On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl>wrote;wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Samuel Klein <sj(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
I've been thinking recently that we should
start this journal. There
isn't an obvious candidate, despite some of the
amazing research that's
been done, and the extreme
transparency that allows much deeper work to be
done on wiki communities
in the future.
I'll gladly help and support the idea. I think that just as Mathieu
pointed out, The Journal of Peer Production is a good candidate, since
it is already out there and running (even if low on the radar).
Great. Starting with a dedicated issue of JOPP seems like a good thing.
The guest editors of that issue will get useful experience, and we can
test the depth of interest among submitters and reviewers, for a specific
scope of research efforts.
One key factor in getting ISI is a community to drive
the journal
emijrp writes:
The idea of creating a journal just for wikis is
highly seductive for
me.The "pillars" might be:
* peer-reviewed, but publish a list of rejected papers and the reviewers
comments
* open-access (CC-BY-SA)
* ask always for the datasets and offer them to download, the same for
the
developed software used in the > research
* encourage authors to publish early, publish often
(as in free software)
Yes. All of this is important (and most could be tried out in working on a
guest issue of an existing journal)
Encouragement to publish early and often requires some new form of
publication that supports iteration and early drafts in the pubs process --
not via a separate preprint site.
* supported by donations
This can include donations from universities and institutions whose staff
are submitting to the journal. I suspect a young, inexpensive journal
that isn't tied to a tradition of expensie overhead could be supported by a
dozen universities that have relevant departments (like CCI and MIT,
various complexity institutes, and centers for collaborative study or
internet & society).
And... we can open a wiki where those who want can
write papers in a
collaborative and public way. You can > start a new paper with
colleagues
or ask for volunteers authors interested in joining to your idea. When
authors think that paper is finished and stable, they
submit it to the
journal and it is peer-reviewed again and > published or
discarded and
returned to the wiki for improvements.
That sounds like a fine intermediary, while more elaborate tech is being
discussed. It is important to have crisply defined and uniformly
implemented peer review, not soft "after publication" peer review -- at
least for the papers that are published with the highest stamp of peer
approval. It would be good to also have lower stamps of approval - and
archived permalinkable copies of their work - for those who simply publish
all of their work and data.
Perhaps we may join efforts with the Wikimedia
Research Newsletter? And
start a page in meta:? ; )
That would be great if WRN is interested :-) Again, joining forces to dit
a one-time issue of an existing journal is a good way to see what it would
be like.
SJ