Even more, you can easily identify the authors because usually they include
references to their previous publications to build the new hypothesis ...
2012/11/8 Adam Jenkins adam.jenk...@gmail.com
Most of my reviewing for conference and journals was double blind,
although the effectiveness of
I don't thnk opening peer reviewing would be a good idea. Reviewer must
keep unknown, or she could suffer preasures (even bribes) from authors. In
my opinion only the editor must communicate with the reviewers
2012/11/8 koltzenb...@w4w.net
agree,
... so it is up to you as a reviewer what you
Kerry Raymond: A really exciting result would be the ability to predict
stock price movements from WP editing behaviour!
I am actually funded by a project where we are trying that. We have
looked a bit on Twitter sentiment (like everyone else is doing), but now
also do Wikipedia
I don't agree. I a hard argument can be considered by some people as a
preasure, while other could not.
In fact, what's the gain in knowing who is reviewing a paper?
2012/11/8 koltzenb...@w4w.net
well, any attempts at pressures or bribes could easily be made known,
couldn't they?
On Thu, 8
Manuel asks:
In fact, what's the gain in knowing who is reviewing a paper?
let us look at this from another angle, maybe: As reviewers in open reviewing
we get a chance of becoming
more aware of our own inclinations in the face of public visibility vis-a-vis
objectivity, well-reflected
no. Also, academic world may be quite small in some disciplines. If a
reviewer knows that s/he may be evaluated by the author some time in the
future (be it in a journal review, or possibly also in career promotion
reviews, too) s/he will be definitely motivated not to report any major
flaws,
Using Wikipedia for predicting stock market is being done from some time
ago.
Obviously, the more stream data you have (Wikipedia, Twitter, Facebook,
...), the more info you can extract and attempt to predict some changes
in the stock.
Anyway, although Wikipedia license allows reusing the info
hm, sadly enough I must agree that you seem to be raising important real-life
points, Dariusz. But am I
getting you correctly that you think that major flaws will only be pointed out
in a review if the reviewer can
officially stay anonymous?
in your experience, Dariusz, does this mean
hi,
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:17 AM, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote:
hm, sadly enough I must agree that you seem to be raising important
real-life points, Dariusz. But am I
getting you correctly that you think that major flaws will only be pointed
out in a review if the reviewer can
officially
If the question is only how to set up a journal then I wonder if this
should be taking place off-list, since that's not really a wiki research
question. If it is a question about how to set up a journal that
specifically meshes with the socio-technical patterns used by wiki
communities, then
thanks, Joe, for opening a new wiki page for
the peer review model debate
from
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas
to
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas/Review_model
Claudia
koltzenb...@w4w.net
___
Wiki-research-l
User:Arided added the following to
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas
The field of wiki studies exists but there is no dedicated journal.
This is a problem to be solved.
There is an academic/industry wiki studies conference called WikiSym.
Also, there is Wikimania, a more
hi Aaron,
I think that the rejection-rate principle does not apply to the highly
rated criterion for journals, when JCR/ISI (the only ranking that matters
at present) criteria are considered. The key and predominant criterion is
the number of citations in the journals, which are already in the
Dariusz, you make a good point about the criterion for ranking journals,
but my point still stands that you wnn't have a high quality set of papers
without strict criteria for rejection. I've reviewed enough papers to know
what tends to get rejected.
I don't see how a such a specialized focus as
I can't speak for every field, but at least for my own field of
information systems, where conferences count for zero, at least
among the most research-intensive universities:
Counting conference publications or not is in no way a judgment
either way of the quality
hi Jodi,
the conferences I attend or follow (e.g. EGOS, AoM, APROS. SFAA) afaik do
not typically require signed copyright notices at all, and if they do, the
copyright is granted specifically for publishing in the proceedings, and
legally resembles a license more, than a full copyright transfer.
I guess the scenario you want to protect against is this.
Reviewer is Junior Researcher, the author is a Head of School. Next year
Junior Researcher applies for job at that school and doesn't get it or
applies for a grant or
Kerry
-Original Message-
From:
I don't have much time at the moment for a proper response, but I wanted to
point you to the Research Index on meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research
I've personally cataloged ongoing experiments in this space and reviewed
the work of others.
See also
Actually the reputation of journals is usually derived from its impact
factor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor
which is all about citation rates rather than acceptance/rejection rates.
Acceptance rates are sometimes used for newer journals as citation rates
aren't available.
Nice post, Kerry. Let me add that the citation rates are calculated using
the cites in reputated journals already indexed ...
2012/11/8 Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com
Actually the reputation of journals is usually derived from its impact
factor
** **
So, if I can re-ignite and re-frame the original question I posed,
- Why do we need a wiki journal if there are already high impact
journals that are receptive to high quality wiki studies?
-Aaron
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Manuel Palomo Duarte
manuel.pal...@uca.eswrote:
Nice
MHO: only if they don't review wiki studies properly ...
2012/11/8 Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfa...@gmail.com
So, if I can re-ignite and re-frame the original question I posed,
- Why do we need a wiki journal if there are already high impact
journals that are receptive to high quality
I keep coming back to this same question Aaron's raised as well. Wiki is
obviously the glue holding everything thematically as well as logistically
together in the proposals I've seen here-to-for, but it seems
nigh-impossible to assemble an editorial board that is simultaneously open
and qualified
Some serious deliberation on identity and boundaries is also necessary.
WikiSym in recent years has been criticized (fairly in my eyes as an author
an PC member) as having significantly shifted from wiki-development and
professional implementation to academic (English) Wikipedia studies. Is
this
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Brian Keegan bkee...@northwestern.edu wrote:
It seems nigh-impossible to assemble an editorial board that is
simultaneously open
and qualified to reviewing submissions that almost certainly cover the gamut
from journalism and media studies, computer and
Dear all,
Hope you are all well.
I'm writing to check whether any of you have already had access to public
opinion researches on the Portuguese Wikipedia.
I've found and read a lot of researches about editorship, consensus X
controversies, content management analyses, as well as governance of
Hi everyone,
I am interested into counting the number of revisions every page went
through. I was wondering if it is possible to count that without using the
whole history dump. I mean is it available in the schema directly? Is
it computable without having the revisions text downloaded?
27 matches
Mail list logo
