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 <darekj@alk.edu.pl>
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