On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Wiki-research,
.... I'm also conscious that there are quite limited avenues for academics to be able to professionally-justify the time they might devote to improving Wikipedia in their relevant subject area. ...
Note that here in Australia, as of this year, academics will have difficulty justifying contributions to journals which are not on the list of journals approved by the Australian Research Council.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excellence_in_Research_for_Australia
The list of approved journals for next year includes 19060 journals. The journal list has been the result of consultation with professional and academic bodies in each field.
As each journal will be ranked, researchers are rewarded for publishing in journals of a higher quality.
I honestly don't think that real scholars need another venue to publish there work, and expect that governments around the world are pushing the research industry to quality over quantity, which will result in a reduction in the number of viable journals.
I have recorded the list of A* journals here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/ERA_HCA... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/ERA_PCE...
It would be interesting to see how many of the approved journals are open access or creative commons.
To that end, I'm beginning to float the idea of a peer-reviewed journal for academics to write Wikipedia articles. ...
IIRC, encyclopedia and dictionary entries were once accepted in the Australian "Higher Education Research Data Collection", however for many years the HERDC has only accepted four types academic outputs. I can write up the entire history of this if anyone is interested in the history of research management in Australia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HERDC
-- John Vandenberg