FT2 wrote:
If we did try, then a WikiJournal would be a classic
case where we could do
the job right using present tools, and achieve something that most similar
sites won't do. Try this:
- Anyone can post up a paper, in usual academic form (ie authors info
would be required, formal citations, and so on).
- The draft is held back using Flagged Revisions, similar to Wikinews'
configuration, at the point of writing.
- Other users then discuss and critique and identify as a peer review
process, issues to be addressed (NPOV would probably fail as a criteria
since many good papers are written from the view of one specific author or
team; we'd need some more suitable criterion here).
Considering that
competent refereeing is the practical bottleneck for a
peer-review-led system: perhaps the point can be sharpened. If
wiki-style collaborative refereeing is something that will work, then
this concept is plausible and the WMF should at least take an interest.
If not - if backlogs and pickiness will predominate over sensible
closures of a revision - then the idea is worth relatively less.
Charles