I'll first say that I've never been on an editorial board, so my
comments might be somewhat limited. Like my students, I learn best
when I'm shown where I'm mistaken, so I would like to learn from you
all!
On one hand, I agree that readership is very important. On the other
hand, I don't believe it is the most critical issue. I think the
most critical matter in starting a new journal is to *attract
high-quality submissions* --that is, to get researchers who do high
quality work to submit some of their best research to the journal.
If that can be achieved, then a high readership is virtually
guaranteed. Other benefits should readily follow: high citations,
ISI listing, etc.
I've been reading all the comments on this thread carefully, and I
see two distinct issues that are being mixed into one: (1) a new
journal dedicated to research about wikis, and maybe also about
related phenomena; and (2) a journal with new kind of wiki-based
peer review system. I think it is best to rather keep these issues
distinct.
First, why do we need a new journal dedicated to wiki research? I
would think we don't want a new journal that publishes mainly
low-quality research; we want a new journal that publishes
high-quality research. So, is there such a need for wiki
researchers? That is, do publishers of high-quality wiki-related
research have a hard time finding high-quality journal outlets to
publish their research? Based on the excellent wiki-based research
published in a wide variety of journals, I don't think such a
problem exists. So, why would a researcher with high-quality wiki
research risk publishing their hard work in a new, unproven, even
experimental journal? In my case, I have tenure, so I might consider
taking such risks. However, many of my colleagues are working
towards establishing their research careers, and I would definitely
advise them against publishing their best work in anything but
proven journals.
My point is not that a new journal cannot attract high-quality
research; rather, my suspicion is that it can do so only if it is
filling a void for high-quality research on topics that are
difficult to publish in existing high-quality outlets. I'm yet to
see this issue addressed in this discussion.
Second, concerning a new kind of wikified peer review: I think that
such an experiment is very much worthwhile and should be attempted.
However, from a scientific perspective, an experiment to test
phenomenon W (wikified peer review) should control for all other
possibly confounding phenomena to make sure that the end result is
an accurate reflection of a proper test of phenomenon W. In this
case, the risks of a new journal with a poorly justified research
focus (as I argued above) is a major confound that blurs the results
of testing for W. In short, I think the best way to test wikified
peer review is to work with an existing journal that has already
established its viability and ability to attract high-quality
submissions.
The Journal of Peer Production has been mentioned as a target
candidate, and their description of their peer review philosophy
indicates that they might be quite open to such an experiment, if
not with all papers, at least with some:
http://peerproduction.net/peer-review/process/. However, it is still
a new journal, and doesn't seem to have yet reached the state of
releasing regular issues, so its newness might yet be a confound for
testing W.
~ Chitu
actually, with our community, it is not. What other
journals die for, we have sort of provided. This is why a Wiki
journal may have a better chance than others, but only if it is
prepared with the academic career paths and full proper code of
conduct nuances considered (double-blind scholarly peer review,
proper editorial board, PDFs with page numbers, etc.).
dj