On Sep 25, 2009, at 10:56, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
On 09/25/09 06:59, Liam Wyatt wrote:
But I think that this issue (that of "but would academics * actually* write for this Journal?") is the one piece of the proposal that is the genuine and acceptable risk. [...] The risk of the Journal failing because of a lack of interest from academics is indeed a possibility. But, I think that is the thing that needs to be tested. Academics have never yet been given academically legitimate reasons to participate and I would like to give them the option. If the Journal were to fail for lack of interest from Academics, then that is a very important lesson and worth the effort of learning it.
Sorry to be a party pooper. But, I think that lack of interest from academics is not a risk, it's a near-certainty. There are already plenty of journals and conferences out there, and I can tell you now that we would not be submitting anything.
Now, if the goal is to bring the whole of Wikipedia-related research into one place -- which is a good one, though I would extend it to all wiki research since Wikipedia is just one example and (IMO) over- studied to the exclusion of other systems -- then a (preferably online) publication which put out summaries/reviews of wiki research wherever it's published (think the page on Wikipedia, but better) would be highly desirable. Math does this sort of thing to great success, I think.
I've considered this for research on free and open source software too. One of the troubles of forming one's "own journal" is that you are essentially ghettoizing the research, ensuring that it will not be read as widely in one's "home/reference discipline".
Reid's suggestion is a good one, if I understand it right (and possibly even if I've gotten it wrong ;), I'd imagine it as a frequent 'best papers' award, a meta-journal, which on a regular basis reviews the peer-reviewed literature and provides pointers and commentary about the Wikipedia-related articles there. Obviously, for copyright reasons, one cannot re-publish the articles, but there's no reason that an editorial board couldn't review submitted, already published papers, and build consensus on the best and most important Wikipedia related papers, perhaps on a bi-monthly basis. Perhaps authors nominating their papers could provide 2 page "contextualization" pieces explaining to the interdisciplinary community something about the venue and why they published there...
Is the Math reference you make something vaguely similar to that?
--J