[RCom-l] Peer reviewed journal?

Tue Sep 27 04:42:59 UTC 2011

Hello!

Thanks for the previous e-mails. 

I have seen OA journals running on a voluntary bases and without major financial contribution; but still, I agree with Dario that it involves a very big effort and in order to have trully significants outcomes you need a robust dedication. Furthemore, I agree that the type of questions an OA journal I see would solve could be adressed though other channels (like the newsletter, wikipedia library repository, spread suggestions for research from the Wikipedia community, feed, etc.).

Cheers! Mayo

«·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·»
«·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·»
«·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»

Research Digital Commons Governance: http://www.onlinecreation.info

Fellow Berkman center for Internet and Society. Harvard University.
Postdoctoral Researcher. Institute of Govern and Public Policies. Autonomous University of Barcelona.
Visiting scholar. Internet Interdisciplinary Institute. Open University of Catalonia (UOC).
Member Research Committee. Wikimedia Foundation
Ph.D European University Institute
Visiting researcher (2008). School of information. University of California, Berkeley.

E-mail: mayo.fuster at eui.eu
E-mail: mayofm at cyber.law.harvard.edu
Twitter/Identica: Lilaroja
Skype: mayoneti
Phone United States: 001 - 8576548231
Phone Spanish State: 0034-648877748

Berkman Center
23 Everett Street, 2nd Floor
Cambridge, MA 02138
+1 (617) 495-7547 (Phone)
+1 (617) 495-7641 (Fax)

Personal Postal Address USA:
The Acetarium
265 Elm Street - 4
Somerville, MA, USA
02144

________________________________________
From: rcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org [rcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dario Taraborelli [dtaraborelli at wikimedia.org]
Sent: 27 September 2011 03:39
To: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list
Subject: Re: [RCom-l] Peer reviewed journal?

Having founded and run a peer reviewed journal with Springer over the last 2 years (I stepped down as editor-in-chief a few months ago due to incompatibility with my new WMF duties) – and having considered an OA option at the time of writing the first proposal for this journal back in 2009 – I thought I'd share my 2 cents.

Costs of creating a new journal
What are the benefits of creating a dedicated OA journal for Wikipedia research? Traditional, closed access journals are run mostly by scholarly societies or by editorial boards to increase the visibility of research within their respective communities. OA is producing a number of disruptive changes in scholarly publishing. One of these disruptive changes is in the function and scope of journals. The most promising model OA publishers appear to be currently pursuing (based on the talks Daniel and I heard last week at COASP '11– a report on RCom-l will follow shortly) is the one of so-called OA mega-journals. These mega-journals are blurring the boundaries between traditional, narrow-focused scholarly journals and large OA repositories such as ArXiV; mega-journals publish papers in virtually every field and promise a large distribution, a lighter peer-review model (inspired by post-publication filtering criteria) and in some cases (e.g. PLoS One) increased visibility and bibliometric impact. These journals appear to be cannibalizing resources and readers from traditional journals and I think it's fair to expect that in 5 years from now most research will be published in 5-6 large OA journals acting as global research repositories and undermining the need of narrowly focused (and closed access) disciplinary outlets. At the moment, the only serious advantage of creating a new journal is to bridge a disciplinary gap, to build a new research community or to create/reinforce a brand, but there are other important costs to consider if one wants to go for an OA option (see below) and my question is: wouldn't our community be equally well served if it were to publish its research in one of the many OA journals already available? Would community and brand creation justify the effort of creating a new outlet instead of, say, creating and tracking an on-demand collection of articles within one or more existing, general-purpose OA journals? To put it bluntly: do we need a journal or a feed?

Costs of going OA
Setting up and running a journal, especially without the support of a traditional publisher, requires an insane amount of effort. As an author or reviewer of a journal, one typically sees only the tip of the iceberg of the editorial and publication workflow, which includes, among other things, effectively triaging and dispatching submissions, inviting and chasing reviewers, supervising the production process, promoting the journal in relevant outlets, maintaining relations with organizations that store/consume metadata and evaluate contents. A self-run journal, without the support of a dedicated production team, also incurs extra costs related to manuscript handling, copyediting, proof creation. OA publishers typically offset these extra costs by charging author fees, which are only waived in particular circumstances. Creating and running a successful OA journal is definitely not something a group of people can achieve as a hobby or with limited financial resources.

Supplementary barriers to OA
Crazy as it may sound, in 2011 OA is just starting to get traction. When starting a new journal, the question you typically face is whether you want to have a high scholarly impact within your community (i.e. attract and publish the best research within your field) or change the rules of the game (e.g. embrace OA, publish open-licensed research or explore new, disruptive editorial models). With the exception of OA mega journals and some popular niche journals, by creating a new journal you *either* seek impact *or* game change. The risk is that, as a new OA journal, you'll get to publish papers that have gone through cascading peer review (rejected by other outlets) and that for some reason have failed to be submitted to OA mega journals. One could try an experiment in publishing OA research without focusing on impact, but the effort and risk involved in making this project successful are even higher.

So my recommendation would be: forget about, "it sounds easy, let's try it" as this will result in a lot of frustration and wasted efforts. If someone wants to work on the creation of a new OA journal what's needed is a sound business plan with an analysis of risks and costs involved and an assessment of all, less costly and equally effective alternatives (which at the moment I'd be personally in favor of considering).

Dario

On Sep 25, 2011, at 8:46 AM, Goran Milovanovic wrote:

Hi,

the idea on having a peer-reviewed journal specifically related to
Wikimedia/Wikipedia needed research that Milos and I have discussed
was, of course, to start small.

The idea is to start with a set of dedicated pages that would publish
Wikimedia related research, focusing on the needs generated by the
community, Rcom or the WMF, and trying to establish consistency of
standards and some at least minimal periodicity. The publishing
process would involve peer review from the beginning. I don't believe
it would be hard to establish a journal editorial in this case.

Of course, the merger with initiatives such as Wikimedia Summer of
Research is a natural way to go.

Then we would see what happens. If it happens to be useful (I bet) and
sustainable (the hard part: sustainable in terms of periodicity, norms
and quality), why not start thinking bigger than the initial small and
see if we can push it to a level of a significant journal in the
fields of socio-technical systems, user-computer interaction, online
collaboration and similar.

Best,
Goran

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk at googlemail.com<mailto:zvandijk at googlemail.com>> wrote:
Hello,
The idea of a journal is very sound by itself. I doubt that
Wikiversity will be helpful.
Kind regards
Ziko

2011/9/22 Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com<mailto:millosh at gmail.com>>:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 14:38, WereSpielChequers
<werespielchequers at gmail.com<mailto:werespielchequers at gmail.com>> wrote:
Would this be a logical thing to have as part of Wikiversity?

Peer review does seem to me very like a Featured article process but with
credentialled reviewers.

Huh. Wikiversity has its own problems. Since Cormac Lawler went out of
WV, its integrity is very questionable. However, I agree that
organized boost into the right direction is something which WV needs.

_______________________________________________
RCom-l mailing list
RCom-l at lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:RCom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l

--
Ziko van Dijk
The Netherlands
http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/

_______________________________________________
RCom-l mailing list
RCom-l at lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:RCom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l

--
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Truth is much too complicated to allow
anything but approximations."
                             :: John von Neumann
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.milovanovicresearch.com

_______________________________________________
RCom-l mailing list
RCom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l