I think two things can be done in parallel.
1. Allow folks to create descriptions of research in progress on the wiki,
which can be progressively updated. This enables others to make suggestions
on methodology, give feedback on drafts of papers and so forth. Open and
collaborative and experimental in the meta-sense. Clearly many on this list
desire to experiment with new ways of working.
2. Have a more formal traditional review process, so that the journal mets
the criteria for "reputable" that is important for people's CVs, tenure,
promotion and so forth. As much as many of this don't like this way of
working, it is the reality for earning your salary.
I don't think it should be a requirement that you engage in 1) before
engaging in 2). But I would like to believe that people who engage in 1) are
far more likely to be have an easy acceptance through 2) because their work
has already had the benefit of "many eyes".
Where I think this plan is likely to come unstuck relates to the question of
authorship of the final papers for the purposes of 2). If someone feels that
they have made a lot of contribution to the research through 1) they might
feel entitled to author rights. In this regard, it is worth reminding
ourselves of the Vancouver protocol, which many journals either mandate or
will resort to in the event of authorship disputes:
http://www.authorder.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28&Ite
mid=47 (a short version)
http://www.icmje.org/urm_full.pdf (a long version see pages 2-3)
An open way of working will clearly enable people to contribute to the
research and the writing in ways that might make them eligible to be an
author under the Vancouver protocol. The argument will tend to hinge on the
question of whether the contributions were "substantial".
But I don't think this concern is a reason not to enable more collaborative
ways of researching. It's just something that everyone should be aware of
up-front, that opening your research up to input from others might mean you
have to add some co-authors to your work if they make "substantial"
contributions.
Kerry
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l