Dear colleagues,
Last week I attended the parisian Open Access week main event that was held at the Unesco. I evoked briefly the migntable project of a Wiki Research Journal that was discussed in september (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas ). It was received with a good deal of enthusiasm, both from scientists and from Unesco representatives.
So far, this concept seems very likely to materialize : only a bit of publicity could sufficed to attract several high-quality submissions. Three issues remain, nevertheless to be solved : *Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to. *Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access…) or communication topics (wiki-system and so on…) could deem appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers. *Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to start. As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure the technical bare necessities.
PCL
On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:
*Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.
What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity seem rather appropriate?
*Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access…) or communication topics (wiki-system and so on…) could deem appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.
*Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to start. As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure the technical bare necessities.
WMF grants procedure is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a WMF wiki, and run by volunteers.
-- Piotr Konieczny
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
Le 1 nov. 2012 à 17:14, Piotr Konieczny piokon@post.pl a écrit :
On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:
*Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.
What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity seem rather appropriate?
Well, the ideas collected on the Wiki Research Ideas page seemed to favour a specific structure, but, yes, you're right : it would be much easier to start on an existing wiki. I will perhaps try to draft some example of a wiki-journal portal by the next few days (we could actually get some inspiration from the signpost model).
*Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access…) or communication topics (wiki-system and so on…) could deem appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.
It might be a good way to start the whole business, as we are all involved in wiki studies. This initial scope could still be extended if the journal turn out to be a lasting project.
*Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to start. As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure the technical bare necessities.
WMF grants procedure is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a WMF wiki, and run by volunteers.
Agreed.
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and
nothing less.
I don't think that this is a good strategy. Wiki's are just one type of collaboration support software. What if the artifact of collaboration is not hypertext? Most people would not consider a open source code repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the contribution model goes, it is nearly the same.
Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of the problem of branding the conference around a single open collaboration technology and has started a transition from "WikiSym" to "OpenSym".
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny piokon@post.pl wrote:
On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:
*Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.
What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity seem rather appropriate?
*Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite
general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access…) or communication topics (wiki-system and so on…) could deem appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.
*Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to start.
As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure the technical bare necessities.
WMF grants procedure is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/** wiki/Grants:Index http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a WMF wiki, and run by volunteers.
-- Piotr Konieczny
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
______________________________**_________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.**wikimedia.orgWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wiki-**research-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
This is not a list for researching collaboration support software, this is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a focus on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and I am surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe itself. Perhaps it makes sense for a conference, although I am not convinced. For journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal limited to wiki studies. There is already a number of journals dedicated to collaboration support software (International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning - http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of e-Collaboration - http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/1... ; The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices - http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some more broad journals on collaboration (International Journal of Collaborative Practices - http://collaborative-practices.com/ ; Journal of collaboration - http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/). Starting an n-th journal on that topic seems rather pointless to me, the only redeeming grace would be that ours would be open source (most others are closed). Much better, IMHO, to start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more narrow field, yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the broader field of collaboration support software, which already has several related journals.
-- Piotr Konieczny
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and
nothing less.
I don't think that this is a good strategy. Wiki's are just one type of collaboration support software. What if the artifact of collaboration is not hypertext? Most people would not consider a open source code repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the contribution model goes, it is nearly the same.
Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of the problem of branding the conference around a single open collaboration technology and has started a transition from "WikiSym" to "OpenSym".
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl mailto:piokon@post.pl> wrote:
On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote: *Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to. What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity seem rather appropriate? *Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access…) or communication topics (wiki-system and so on…) could deem appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers. I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less. *Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to start. As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure the technical bare necessities. WMF grants procedure is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a WMF wiki, and run by volunteers. -- Piotr Konieczny "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Yes, I think that it is important to focus in the wikis topic. It is so broad that hardly would need more than that, I neither understand the WikiSym move to OpenSym.
But not only a new journal, we have an opportunity to create a more open publication model, using a... wiki for all the steps (writing, peer-reviewing and final publication).
I see this project like a big experiment. All we need is a wiki, some volunteers to write papers and some volunteers to peer-review them. After a year of work, we can publish all the "approved" papers as the Journal of Wikis, Vol. 1, Issue 1.
Volunteers?
2012/11/2 Piotr Konieczny piokon@post.pl
This is not a list for researching collaboration support software, this is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a focus on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and I am surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe itself. Perhaps it makes sense for a conference, although I am not convinced. For journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal limited to wiki studies. There is already a number of journals dedicated to collaboration support software (International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning - http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of e-Collaboration
http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/1...; The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices - http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some more broad journals on collaboration (International Journal of Collaborative Practices
- http://collaborative-practices.com/ ; Journal of collaboration -
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/). Starting an n-th journal on that topic seems rather pointless to me, the only redeeming grace would be that ours would be open source (most others are closed). Much better, IMHO, to start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more narrow field, yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the broader field of collaboration support software, which already has several related journals.
-- Piotr Konieczny
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and
nothing less.
I don't think that this is a good strategy. Wiki's are just one type of collaboration support software. What if the artifact of collaboration is not hypertext? Most people would not consider a open source code repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the contribution model goes, it is nearly the same.
Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of the problem of branding the conference around a single open collaboration technology and has started a transition from "WikiSym" to "OpenSym".
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny piokon@post.pl wrote:
On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:
*Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.
What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity seem rather appropriate?
*Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite
general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access…) or communication topics (wiki-system and so on…) could deem appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.
*Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to start.
As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure the technical bare necessities.
WMF grants procedure is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a WMF wiki, and run by volunteers.
-- Piotr Konieczny
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing listWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
unfortunately, if you want to make impact in the Academia, the approach of "all we need is a wiki" will not work. Even the most avid enthusiasts of open publication models and of wiki usually do have career-paths, tenure reviews, etc. As long as reality is as it is now, we'd have to have a "proper" journal, with PDFs, page numbers, etc., and an aim to enter the journal rankings, because otherwise the top researchers will have a strong incentive not to even consider our journal in their publications.
best,
dj
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I think that it is important to focus in the wikis topic. It is so broad that hardly would need more than that, I neither understand the WikiSym move to OpenSym.
But not only a new journal, we have an opportunity to create a more open publication model, using a... wiki for all the steps (writing, peer-reviewing and final publication).
I see this project like a big experiment. All we need is a wiki, some volunteers to write papers and some volunteers to peer-review them. After a year of work, we can publish all the "approved" papers as the Journal of Wikis, Vol. 1, Issue 1.
Volunteers?
2012/11/2 Piotr Konieczny piokon@post.pl
This is not a list for researching collaboration support software, this is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a focus on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and I am surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe itself. Perhaps it makes sense for a conference, although I am not convinced. For journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal limited to wiki studies. There is already a number of journals dedicated to collaboration support software (International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning - http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of e-Collaboration
http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/1...; The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices - http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some more broad journals on collaboration (International Journal of Collaborative Practices
- http://collaborative-practices.com/ ; Journal of collaboration -
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/). Starting an n-th journal on that topic seems rather pointless to me, the only redeeming grace would be that ours would be open source (most others are closed). Much better, IMHO, to start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more narrow field, yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the broader field of collaboration support software, which already has several related journals.
-- Piotr Konieczny
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and
nothing less.
I don't think that this is a good strategy. Wiki's are just one type of collaboration support software. What if the artifact of collaboration is not hypertext? Most people would not consider a open source code repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the contribution model goes, it is nearly the same.
Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of the problem of branding the conference around a single open collaboration technology and has started a transition from "WikiSym" to "OpenSym".
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny piokon@post.pl wrote:
On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:
*Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.
What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity seem rather appropriate?
*Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite
general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access...) or communication topics (wiki-system and so on...) could deem appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.
*Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to start.
As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure the technical bare necessities.
WMF grants procedure is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a WMF wiki, and run by volunteers.
-- Piotr Konieczny
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing listWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
+1
Let me add that the peer-reviewing system is a must, but not enough by itself for considering the magazine an addition to science. There is another important fact: who reviews the papers?
If a groups of enthusiastic but non-experienced, non-expert in research people review the submissions, what could be the result? A poor journal with little interest for academia ...
2012/11/2 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
unfortunately, if you want to make impact in the Academia, the approach of "all we need is a wiki" will not work. Even the most avid enthusiasts of open publication models and of wiki usually do have career-paths, tenure reviews, etc. As long as reality is as it is now, we'd have to have a "proper" journal, with PDFs, page numbers, etc., and an aim to enter the journal rankings, because otherwise the top researchers will have a strong incentive not to even consider our journal in their publications.
best,
dj
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I think that it is important to focus in the wikis topic. It is so broad that hardly would need more than that, I neither understand the WikiSym move to OpenSym.
But not only a new journal, we have an opportunity to create a more open publication model, using a... wiki for all the steps (writing, peer-reviewing and final publication).
I see this project like a big experiment. All we need is a wiki, some volunteers to write papers and some volunteers to peer-review them. After a year of work, we can publish all the "approved" papers as the Journal of Wikis, Vol. 1, Issue 1.
Volunteers?
2012/11/2 Piotr Konieczny piokon@post.pl
This is not a list for researching collaboration support software, this is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a focus on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and I am surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe itself. Perhaps it makes sense for a conference, although I am not convinced. For journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal limited to wiki studies. There is already a number of journals dedicated to collaboration support software (International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning - http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of e-Collaboration - http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/1...; The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices - http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some more broad journals on collaboration (International Journal of Collaborative Practices
- http://collaborative-practices.com/ ; Journal of collaboration -
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/). Starting an n-th journal on that topic seems rather pointless to me, the only redeeming grace would be that ours would be open source (most others are closed). Much better, IMHO, to start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more narrow field, yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the broader field of collaboration support software, which already has several related journals.
-- Piotr Konieczny
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and
nothing less.
I don't think that this is a good strategy. Wiki's are just one type of collaboration support software. What if the artifact of collaboration is not hypertext? Most people would not consider a open source code repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the contribution model goes, it is nearly the same.
Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of the problem of branding the conference around a single open collaboration technology and has started a transition from "WikiSym" to "OpenSym".
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny piokon@post.pl wrote:
On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:
*Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.
What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity seem rather appropriate?
*Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite
general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access…) or communication topics (wiki-system and so on…) could deem appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.
*Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to
start. As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure the technical bare necessities.
WMF grants procedure is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a WMF wiki, and run by volunteers.
-- Piotr Konieczny
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing listWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
2012/11/2 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
unfortunately, if you want to make impact in the Academia, the approach of "all we need is a wiki" will not work. Even the most avid enthusiasts of open publication models and of wiki usually do have career-paths, tenure reviews, etc.
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.
As long as reality is as it is now, we'd have to have a "proper" journal, with PDFs, page numbers, etc., and an aim to enter the journal rankings, because otherwise the top researchers will have a strong incentive not to even consider our journal in their publications.
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?
best,
dj
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I think that it is important to focus in the wikis topic. It is so broad that hardly would need more than that, I neither understand the WikiSym move to OpenSym.
But not only a new journal, we have an opportunity to create a more open publication model, using a... wiki for all the steps (writing, peer-reviewing and final publication).
I see this project like a big experiment. All we need is a wiki, some volunteers to write papers and some volunteers to peer-review them. After a year of work, we can publish all the "approved" papers as the Journal of Wikis, Vol. 1, Issue 1.
Volunteers?
2012/11/2 Piotr Konieczny piokon@post.pl
This is not a list for researching collaboration support software, this is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a focus on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and I am surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe itself. Perhaps it makes sense for a conference, although I am not convinced. For journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal limited to wiki studies. There is already a number of journals dedicated to collaboration support software (International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning - http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of e-Collaboration - http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/1...; The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices - http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some more broad journals on collaboration (International Journal of Collaborative Practices
- http://collaborative-practices.com/ ; Journal of collaboration -
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/). Starting an n-th journal on that topic seems rather pointless to me, the only redeeming grace would be that ours would be open source (most others are closed). Much better, IMHO, to start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more narrow field, yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the broader field of collaboration support software, which already has several related journals.
-- Piotr Konieczny
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and
nothing less.
I don't think that this is a good strategy. Wiki's are just one type of collaboration support software. What if the artifact of collaboration is not hypertext? Most people would not consider a open source code repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the contribution model goes, it is nearly the same.
Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of the problem of branding the conference around a single open collaboration technology and has started a transition from "WikiSym" to "OpenSym".
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny piokon@post.pl wrote:
On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:
*Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.
What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity seem rather appropriate?
*Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite
general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access...) or communication topics (wiki-system and so on...) could deem appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.
*Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to
start. As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure the technical bare necessities.
WMF grants procedure is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a WMF wiki, and run by volunteers.
-- Piotr Konieczny
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing listWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
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
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
fair enough, when people tell you that something is impossible, it means you're probably on the right way :) good luck.
dj
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:01 PM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
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
-- Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine
You wrote: 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.
Indeed, there is a lot to be said for "Just do it!". Kerry
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…
@emirjp : well you can already count me in :)
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 _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
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, "published by...".
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.
Juliana.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais < langlais.qobuz@gmail.com> wrote:
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…
@emirjp : well you can already count me in :)
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 ______________________________**_________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.**wikimedia.orgWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wiki-**research-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
______________________________**_________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.**wikimedia.orgWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wiki-**research-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea of what the journal could be : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wik...
It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises all the working and contextual texts that are not visible in most academic journals.
PCL
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, "published by...".
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.
Juliana.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <langlais.qobuz@gmail.com
wrote:
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…
@emirjp : well you can already count me in :)
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 _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- www.domusaurea.org _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
I'd like to provide some data for comparison in terms of requirements for traditional academic journals. The Brazilian committee for my area that rates journals and acts as standard for cvs, tenures etc, lists [1]:
- editor-in-chief - editorial committee - consultive committee - ISSN - editorial policies - submission rules - peer-review - at least 14 annual articles - institutional affiliation for authors - institutional affiliation for committee members - abstracts and keywords in at least two languages - dates for articles receives and for articles published - must have at least one year of existence - regular periodicity
My area happens to be History, and I know maybe some of these requirements are not exactly fitting for the intended goal here. But, like I said, I'm just listing some elements you might consider including.
Juliana.
[1] http://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/avaliacao/Qualis_-_Historia....
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais < langlais.qobuz@gmail.com> wrote:
I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea of what the journal could be : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wik...
It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises all the working and contextual texts that are not visible in most academic journals.
PCL
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, "published by...".
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.
Juliana.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais < langlais.qobuz@gmail.com> wrote:
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…
@emirjp : well you can already count me in :)
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 ______________________________**_________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.**wikimedia.orgWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wiki-**research-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
______________________________**_________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.**wikimedia.orgWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wiki-**research-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- www.domusaurea.org _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Thanks a lot for these interesting information. I have given a look at the French Institute of scientific evaluation (AERES). Their requirements are very simlar : (1) Open editorial comittee, with international range and a main focus of research. (2) Efficient selection process (which imply a significant rate of rejection) (3) International openness. (4) Institutionnal support (from scientific organization…) (5) Good quality management (timeliness…) (6) Implication in disciplinary and community debates.
It's certainly far from the ambitious projects of emirjp, but I have expanded a bit my shaping device : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wik...
Concerning the wiki vs. wider thematic, I think the matter ought to be considered on a strategic level. The wiki is undeniably a good market niche, as no specific journal covers the topics so far. Yet, as an experiment in open access, the journal may have some legitimacy to tackle collaborative and open knowledge wider thema. Therefore, I would rather support a flexible position : the main focus remains wiki- research even though the scientific comittee can, from time to time, go beyond this definite range.
PCL
I'd like to provide some data for comparison in terms of requirements for traditional academic journals. The Brazilian committee for my area that rates journals and acts as standard for cvs, tenures etc, lists [1]:
- editor-in-chief
- editorial committee
- consultive committee
- ISSN
- editorial policies
- submission rules
- peer-review
- at least 14 annual articles
- institutional affiliation for authors
- institutional affiliation for committee members
- abstracts and keywords in at least two languages
- dates for articles receives and for articles published
- must have at least one year of existence
- regular periodicity
My area happens to be History, and I know maybe some of these requirements are not exactly fitting for the intended goal here. But, like I said, I'm just listing some elements you might consider including.
Juliana.
[1] http://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/avaliacao/Qualis_-_Historia....
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <langlais.qobuz@gmail.com
wrote:
I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea of what the journal could be : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wik...
It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises all the working and contextual texts that are not visible in most academic journals.
PCL
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, "published by...".
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.
Juliana.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <langlais.qobuz@gmail.com
wrote:
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…
@emirjp : well you can already count me in :)
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 _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- www.domusaurea.org _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- www.domusaurea.org _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
As for any candidates for institutional academic support, I could easily arrange for my university, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro State (UNIRIO - http://www.unirio.br), where I've been setting a wiki research Lab and we have a very good Library Studies Dept., where they can help us with the setting of the journal. Brazil has a wide experience in open-access journals (we don't have these paywalls at all. See, e.g., http://www.scielo.org).
In fact, I do think that two or three institutions working as partners to host the journal would be great (one of them being WMF?), and in keeping with current international academic goals.
Juliana.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Pierre-Carl Langlais < langlais.qobuz@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks a lot for these interesting information. I have given a look at the French Institute of scientific evaluation (AERES). Their requirements are very simlar : (1) Open editorial comittee, with international range and a main focus of research. (2) Efficient selection process (which imply a significant rate of rejection) (3) International openness. (4) Institutionnal support (from scientific organization…) (5) Good quality management (timeliness…) (6) Implication in disciplinary and community debates.
It's certainly far from the ambitious projects of emirjp, but I have expanded a bit my shaping device : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wik...
Concerning the wiki vs. wider thematic, I think the matter ought to be considered on a strategic level. The wiki is undeniably a good market niche, as no specific journal covers the topics so far. Yet, as an experiment in open access, the journal may have some legitimacy to tackle collaborative and open knowledge wider thema. Therefore, I would rather support a flexible position : the main focus remains wiki-research even though the scientific comittee can, from time to time, go beyond this definite range.
PCL
I'd like to provide some data for comparison in terms of requirements for traditional academic journals. The Brazilian committee for my area that rates journals and acts as standard for cvs, tenures etc, lists [1]:
- editor-in-chief
- editorial committee
- consultive committee
- ISSN
- editorial policies
- submission rules
- peer-review
- at least 14 annual articles
- institutional affiliation for authors
- institutional affiliation for committee members
- abstracts and keywords in at least two languages
- dates for articles receives and for articles published
- must have at least one year of existence
- regular periodicity
My area happens to be History, and I know maybe some of these requirements are not exactly fitting for the intended goal here. But, like I said, I'm just listing some elements you might consider including.
Juliana.
[1] http://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/avaliacao/Qualis_-_Historia....
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais < langlais.qobuz@gmail.com> wrote:
I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea of what the journal could be : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wik...
It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises all the working and contextual texts that are not visible in most academic journals.
PCL
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, "published by...".
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.
Juliana.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais < langlais.qobuz@gmail.com> wrote:
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…
@emirjp : well you can already count me in :)
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 ______________________________**_________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.**wikimedia.orgWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wiki-**research-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
______________________________**_________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.**wikimedia.orgWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wiki-**research-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- www.domusaurea.org _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- www.domusaurea.org _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Hello, I wouldn't call it a "wiki journal", that gives a wrong impression, and also not call the draft like that. Kind regards Ziko
2012/11/2 Pierre-Carl Langlais langlais.qobuz@gmail.com:
Thanks a lot for these interesting information. I have given a look at the French Institute of scientific evaluation (AERES). Their requirements are very simlar : (1) Open editorial comittee, with international range and a main focus of research. (2) Efficient selection process (which imply a significant rate of rejection) (3) International openness. (4) Institutionnal support (from scientific organization…) (5) Good quality management (timeliness…) (6) Implication in disciplinary and community debates.
It's certainly far from the ambitious projects of emirjp, but I have expanded a bit my shaping device : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wik...
Concerning the wiki vs. wider thematic, I think the matter ought to be considered on a strategic level. The wiki is undeniably a good market niche, as no specific journal covers the topics so far. Yet, as an experiment in open access, the journal may have some legitimacy to tackle collaborative and open knowledge wider thema. Therefore, I would rather support a flexible position : the main focus remains wiki-research even though the scientific comittee can, from time to time, go beyond this definite range.
PCL
I'd like to provide some data for comparison in terms of requirements for traditional academic journals. The Brazilian committee for my area that rates journals and acts as standard for cvs, tenures etc, lists [1]:
- editor-in-chief
- editorial committee
- consultive committee
- ISSN
- editorial policies
- submission rules
- peer-review
- at least 14 annual articles
- institutional affiliation for authors
- institutional affiliation for committee members
- abstracts and keywords in at least two languages
- dates for articles receives and for articles published
- must have at least one year of existence
- regular periodicity
My area happens to be History, and I know maybe some of these requirements are not exactly fitting for the intended goal here. But, like I said, I'm just listing some elements you might consider including.
Juliana.
[1] http://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/avaliacao/Qualis_-_Historia....
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais langlais.qobuz@gmail.com wrote:
I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea of what the journal could be : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wik...
It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises all the working and contextual texts that are not visible in most academic journals.
PCL
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, "published by...".
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.
Juliana.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais langlais.qobuz@gmail.com wrote:
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…
@emirjp : well you can already count me in :)
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 _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- www.domusaurea.org _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- www.domusaurea.org _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
I like the draft design. Here's an idea on how to do tackle the double blind peer review, wiki way:
1) anonymous submissions: let'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'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. 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).
Things to consider: a) should we accept anonymous reviewers, as in - even the editor(s) don't know their identity? This would be an issue if the reviewer username/password are made public. 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 "official" reviews, for the purpose of double-blind peer review / indices assessment.
-- Piotr Konieczny
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
On 11/2/2012 8:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:
I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea of what the journal could be : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wik...
It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises all the working and contextual texts that are not visible in most academic journals.
PCL
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, "published by...".
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.
Juliana.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <langlais.qobuz@gmail.com mailto:langlais.qobuz@gmail.com> wrote:
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… @emirjp : well you can already count me in :) 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 _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l-- www.domusaurea.org http://www.domusaurea.org _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Hej, this is great. I think you should consider the following combined model:
* Organize [papers] and [reviews] on a wiki. Aim for open collaboration and discussion among researchers in the draft phase. [papers] := drafts, data, analysis, reflists; casual peer review [reviews] := comments, questions, ideas, connections
* Publish a less formal monthly update, perhaps in tandem with the WMF Research Newsletter
* Organize a selection process every 4-6 months : # an editorial team chooses the best new work, asks the authors for a snapshot to send to formal peer review. # organize more formal blind peer review [FPR], with reviewers who don't take part in the casual reviews above. # make an editorial decision of how much of the backstory (data, commentary, interlinking & cross-refs) to include in the snapshot.
* 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, &c. Each article should link to its history page [and in the future, both its article history and its dataset history].
I'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't mind (or love the idea of) having a possibly seminal paper published in this sort of new-style journal.
SJ
PS - a few nice features of a successful journal, in my opinion: 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 2) the ratio of (bibliography + footnotes) / (body) will be significantly higher than in other journals 3) the density of interlinks and cross-references will be high 4) in the living / online version of the journal, articles will be published with transclusions from other research
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Piotr Konieczny piokon@post.pl wrote:
I like the draft design. Here's an idea on how to do tackle the double blind peer review, wiki way:
- anonymous submissions: let'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'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. 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).
Things to consider: a) should we accept anonymous reviewers, as in - even the editor(s) don't know their identity? This would be an issue if the reviewer username/password are made public. 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 "official" reviews, for the purpose of double-blind peer review / indices assessment.
-- Piotr Konieczny
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
On 11/2/2012 8:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:
I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea of what the journal could be : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wik...
It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises all the working and contextual texts that are not visible in most academic journals.
PCL
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, "published by...".
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.
Juliana.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais < langlais.qobuz@gmail.com> wrote:
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…
@emirjp : well you can already count me in :)
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 _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- www.domusaurea.org _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing listWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Hello, I find it a very good idea (I expressed it in 2008 or 2009); the focus should be somewhat defined, e..g wiki's and open content; and it should be done in a way that others respect the journal. Kind regards Ziko
2012/11/2 Juliana Bastos Marques domusaurea@gmail.com:
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, "published by...".
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.
Juliana.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais langlais.qobuz@gmail.com wrote:
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…
@emirjp : well you can already count me in :)
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 _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- www.domusaurea.org
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
I would like to volunteer to help, but I agree with Darek that we need to aim towards entering serious journal rankings from day 1. I think we can both experiment with the wiki publishing model, and prepare a pdf versions if needed for the traditionalists; it's not like it's difficult - MediaWiki has a pdf-export option (wikibook), and it is a standard feature in Open/Libre Office, too.
-- Piotr Konieczny
On 11/2/2012 5:58 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
unfortunately, if you want to make impact in the Academia, the approach of "all we need is a wiki" will not work. Even the most avid enthusiasts of open publication models and of wiki usually do have career-paths, tenure reviews, etc. As long as reality is as it is now, we'd have to have a "proper" journal, with PDFs, page numbers, etc., and an aim to enter the journal rankings, because otherwise the top researchers will have a strong incentive not to even consider our journal in their publications.
best,
dj
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM, emijrp <emijrp@gmail.com mailto:emijrp@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, I think that it is important to focus in the wikis topic. It is so broad that hardly would need more than that, I neither understand the WikiSym move to OpenSym. But not only a new journal, we have an opportunity to create a more open publication model, using a... wiki for all the steps (writing, peer-reviewing and final publication). I see this project like a big experiment. All we need is a wiki, some volunteers to write papers and some volunteers to peer-review them. After a year of work, we can publish all the "approved" papers as the Journal of Wikis, Vol. 1, Issue 1. Volunteers? 2012/11/2 Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl <mailto:piokon@post.pl>> This is not a list for researching collaboration support software, this is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a focus on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and I am surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe itself. Perhaps it makes sense for a conference, although I am not convinced. For journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal limited to wiki studies. There is already a number of journals dedicated to collaboration support software (International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning - http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of e-Collaboration - http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/1090 ; The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices - http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some more broad journals on collaboration (International Journal of Collaborative Practices - http://collaborative-practices.com/ ; Journal of collaboration - http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/). Starting an n-th journal on that topic seems rather pointless to me, the only redeeming grace would be that ours would be open source (most others are closed). Much better, IMHO, to start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more narrow field, yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the broader field of collaboration support software, which already has several related journals. -- Piotr Konieczny "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:> I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less. I don't think that this is a good strategy. Wiki's are just one type of collaboration support software. What if the artifact of collaboration is not hypertext? Most people would not consider a open source code repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the contribution model goes, it is nearly the same. Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of the problem of branding the conference around a single open collaboration technology and has started a transition from "WikiSym" to "OpenSym". On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl <mailto:piokon@post.pl>> wrote: On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote: *Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to. What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity seem rather appropriate? *Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access…) or communication topics (wiki-system and so on…) could deem appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers. I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less. *Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to start. As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure the technical bare necessities. WMF grants procedure is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a WMF wiki, and run by volunteers. -- Piotr Konieczny "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarza;dzania kierownik katedry Zarza;dzania Mie;dzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koz'min'skiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Have you all considered whether the costs of bootstrapping up a set of editors and authors, playing the impact factor game, and articulating a mission that is broad enough to include computer scientists and historians warrant the benefits of having yet another outlet to publish wiki research? The bootstrapping problem is particularly severe for the reasons Dariusz outlined.
I suspect "hijacking" existing journal infrastructures in your respective domains to have special issues on Wikis and Open Collaboration (the recent American Behavioral Scientist special issue comes to mind) is a far more practicable approach to developing the critical mass of interest in your respective fields in the near term. The longer-term goal should be to bend receptive open publication outlets (e.g., First Monday, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, EPJ Data Science, PLoS One, etc.) toward more wiki-like models.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Piotr Konieczny piokon@post.pl wrote:
I would like to volunteer to help, but I agree with Darek that we need to aim towards entering serious journal rankings from day 1. I think we can both experiment with the wiki publishing model, and prepare a pdf versions if needed for the traditionalists; it's not like it's difficult - MediaWiki has a pdf-export option (wikibook), and it is a standard feature in Open/Libre Office, too.
-- Piotr Konieczny
On 11/2/2012 5:58 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
unfortunately, if you want to make impact in the Academia, the approach of "all we need is a wiki" will not work. Even the most avid enthusiasts of open publication models and of wiki usually do have career-paths, tenure reviews, etc. As long as reality is as it is now, we'd have to have a "proper" journal, with PDFs, page numbers, etc., and an aim to enter the journal rankings, because otherwise the top researchers will have a strong incentive not to even consider our journal in their publications.
best,
dj
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I think that it is important to focus in the wikis topic. It is so broad that hardly would need more than that, I neither understand the WikiSym move to OpenSym.
But not only a new journal, we have an opportunity to create a more open publication model, using a... wiki for all the steps (writing, peer-reviewing and final publication).
I see this project like a big experiment. All we need is a wiki, some volunteers to write papers and some volunteers to peer-review them. After a year of work, we can publish all the "approved" papers as the Journal of Wikis, Vol. 1, Issue 1.
Volunteers?
2012/11/2 Piotr Konieczny piokon@post.pl
This is not a list for researching collaboration support software, this is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a focus on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and I am surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe itself. Perhaps it makes sense for a conference, although I am not convinced. For journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal limited to wiki studies. There is already a number of journals dedicated to collaboration support software (International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning - http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of e-Collaboration - http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/1...; The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices - http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some more broad journals on collaboration (International Journal of Collaborative Practices
- http://collaborative-practices.com/ ; Journal of collaboration -
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/). Starting an n-th journal on that topic seems rather pointless to me, the only redeeming grace would be that ours would be open source (most others are closed). Much better, IMHO, to start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more narrow field, yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the broader field of collaboration support software, which already has several related journals.
-- Piotr Konieczny
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and
nothing less.
I don't think that this is a good strategy. Wiki's are just one type of collaboration support software. What if the artifact of collaboration is not hypertext? Most people would not consider a open source code repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the contribution model goes, it is nearly the same.
Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of the problem of branding the conference around a single open collaboration technology and has started a transition from "WikiSym" to "OpenSym".
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny piokon@post.pl wrote:
On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:
*Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.
What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity seem rather appropriate?
*Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite
general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access...) or communication topics (wiki-system and so on...) could deem appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.
*Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to
start. As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure the technical bare necessities.
WMF grants procedure is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a WMF wiki, and run by volunteers.
-- Piotr Konieczny
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing listWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
Wiki-research-l mailing listWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Brian has a good idea, and I think that e.g. the Journal of Peer Production could be potentially open to being hijacked :)
Reviewers cannot be anonymous to the managing editor if the journal is to satisfy the traditional criteria of peer review. However, one simple innovation would be allowing comments on the submission, the accepted paper, and the reviews.
Per engine, wiki is not good for handling the review turnaround process (vital, as successful journals receive several submissions a day and tracking deadlines, reviewers and editors has to be semi automated) and also relatively clumsy in producing page numbered pdf issues.
However, there are at least two proven open source engines to use. I myself run one journal based on OJS. 2 lis 2012 23:20, "Brian Keegan" bkeegan@northwestern.edu napisał(a):
Have you all considered whether the costs of bootstrapping up a set of editors and authors, playing the impact factor game, and articulating a mission that is broad enough to include computer scientists and historians warrant the benefits of having yet another outlet to publish wiki research? The bootstrapping problem is particularly severe for the reasons Dariusz outlined.
I suspect "hijacking" existing journal infrastructures in your respective domains to have special issues on Wikis and Open Collaboration (the recent American Behavioral Scientist special issue comes to mind) is a far more practicable approach to developing the critical mass of interest in your respective fields in the near term. The longer-term goal should be to bend receptive open publication outlets (e.g., First Monday, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, EPJ Data Science, PLoS One, etc.) toward more wiki-like models.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Piotr Konieczny piokon@post.pl wrote:
I would like to volunteer to help, but I agree with Darek that we need to aim towards entering serious journal rankings from day 1. I think we can both experiment with the wiki publishing model, and prepare a pdf versions if needed for the traditionalists; it's not like it's difficult - MediaWiki has a pdf-export option (wikibook), and it is a standard feature in Open/Libre Office, too.
-- Piotr Konieczny
On 11/2/2012 5:58 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
unfortunately, if you want to make impact in the Academia, the approach of "all we need is a wiki" will not work. Even the most avid enthusiasts of open publication models and of wiki usually do have career-paths, tenure reviews, etc. As long as reality is as it is now, we'd have to have a "proper" journal, with PDFs, page numbers, etc., and an aim to enter the journal rankings, because otherwise the top researchers will have a strong incentive not to even consider our journal in their publications.
best,
dj
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I think that it is important to focus in the wikis topic. It is so broad that hardly would need more than that, I neither understand the WikiSym move to OpenSym.
But not only a new journal, we have an opportunity to create a more open publication model, using a... wiki for all the steps (writing, peer-reviewing and final publication).
I see this project like a big experiment. All we need is a wiki, some volunteers to write papers and some volunteers to peer-review them. After a year of work, we can publish all the "approved" papers as the Journal of Wikis, Vol. 1, Issue 1.
Volunteers?
2012/11/2 Piotr Konieczny piokon@post.pl
This is not a list for researching collaboration support software, this is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a focus on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and I am surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe itself. Perhaps it makes sense for a conference, although I am not convinced. For journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal limited to wiki studies. There is already a number of journals dedicated to collaboration support software (International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning - http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of e-Collaboration - http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/1...; The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices - http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some more broad journals on collaboration (International Journal of Collaborative Practices
- http://collaborative-practices.com/ ; Journal of collaboration -
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/). Starting an n-th journal on that topic seems rather pointless to me, the only redeeming grace would be that ours would be open source (most others are closed). Much better, IMHO, to start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more narrow field, yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the broader field of collaboration support software, which already has several related journals.
-- Piotr Konieczny
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and
nothing less.
I don't think that this is a good strategy. Wiki's are just one type of collaboration support software. What if the artifact of collaboration is not hypertext? Most people would not consider a open source code repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the contribution model goes, it is nearly the same.
Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of the problem of branding the conference around a single open collaboration technology and has started a transition from "WikiSym" to "OpenSym".
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny piokon@post.plwrote:
On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:
*Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.
What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity seem rather appropriate?
*Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite
general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access...) or communication topics (wiki-system and so on...) could deem appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.
*Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to
start. As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure the technical bare necessities.
WMF grants procedure is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a WMF wiki, and run by volunteers.
-- Piotr Konieczny
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing listWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
Wiki-research-l mailing listWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
dear all, great idea(s). i'll be happy to help.
i have a question.
--> How about WIkipedia articles?
For WikiAfrica Primary School Project (2013-2015) we are looking for a journal which can publish or produce peer-reviewed Wikipedia articles (anyone can produce or propose an article but peer-reviewer need to have an academic affiliation).
the model is of course http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1002... but we need to enlarge the topics to cover Africa, national education systems and general topics related to primary school education (the world, environment, flora and fauna, alphabets and languages...). of course in cc by-sa and the community can decide if and how they want to use the content.
do you think there can be a space on this journal for such content? if you think it is possible i'm also interested in looking for some grants to support at least some general editorial work. if you think it is *not* possible i'm interested in creating something like this by March 2013 and link it to the wiki research journal if possible. iolanda/iopensa
Il giorno 03/nov/2012, alle ore 09:48, Dariusz Jemielniak ha scritto:
Brian has a good idea, and I think that e.g. the Journal of Peer Production could be potentially open to being hijacked :)
Reviewers cannot be anonymous to the managing editor if the journal is to satisfy the traditional criteria of peer review. However, one simple innovation would be allowing comments on the submission, the accepted paper, and the reviews.
Per engine, wiki is not good for handling the review turnaround process (vital, as successful journals receive several submissions a day and tracking deadlines, reviewers and editors has to be semi automated) and also relatively clumsy in producing page numbered pdf issues.
However, there are at least two proven open source engines to use. I myself run one journal based on OJS.
2 lis 2012 23:20, "Brian Keegan" bkeegan@northwestern.edu napisał(a): Have you all considered whether the costs of bootstrapping up a set of editors and authors, playing the impact factor game, and articulating a mission that is broad enough to include computer scientists and historians warrant the benefits of having yet another outlet to publish wiki research? The bootstrapping problem is particularly severe for the reasons Dariusz outlined.
I suspect "hijacking" existing journal infrastructures in your respective domains to have special issues on Wikis and Open Collaboration (the recent American Behavioral Scientist special issue comes to mind) is a far more practicable approach to developing the critical mass of interest in your respective fields in the near term. The longer-term goal should be to bend receptive open publication outlets (e.g., First Monday, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, EPJ Data Science, PLoS One, etc.) toward more wiki-like models.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Piotr Konieczny piokon@post.pl wrote: I would like to volunteer to help, but I agree with Darek that we need to aim towards entering serious journal rankings from day 1. I think we can both experiment with the wiki publishing model, and prepare a pdf versions if needed for the traditionalists; it's not like it's difficult - MediaWiki has a pdf-export option (wikibook), and it is a standard feature in Open/Libre Office, too. -- Piotr Konieczny
On 11/2/2012 5:58 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
unfortunately, if you want to make impact in the Academia, the approach of "all we need is a wiki" will not work. Even the most avid enthusiasts of open publication models and of wiki usually do have career-paths, tenure reviews, etc. As long as reality is as it is now, we'd have to have a "proper" journal, with PDFs, page numbers, etc., and an aim to enter the journal rankings, because otherwise the top researchers will have a strong incentive not to even consider our journal in their publications.
best,
dj
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I think that it is important to focus in the wikis topic. It is so broad that hardly would need more than that, I neither understand the WikiSym move to OpenSym.
But not only a new journal, we have an opportunity to create a more open publication model, using a... wiki for all the steps (writing, peer-reviewing and final publication).
I see this project like a big experiment. All we need is a wiki, some volunteers to write papers and some volunteers to peer-review them. After a year of work, we can publish all the "approved" papers as the Journal of Wikis, Vol. 1, Issue 1.
Volunteers?
2012/11/2 Piotr Konieczny piokon@post.pl This is not a list for researching collaboration support software, this is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a focus on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and I am surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe itself. Perhaps it makes sense for a conference, although I am not convinced. For journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal limited to wiki studies. There is already a number of journals dedicated to collaboration support software (International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning - http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of e-Collaboration - http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/1... ; The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices - http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some more broad journals on collaboration (International Journal of Collaborative Practices - http://collaborative-practices.com/ ; Journal of collaboration - http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/). Starting an n-th journal on that topic seems rather pointless to me, the only redeeming grace would be that ours would be open source (most others are closed). Much better, IMHO, to start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more narrow field, yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the broader field of collaboration support software, which already has several related journals.
-- Piotr Konieczny
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.
I don't think that this is a good strategy. Wiki's are just one type of collaboration support software. What if the artifact of collaboration is not hypertext? Most people would not consider a open source code repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the contribution model goes, it is nearly the same.
Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of the problem of branding the conference around a single open collaboration technology and has started a transition from "WikiSym" to "OpenSym".
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny piokon@post.pl wrote: On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:
*Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to. What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity seem rather appropriate?
*Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access…) or communication topics (wiki-system and so on…) could deem appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.
*Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to start. As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure the technical bare necessities.
WMF grants procedure is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a WMF wiki, and run by volunteers.
-- Piotr Konieczny
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
There's definitely a terrifying brainstorm down there :)
Before answering several remarks, I'd like to express a general feeling : the success of the journal seems to depend heavily on the editorial comittee (or whatever its name can be). It may not be the most attractive place to be (mainly administrative and layout stuff…), but that is what we need to set up in the first place. I am actually volunteering to take some part in it.
Le 2 nov. 12 à 19:54, Juliana Bastos Marques a écrit :
As for any candidates for institutional academic support, I could easily arrange for my university, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro State (UNIRIO - http://www.unirio.br), where I've been setting a wiki research Lab and we have a very good Library Studies Dept., where they can help us with the setting of the journal. Brazil has a wide experience in open-access journals (we don't have these paywalls at all. See, e.g., http://www.scielo.org).
that's a real fine idea. I will attempt a similar initiative in my own university, the school of communication of Paris-Sorbonne (CELSA). I have already convinced them to set up a study day dedicated on Wikipedia by the end of the next year, so I think they might be interested. The shif to OA access has also been easier in France, as most journals are published by public institutions and made most of their archives accessible.
Le 2 nov. 12 à 23:24, Piotr Konieczny a écrit :
I like the draft design. Here's an idea on how to do tackle the double blind peer review, wiki way:
I have added most of your suggestions on a new draft on submission rules : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas/Submission_rules
Le 3 nov. 12 à 00:44, Samuel Klein a écrit :
Hej, this is great. I think you should consider the following combined model:
Thanks for these relevant insights. I have reported some of it on the new submission rules draft. Besides, I have included a specific section on « other authors » on the design model.
Le 3 nov. 12 à 00:58, Ziko van Dijk a écrit :
I wouldn't call it a "wiki journal", that gives a wrong impression,
I have transfered all the draft design on a new page, without any reference to this name : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas/Design
Le 3 nov. 12 à 11:19, Iolanda Pensa a écrit :
--> How about WIkipedia articles?
Yes, beyond traditional journal content, we could give some room to wikimedian resources. For instance, the scientific comittee may select some FAs that seem to be relevant with the general purpose of the issue.
PCL
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org