consultive committee - ISSN - editorial policies - submission rules - peer-review - at least 14 annual articles - institutional affiliation for authors - institutional affiliation for committee members - abstracts and keywords in at least two languages - dates for articles receives and for articles published - must have at least one year of existence - regular periodicity My area happens to be History, and I know maybe some of these requirements are not exactly fitting for the intended goal here. But, like I said, I'm just listing some elements you might consider including. Juliana. [1] http://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/avaliacao/Qualis_-_Historia… On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais &lt;langlais.qobuz(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- www.domusaurea.org _______________________________________________ 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

I like the draft design. Here's an idea on how to do tackle the double blind peer review, wiki way: 1) anonymous submissions: let's have a public account for submissions (username and password either listed on the journal page, or given out by editor through email). This being meta or wikiversity, vandalism shouldn't be an issue. Interested authors can contact editor(s) by email, providing them with real name, and submit the anonymous paper through the submission account. 2) anonymous reviews: interested reviewers would use a similar anonymous reviewer account to make comments, signing as Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, etc. Editor(s) would of course now their identities (through it is not as necessary as in the case of the author). Things to consider: a) should we accept anonymous reviewers, as in - even the editor(s) don't know their identity? This would be an issue if the reviewer username/password are made public. b) should be accept non-anonymous reviews, i.e. what to do if a regular wikieditor comments using their normal account? I think we should allow this, to encourage people to make small comment, without committing themselves fully to a review, with the understanding that the non-anonymous reviews are not counted as "official" reviews, for the purpose of double-blind peer review / indices assessment. -- Piotr Konieczny "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski On 11/2/2012 8:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote: I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea of what the journal could be : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wi… It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises all the working and contextual texts that are not visible in most academic journals. PCL As far as my experience goes, the required group of editors would be an editor-in-chief, an executive committee and a scientific committee, mostly responsible for the peer reviews. Since I would like to participate, this reminds me what criteria would be adopt for recruiting these, and how this decision will be taken. I also assume that one or more universities (or an academic institution, for that matter) would have to provide support - as of, "published by...". Of course, this is the traditional way... Some things can be changed, but others need to be retained in order for the journal to receive academic recognition. Juliana. On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais < langlais.qobuz(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- www.domusaurea.org _______________________________________________ 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 listWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://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

unfortunately, if you want to make impact in the Academia, the approach of "all we need is a wiki" will not work. Even the most avid enthusiasts of open publication models and of wiki usually do have career-paths, tenure reviews, etc. As long as reality is as it is now, we'd have to have a "proper" journal, with PDFs, page numbers, etc., and an aim to enter the journal rankings, because otherwise the top researchers will have a strong incentive not to even consider our journal in their publications. best, dj On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM, emijrp &lt;emijrp(a)gmail.com <mailto:emijrp@gmail.com>> wrote: Yes, I think that it is important to focus in the wikis topic. It is so broad that hardly would need more than that, I neither understand the WikiSym move to OpenSym. But not only a new journal, we have an opportunity to create a more open publication model, using a... wiki for all the steps (writing, peer-reviewing and final publication). I see this project like a big experiment. All we need is a wiki, some volunteers to write papers and some volunteers to peer-review them. After a year of work, we can publish all the "approved" papers as the Journal of Wikis, Vol. 1, Issue 1. Volunteers? 2012/11/2 Piotr Konieczny &lt;piokon(a)post.pl <mailto:piokon@post.pl>> This is not a list for researching collaboration support software, this is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a focus on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and I am surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe itself. Perhaps it makes sense for a conference, although I am not convinced. For journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal limited to wiki studies. There is already a number of journals dedicated to collaboration support software (International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning - http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of e-Collaboration - http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/… ; The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices - http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some more broad journals on collaboration (International Journal of Collaborative Practices - http://collaborative-practices.com/ ; Journal of collaboration - http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/). Starting an n-th journal on that topic seems rather pointless to me, the only redeeming grace would be that ours would be open source (most others are closed). Much better, IMHO, to start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more narrow field, yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the broader field of collaboration support software, which already has several related journals. -- Piotr Konieczny "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote: _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- __________________________ dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarza;dzania kierownik katedry Zarza;dzania Mie;dzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koz'min'skiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Have you all considered whether the costs of bootstrapping up a set of editors and authors, playing the impact factor game, and articulating a mission that is broad enough to include computer scientists and historians warrant the benefits of having yet another outlet to publish wiki research? The bootstrapping problem is particularly severe for the reasons Dariusz outlined. I suspect "hijacking" existing journal infrastructures in your respective domains to have special issues on Wikis and Open Collaboration (the recent American Behavioral Scientist special issue comes to mind) is a far more practicable approach to developing the critical mass of interest in your respective fields in the near term. The longer-term goal should be to bend receptive open publication outlets (e.g., First Monday, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, EPJ Data Science, PLoS One, etc.) toward more wiki-like models. On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Piotr Konieczny &lt;piokon(a)post.pl&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

As for any candidates for institutional academic support, I could easily arrange for my university, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro State (UNIRIO - http://www.unirio.br), where I've been setting a wiki research Lab and we have a very good Library Studies Dept., where they can help us with the setting of the journal. Brazil has a wide experience in open-access journals (we don't have these paywalls at all. See, e.g., http://www.scielo.org).

I like the draft design. Here's an idea on how to do tackle the double blind peer review, wiki way:

Hej, this is great. I think you should consider the following combined model:

I wouldn't call it a "wiki journal", that gives a wrong impression,

--> How about WIkipedia articles?