Hi all
Regarding setting up an English-language online scientific journal in my view you need:
(a) someone who assumes responsibility for delivering the journal
(b) server space
(c) someone with tech skills to set up and manage the CMS
(d) interesting CFPs that will motivate authors to submit despite the journal being new
and not having garnered academic prestige yet
(e) credible editors of special issues that will motivate authors to submit despite the
journal being new, etc
(f) a credible pool of reviewers / scientific committee members that will motivate authors
to submit despite the journal being new, etc
(g) someone with (possibly) native-English language skills to proof-read all the text
If some of you would like to guest edit a special issue of the Journal of Peer Production
(JoPP) you will not need to worry about the first three criteria. You can use our pool of
reviewers and add some of your own. Regarding editors, I am naturally familiar with Ward
C.'s name and I have read some of Piotr K.'s work. Would these people be
interested, or anyone else (Dariusz J. is supposed to be working on another CFP for JoPP
so not sure if he would be interested)?
Finally I would like to draw your attention to this:
This is a sub-project of JoPP - it is completely independent from the journal, they are
just using server space. We are planning to create a menu for such projects on our
frontpage. If WP researchers wanted to create a
site where they could experiment with new methodologies etc that could be arranged, and
you could migrate it to a dedicated server later if the project grows. Not sure how that
would play out with support from WMF but it is not clear to me at this point anyway
whether you all want to align closely with WMF or not.
Anyway, just a thought.
cheers
Mathieu
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak
<darekj(a)alk.edu.pl>wrote;wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Samuel Klein <sj(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
I've been thinking recently that we should
start this journal. There
isn't an obvious candidate, despite some of the
amazing research that's
been done, and the extreme
transparency that allows much deeper work to be
done on wiki communities
in the future.
I'll gladly help and support the idea. I think that just as Mathieu
pointed out, The Journal of Peer Production is a good candidate, since
it is already out there and running (even if low on the radar).
Great. Starting with a dedicated issue of JOPP seems like a good thing.
The guest editors of that issue will get useful experience, and we can
test the depth of interest among submitters and reviewers, for a specific
scope of research efforts.
One key factor in getting ISI is a community to
drive the journal
emijrp writes:
The idea of creating a journal just for wikis is
highly seductive for
me.The "pillars" might be:
* peer-reviewed, but publish a list of rejected papers and the reviewers
comments
* open-access (CC-BY-SA)
* ask always for the datasets and offer them to download, the same for
the
developed software used in the > research
* encourage authors to publish early, publish
often (as in free software)
Yes. All of this is important (and most could be tried out in working on a
guest issue of an existing journal)
Encouragement to publish early and often requires some new form of
publication that supports iteration and early drafts in the pubs process --
not via a separate preprint site.
* supported by donations
This can include donations from universities and institutions whose staff
are submitting to the journal. I suspect a young, inexpensive journal
that isn't tied to a tradition of expensie overhead could be supported by a
dozen universities that have relevant departments (like CCI and MIT,
various complexity institutes, and centers for collaborative study or
internet & society).
And... we can open a wiki where those who want
can write papers in a
collaborative and public way. You can > start a new paper
with colleagues
or ask for volunteers authors interested in joining to your idea. When
authors think that paper is finished and stable,
they submit it to the
journal and it is peer-reviewed again and > published or
discarded and
returned to the wiki for improvements.
That sounds like a fine intermediary, while more elaborate tech is being
discussed. It is important to have crisply defined and uniformly
implemented peer review, not soft "after publication" peer review -- at
least for the papers that are published with the highest stamp of peer
approval. It would be good to also have lower stamps of approval - and
archived permalinkable copies of their work - for those who simply publish
all of their work and data.
Perhaps we may join efforts with the Wikimedia
Research Newsletter? And
start a page in meta:? ; )
That would be great if WRN is interested :-) Again, joining forces to dit
a one-time issue of an existing journal is a good way to see what it would
be like.
SJ
--------