Hi,
I offer my personal opinion for this.
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:59:45 +0000 From: Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia Journal? To: aforte@gatech.edu, Research into Wikimedia content and communities <> Cc: meta.mako@gmail.com Message-ID: 92fe56270910272059o327643es68b891678d5c2151@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear Wiki-Research-L,
Yes, as Andrea said, the original idea proposed was about a new journal *for* Wikipedia but it seems the consensus is that there is far more interest in a journal *about* wikim/pedia research. To that end, I'd like to gauge the opinion of the authors here about the viability of such a journal. I have sounded out a couple of university presses and they're interested in discussing the idea of funding and hosting a "Journal of Wikipedia Research" (or title to that effect). So, I was wondering if the people here could say whether such a thing would be a) viable and b) what factors would be important to you personally in being interested in such a publication.
I believe the Journal about Wikipedia is more realistic than the Journal "for" Wikipedia.
For example:
- Do you think that a Journal of Wikipedia Research would be an unhealthy
competition against WikiSym, or a boost for it?
A Journal of Wikipedia research would be helpful to WikiSym, and make it like conference-Journal pattern should be more attractive to encourage people.
- Would the reputation/location of the hosting university be a factor for
you?
I will care the achievement of the hosting university in technologies, statistics and sociologies.
- or, would the people on the editorial committee be a more important
factor?
Yes, indeed.
- would you prefer to see a journal that was entirely an
aggregation/synthesis of other publications, or entirely filled with content published no where else, or, would you be happy with a mixture of sections (new work, re-publications, syntheses, reviews...)
I prefer to see entirely unpublished works in this Journal, if possible. I know, it will affect the frequency of publication, but taking it 4 issues per year, the quality of Journal is still high.
- Would the frequency of publication be important to you? - Would you
prefer something that only published in your particular research field (e.g. statistical/sociological/computer-scinece) or would you be happy with a variety of research fields being included in the one edition?
It should be more possible to put them all in one edition, and I always read other fields paper when I did literature review in my area. The research is crossing in Wiki study.
- Would it be more important to you to publish in existing journals with an
established reputation or to publish in a journal with a scope that is specific to Wikip/media (even though it's reputation would not yet be established)?
Of course, these are all just exploratory/scoping questions just to gauge interest. The original idea that I had proposed was for a different thing, but, if the research community here would like to see a journal created for them (in some way/shape/form) and if you believe that such a thing would help our field grow and develop - then I'm happy to try and help! :-)
Sincerely, -Liam
wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata
I know it is personal view, but I believe this area is worthy to publish their academic contributions in a new Journal. As this research includes many different research fields, I assume some of us have the same experience that reading other fields paper when searched their own literatures as me. so we wouldn't against to put all fields together.
Hope it is helpful.
Zeyi He
PhD Candidate Department of Sociology University of York
Greetings, Fellow Wikipedia Researchers.
In creating a new journal one of the key issues is demonstrating enough "paper pressure" that is high quality, but not suitable for existing journals. Is there evidence that there is high quality research in Wikipedia that is not suitable for existing journals, or that is not receiving a fair hearing in the review process for those journals?
I am an associate editor of ACM Transactions on the Web, which would be a great place to publish high quality Wikipedia research that is analytic or tools-based. For Wikipedia research that has a strong user interface or ethnography component ACM Transactions on CHI would be perfect. Wikipedia research that has both intelligent algorithms and interfaces would be perfect for a new journal that ACM has just approved called ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems. (I'm co-Editor in Chief of the new ACM TiiS.)
So, while the idea of having an outlet for high quality Wikipedia research to get published in journals is an excellent one, and would certainly improve WikiSym as a research venue, rather than competing with it, there already seem to be great outlets for most of the relevant research.
Is there high quality Wikipedia research that should be published in journals that is not suitable for these venues?
Best, John
Hello, members of the list,
Thank John Riedl for introducing potential venues of publication for Wikipedia researcher. Such advice from mid-career scholars are helpful and practical. I can use more of them. Please write down what you think will be a good venues for Wikipedia-related research, and what are these journals are looking for. (Some many new journals these days...)
May I suggest a trade-off? A series of special editions on Wikipedia/Wiki across different journals could be a nice trade-off between a Wikipedia research-specific journal and individual submissions to different journals.
Through such a process, a necessary self-reflecting on why Wikipedia as subject of research matters across related journals/disciplines should emerge. And if enough existing disciplines are engaged, we (as members of the mailing list) may have better ideas whether and how a Wikipedia research-specific journal can be justified to make substantial contribution.
I hope the suggestion on organising special editions (or even panels) across existing journals will be more manageable and fruitful at this moment. We need some kind of cross-generation communication between early-career and mid-career scholars as well as cross-disciplinary exchange on this.
Sharing your experience in *submitting* and *reviewing* Wikipedia research articles would be a great start. I am sure I can learn from both positive and negative experience.
Best regards,
Han-Teng Liao Doctoral Fellow, Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica Doctoral Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford
John Riedl wrote:
Greetings, Fellow Wikipedia Researchers.
In creating a new journal one of the key issues is demonstrating enough "paper pressure" that is high quality, but not suitable for existing journals. Is there evidence that there is high quality research in Wikipedia that is not suitable for existing journals, or that is not receiving a fair hearing in the review process for those journals?
I am an associate editor of ACM Transactions on the Web, which would be a great place to publish high quality Wikipedia research that is analytic or tools-based. For Wikipedia research that has a strong user interface or ethnography component ACM Transactions on CHI would be perfect. Wikipedia research that has both intelligent algorithms and interfaces would be perfect for a new journal that ACM has just approved called ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems. (I'm co-Editor in Chief of the new ACM TiiS.)
So, while the idea of having an outlet for high quality Wikipedia research to get published in journals is an excellent one, and would certainly improve WikiSym as a research venue, rather than competing with it, there already seem to be great outlets for most of the relevant research.
Is there high quality Wikipedia research that should be published in journals that is not suitable for these venues?
Best, John
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org