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-les...
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 :
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Ed H. Chi chi@acm.org wrote:
There has been a lot of talk about how to start a journal. The real issue in starting a journal is not the editorial board, or the way it is published, or whether it will gather the citation impact. The real issue is READERSHIP.
I like this observation. A few natural follow up questions to people here would be:
(1) Where do you currently read about wiki research? (2) Where do you currently publish about wiki research? (3) What's missing?
For me:
(1) I get a surprising amount of leads from conversations that happen on this list, and I don't pay all that much attention to where I end up grabbing the papers from in the end.
(2) I've published at WikiSym, and in (for instance) Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science, or other subject-specific conferences/workshops. One of these papers was picked up and republished by Digital Education Review. I also contributed to a paper that was published at Alt.CHI.
(3) For me, what seems most "missing" is a place to talk about the future of research in a *productive* (not necessarily "scholarly") way. For some thoughts gleaned from this list, see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas#Rethinking_the_future_of_... -- but where to continue things like this? Not sure.
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l