[WikiEN-l] Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

[Jim]

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Thomas Larsen <larsen.thomas.h at gmail.com>wrote:

> So, if I read this correctly, anybody wanting to get an article
> published in this particular journal will need to write an article for
> Wikipedia first?
>
> That's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.
>

Have you actually read the details - this is an excellent idea. First one
has to point to a "summary"  Wikipedia article about the content of the
submitted paper. No problem there - basically using Wikipedia to vet whether
or not it has OR or is sufficiently notable of an area to publish. There is
no requirement that the author of the paper draft the article, although that
may be the case frequently.

Secondly, the paper will then be peer reviewed and published in Wikipedia -
the only potential problem I see is original research, but the publication
in RNA Biology and the peer reviewed provide significant review and checks.

This is an excellent experiment. With Wikipedia's open edit process I am
confident that the plan will adjust as it is implemented and I, for one
would like to see more academic journals take on this tact of publishing
their results under GFDL (on Wikipedia or their own journal). Knowledge is
power only if there is access to that knowledge.

It's the worst idea ever, seriously.
>

I strongly disagree!
Jim