Following the discussion of yesterday, I have enhanced a bit the design draft: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas/Design
It now includes a specific thema for each issue. For instance, I have chosen « Wikipedia Verifiability ».
In order to visualize what kind of content we could get, I have replaced the "Lorem ipsum" stuff with « fake » summaries.
As you can see, the journal may include both social science analyses (cf. the quellenkritik to wikipedia thing), and computer science experiment (the device from wikisource).
Those who are interesting in taking part to the project may add their names here : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas/Volunteers
Kind regards,
As a side consideration, I think that "science" is elitist, today. Obviously, there are some required rules to assure and assess what is sciencie and what is not, but we have the opportunity to open science to the world.
Until now people just consume science. We are in a historical moment to welcome and engage the entire world in science: proposing stuff to be researched, developing tools, extracting and curating data, and checking and peer-reviewing facts.
In the same way writing the world memory is a task for all us (Wikipedia), sciencie follows the same principles.
Open science, open research, open review, open data.
2012/11/5 Jodi Schneider jschneider@pobox.com On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Ward Cunningham ward@c2.com wrote: I wonder if a better place to innovate might be in the conduct of research, rather than the reporting, review and publication of research?
+1*
Regarding the existing conversation, if we want a journal, we need to ask what the purpose is.
I'd highly recommend Jason Priem's notion of the "decoupled journal" [1][2]. Jason points out that journals have been used for four main purposes, historically: Registration Archiving Dissemination Certification Decoupling these functions is the way forward for scholarly communication. And it's already been happening -- with ArXiV, SSRN, Math Overflow, ... and new ways of measuring research impact [3]. So which function(s) matter most to us?
We can ask:
(1) What can wikis do for the registration, archiving, and/or dissemination functions, better than existing technologies?
(2) How can wikis contribute to altmetrics [3] used for certification functions?
(3) How can we as a community surface the most interesting and powerful research? What technologies do we need? What social habits do we need?
(4) And, finally, how can our answers to #3 contribute to the certification we value? (Prestige, publications counting for tenure, ...)
I think rather than trying to create a high profile, high impact traditional journal, if we focused on these and similar questions, we would both move wiki research forward, and drive scientific communication itself forward.
-Jodi
- of course, reporting and doing research aren't an either/or --
they're closely related and one drives the other
[1] Jason Priem at Purdue: video http://youtu.be/OM22JuiWYgE slides https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=ddfg787c_362f465q2g5 I've written a short summary here: http://jodischneider.com/blog/2012/11/04/altmetrics-can-help-surface-quality...
[2] Also a draft article called "Decoupling the scholarly journal" by Jason Priem and Bradley M. Hemminger, under review for the Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience special issue "Beyond open access: visions for open evaluation of scientific papers by post- publication peer review" https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xDOy9GXXrUFc9TUIR2C470DTau8JEgZ9k-SMNIx5...
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l