Hej, this is great.  I think you should consider the following combined model: <div><br></div><div>* Organize [papers] and [reviews] on a wiki.  Aim for open collaboration and discussion among researchers in the draft phase.</div>
<div>[papers] := drafts, data, analysis, reflists; casual peer review</div><div>[reviews] := comments, questions, ideas, connections</div><div><br></div><div>* Publish a less formal monthly update, perhaps in tandem with the WMF Research Newsletter</div>
<div><br></div><div>* Organize a selection process every 4-6 months : </div><div># an editorial team chooses the best new work, asks the authors for a snapshot to send to formal peer review.   </div><div># organize more formal blind peer review [FPR], with reviewers who don&#39;t take part in the casual reviews above.</div>
<div># make an editorial decision of how much of the backstory (data, commentary, interlinking &amp; cross-refs) to include in the snapshot.</div><div><br></div><div>* Collate the accepted output of this FPR into a paginated snapshot with a little editorial love: an introduction, cover matter, a description of the journal and submission process [for anyone who finds a printout or epub of just that snapshot].  These are the formal issues circulated to libraries, invited to journal parties, &amp;c.  Each article should link to its history page [and in the future, both its article history and its dataset history].</div>
<div><br></div><div>I&#39;m pretty sure that libraries at Harvard and MIT would pick up a subscription.  And we could start soliciting submissions from colleagues who do great work and don&#39;t mind (or love the idea of) having a possibly seminal paper published in this sort of new-style journal.<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>SJ</div><div><br></div><div>PS - a few nice features of a successful journal, in my opinion:</div><div>1) authors will start to decide for themselves how to credit a crowd of dozens of people who contributed to a final paper, @ varying levels of detail</div>
<div>2) the ratio of (bibliography + footnotes) / (body) will be significantly higher than in other journals </div><div>3) the density of interlinks and cross-references will be high</div><div>4) in the living / online version of the journal, articles will be published with transclusions from other research </div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Piotr Konieczny <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:piokon@post.pl" target="_blank">piokon@post.pl</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

  
    
  
  <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div>I like the draft design. Here&#39;s an idea
      on how to do tackle the double blind peer review, wiki way:<br>
      <br>
      1) anonymous submissions: let&#39;s have a public account for
      submissions (username and password either listed on the journal
      page, or given out by editor through email). This being meta or
      wikiversity, vandalism shouldn&#39;t be an issue. Interested authors
      can contact editor(s) by email, providing them with real name, and
      submit the anonymous paper through the submission account.<br>
      2) anonymous reviews: interested reviewers would use a similar
      anonymous reviewer account to  make comments, signing as Reviewer
      1, Reviewer 2, etc. Editor(s) would of course now their identities
      (through it is not as necessary as in the case of the author).<br>
      <br>
      Things to consider:<br>
      a) should we accept anonymous reviewers, as in - even the
      editor(s) don&#39;t know their identity? This would be an issue if the
      reviewer username/password are made public.<br>
      b) should be accept non-anonymous reviews, i.e. what to do if a
      regular wikieditor comments using their normal account? I think we
      should allow this, to encourage people to make small comment,
      without committing themselves fully to a review, with the
      understanding that the non-anonymous reviews are not counted as
      &quot;official&quot; reviews, for the purpose of double-blind peer review /
      indices assessment.<div class="im"><br>
      <pre cols="72">--
Piotr Konieczny

&quot;To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one&#39;s laurels, is defeat.&quot; --Józef Pilsudski</pre></div><div><div class="h5">
      On 11/2/2012 8:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:<br>
    </div></div></div><div><div class="h5">
    <blockquote type="cite"><br>
      <div>
        <div>I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea
          of what the journal could be : <a href="http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal" target="_blank">http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal</a></div>

        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises
          all the working and contextual texts that are not visible in
          most academic journals.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>PCL</div>
        <br>
        <blockquote type="cite">As far as my experience goes, the
          required group of editors would be an editor-in-chief, an
          executive committee and a scientific committee, mostly
          responsible for the peer reviews. Since I would like to
          participate, this reminds me what criteria would be adopt for
          recruiting these, and how this decision will be taken. I also
          assume that one or more universities (or an academic
          institution, for that matter) would have to provide support -
          as of, &quot;published by...&quot;.
          <div> <br>
          </div>
          <div>Of course, this is the traditional way... Some things can
            be changed, but others need to be retained in order for the
            journal to receive academic recognition.</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>Juliana.<br>
            <div><br>
              <br>
              <div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM,
                Pierre-Carl Langlais <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:langlais.qobuz@gmail.com" target="_blank">langlais.qobuz@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span>
                wrote:<br>
                <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br>
                  One idea would be to appoint one or several volunteer
                  editor(s). They could ensure all the formal and
                  administrative aspects of the journal: receiving and
                  anonymizing the propositions, publishing them on the
                  wiki, editing the final Wiki and PDF versions, keep in
                  touch with ISI and other evaluation system and so on…<br>
                  <br>
                  @emirjp : well you can already count me in :)<br>
                  <br>
                  <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
                    <div>
                      <div> 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.<br>
                        <br>
                        Good for you, but it is somewhat irrelevant. I&#39;d
                        speculate that possibly even most of the
                        academic journals&#39; 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.<br>
                        <br>
                        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&#39;t you cite that papers?<br>
                        <br>
                        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.<br>
                        <br>
                        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.<br>
                        <br>
                        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 &quot;all we need is wiki&quot;.<br>
                        <br>
                        cheers,<br>
                        <br>
                        dj<br>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                    <div> _______________________________________________<br>
                      Wiki-research-l mailing list<br>
                      <a href="mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org" target="_blank">Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>
                      <a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l</a><br>
                    </div>
                  </blockquote>
                  <div>
                    <div> <br>
                      <br>
                      _______________________________________________<br>
                      Wiki-research-l mailing list<br>
                      <a href="mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org" target="_blank">Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>
                      <a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l</a><br>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
              </div>
              <br>
              <br clear="all">
              <div><br>
              </div>
              -- <br>
              <a href="http://www.domusaurea.org" target="_blank">www.domusaurea.org</a><br>
            </div>
          </div>
          _______________________________________________<br>
          Wiki-research-l mailing list<br>
          <a href="mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org" target="_blank">Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>
          <a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l</a><br>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
      <br>
      <br>
      <fieldset></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre>_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
<a href="mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org" target="_blank">Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </div></div></div>

<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Wiki-research-l mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org">Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266<br><br>
</div>