Hi all
Just to clarify - the review process at JoPP is _not_ that everything that is submitted will be published irregardless of quality.
The peer review process page (http://peerproduction.net/peer-review/process/) states:
"1. PAPER PROPOSAL 1.1. Non-special issues Authors use the contact form to send a proposal to the editorial team who will assess the suitability of the proposal for the journal. 1.2. Special issues Authors submit proposals directly to the special issue editors."
So there is an upstream selection by editors (as demonstrated on this list when somebody said they were knocked back).
Once the publication process is launched then yes, normally everything (initial sub, reviews, responses, final paper) is published.
cheers
Mathieu
hi,
Once the publication process is launched then yes, normally everything (initial sub, reviews, responses, final paper) is published.
I think one good thing about the standard review process is that authors are motivated to strive for excellence, since they do not know if their revised submission is finally going to be accepted. From this point of view, it is good not to give a promise of publication on the early stage.
From the point of view of ISI politics, it is also important to have a
comparable statistics of rejection rates.
In any case, I think that supporting JPP would be a great solution, especially if JPP was willing to consider some adjustments in publication policy (or at least open it for a discussion). It is much easier to partner with an existing journal than start form the scratch (and also, JPP seems to be very well targeted to our model solution here, and seems also to reach a little outside just the wiki world, which is a good thing, too).
OK, it has been way too much from me, and I apologize for inundating the list.
best,
dj
I think we need to open a page on meta: and compile all the ideas launched in this tread, that are a lot and good ones.
2012/9/17 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
hi,
Once the publication process is launched then yes, normally everything (initial sub, reviews, responses, final paper) is published.
I think one good thing about the standard review process is that authors are motivated to strive for excellence, since they do not know if their revised submission is finally going to be accepted. From this point of view, it is good not to give a promise of publication on the early stage.
From the point of view of ISI politics, it is also important to have a comparable statistics of rejection rates.
In any case, I think that supporting JPP would be a great solution, especially if JPP was willing to consider some adjustments in publication policy (or at least open it for a discussion). It is much easier to partner with an existing journal than start form the scratch (and also, JPP seems to be very well targeted to our model solution here, and seems also to reach a little outside just the wiki world, which is a good thing, too).
OK, it has been way too much from me, and I apologize for inundating the list.
best,
dj
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
+1
In particular -- there are options going towards new publication processes, and options suited to current incentives.
We might want to have initiatives in BOTH directions, but we might first want to cluster and see....
Anybody have time to organize the ideas so far on meta?
-Jodi
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:03 AM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
I think we need to open a page on meta: and compile all the ideas launched in this tread, that are a lot and good ones.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Jodi Schneider jschneider@pobox.com wrote:
+1
In particular -- there are options going towards new publication processes, and options suited to current incentives.
We might want to have initiatives in BOTH directions, but we might first want to cluster and see....
Anybody have time to organize the ideas so far on meta?
Starting now.
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas
xref: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Village_pump#Wiki_Research_List:_Proposal...
Oops, that's on the Strategy wiki. I'll make corresponding links on meta and send them around. Sorry.
For the moment real work should take place here anyway, so we can do this fast. http://piratepad.net/wiki-research-ideas
In addition to summarizing everything, I've condensed the "proposals" down to these (Please feel free to reword, expand, maybe continue the conversation on the Talk page?):
Proposals
Specifically related to journals
* The field of "wiki studies" exists but there is no dedicated journal. This is a problem to be solved. * If the Wikimedia Foundation could support an online journal, this would be a great outcome. (I don’t know if there are other ways to bid for WMF funding other than via chapters?) * We can consider partnering with an existing journal (such as the Journal of Peer Production), but only if it was fully in line with our goals (including ISI targeting, if we choose so)
Related to the "wiki way of doing research"
* We should pursue broader cultural change in parallel with concrete work on a journal. There is room for cross-over, as contributors to a "Wiki Journal" may also do research in the "Wiki Way".
On 09/20/2012 04:19 PM, Joe Corneli wrote:
- If the Wikimedia Foundation could support an online journal, this
would be a great outcome. (I don?t know if there are other ways to bid for WMF funding other than via chapters?)
There are: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index
Thanks, added that to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas
Thanks for the summary.
2012/9/22 Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com
Thanks, added that to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
There is also an european supported project called "Liquid Journals" of "LiquidPud". They have realeased a bunch of documents and reports concerning new ways of dissemination of knowledge and science. http://project.liquidpub.org/research-areas/liquid-journal
- Liquid Journals: Knowledge Dissemination in the Web Erahttp://wiki.liquidpub.org/mediawiki/upload/9/9b/Liquid-journal-proposal_v0.13.pdf * Marcos Baez, Fabio Casati.* - Liquid Journals: Overcoming Information Overload in the Scientific Communityhttp://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZF5j42j6OzjZGd3OWJnaGtfMTg4Y3JjNXB0ZnQ&hl=en *Marcos Baez, Aliaksandr Birukou, Fabio Casati, Maurizio Marchese and Daniil Mirylenka* - LiquidPub GreenPaper http://peerevaluation.org/read/libraryID:28223, describing the summary of the achievements and proposing concrete recommendations to different stakeholders. - Liquid Publications: Scientific Publications meet the Webhttp://project.liquidpub.org/liquid-publications-scientific-publications-meet-the-web: our manifesto: changing the way scientific knowledge is produced, disseminated, evaluated, and consumed. (*On this site*). - Liquid Publications: Scientific Publications meet the Webhttps://dev.liquidpub.org/svn/liquidpub/papers/deliverables/LiquidPub%20paper-latest.pdf (paper PDF version, an extended version of the ACM Ubiquity article below)
Tomás
Anyway, if we finally create a new Open-Access journal or whatever, that may be a good place to test all the innovative and cutting-edge ideas about research publishing.
I think we may start with a model that is new and works fine (e.g. OA journals) and at the same time, keep the door open to innovation.
This scenario is very exciting.
2012/9/22 Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com
Thanks, added that to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Mathieu ONeil mathieu.oneil@anu.edu.au wrote:
Once the publication process is launched then yes, normally everything (initial sub, reviews, responses, final paper) is published.
But like I said, it seems that special issues are, at present, exempt from that? http://peerproduction.net/peer-review/current/ (dated 2011) https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/jopp-public/2012-September/000090.htm...
Personally I don't see any conflict between having a 90% *rejection rate* (or whatever rate you prefer), while continuing to "publish" informally (as a pre-print or non-print) all initial submissions together with their reviews. Including for special issues.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com wrote:
while continuing to "publish" informally (as a pre-print or non-print) all initial submissions together with their reviews. Including for special issues.
Furthermore, why not have "discussion threads" attached at the bottom of ever paper (including rejected ones) so that readers can, if they wish, continue to discuss the topics with authors reviewers? This seems like a cheap and easy way to bring peer production into the process (approaching some of the ideas of the Tomlinson et al. paper).
2012/9/17 Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Mathieu ONeil mathieu.oneil@anu.edu.au wrote:
Once the publication process is launched then yes, normally everything (initial sub, reviews, responses, final paper) is published.
But like I said, it seems that special issues are, at present, exempt from that? http://peerproduction.net/peer-review/current/ (dated 2011)
https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/jopp-public/2012-September/000090.htm...
Personally I don't see any conflict between having a 90% *rejection rate* (or whatever rate you prefer), while continuing to "publish" informally (as a pre-print or non-print) all initial submissions together with their reviews. Including for special issues.
I'm not sure if this conversation comes from my first point:
- peer-reviewed, but publish a list of rejected papers and the reviewers
comments
I meant to publish only the list of titles (and perhaps abstracts) and the reviewers comments that explain the rejection. In that way, you can improve your paper and send it to another journal (no journal likes to publish what has been published before).
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org