There has been a lot of talk about how to start a journal. The real
issue in starting a journal is not the editorial board, or the way it
is published, or whether it will gather the citation impact. The real
issue is READERSHIP.
If you can get people to read the journal, then it will have
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Ed H. Chi c...@acm.org wrote:
There has been a lot of talk about how to start a journal. The real
issue in starting a journal is not the editorial board, or the way it
is published, or whether it will gather the citation impact. The real
issue is READERSHIP.
Ed and others, based on your observations, I'd like to pose a side question:
The impression that I get from many of these symposia (and journals) is
that there is not much space for research concerning Wikipedia and
Education, such as teaching methodologies, case studies and such, not on
the side
Yes, that's a good point. Nevertheless, readership is not an inherent
quality. It depends on several factors, most of which are
attractiveness (is the journal layout fine to read? does the selection
brings up insightful content?), positioning (which scientific
disciplines are concerned?)
actually, with our community, it is not. What other journals die for, we
have sort of provided. This is why a Wiki journal may have a better chance
than others, but only if it is prepared with the academic career paths and
full proper code of conduct nuances considered (double-blind scholarly peer
This is exactly my problem nowadays. I am a historian and don't have
much to say about software and data mining, but would like to read
more about the humanities approach with regard to Wikipedia. Readers
experiences and expectations, Wikipedia in school and university etc.
Kind regards
Ziko
So long as Google scholar is indexing the journal, I see no problem with
finding a readership.
How often do you start your quest for relevant literature by sitting down
with a set of journal titles? Yes, that's how we used to do it. But now
everyone just sits down in front of Google Scholar and
Brian has a good idea, and I think that e.g. the Journal of Peer Production
could be potentially open to being hijacked :)
Reviewers cannot be anonymous to the managing editor if the journal is to
satisfy the traditional criteria of peer review. However, one simple
innovation would be allowing
dear all,
great idea(s). i'll be happy to help.
i have a question.
-- How about WIkipedia articles?
For WikiAfrica Primary School Project (2013-2015) we are looking for a journal
which can publish or produce peer-reviewed Wikipedia articles (anyone can
produce or propose an article but
I have just made a very quick draft to have a general idea of what the
journal could be : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal
It includes notably a « Making-Of » section that comprises all the
working and contextual texts that are not
Hello,
I find it a very good idea (I expressed it in 2008 or 2009); the focus
should be somewhat defined, e..g wiki's and open content; and it
should be done in a way that others respect the journal.
Kind regards
Ziko
2012/11/2 Juliana Bastos Marques domusau...@gmail.com:
As far as my experience
As for any candidates for institutional academic support, I could easily
arrange for my university, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro State
(UNIRIO - http://www.unirio.br), where I've been setting a wiki research
Lab and we have a very good Library Studies Dept., where they can help us
with the
I would like to volunteer to help, but I agree with Darek that we need
to aim towards entering serious journal rankings from day 1. I think we
can both experiment with the wiki publishing model, and prepare a pdf
versions if needed for the traditionalists; it's not like it's difficult
-
Have you all considered whether the costs of bootstrapping up a set of
editors and authors, playing the impact factor game, and articulating a
mission that is broad enough to include computer scientists and historians
warrant the benefits of having yet another outlet to publish wiki research?
The
I like the draft design. Here's an idea on how to do tackle the double
blind peer review, wiki way:
1) anonymous submissions: let's have a public account for submissions
(username and password either listed on the journal page, or given out
by editor through email). This being meta or
Dear colleagues,
Last week I attended the parisian Open Access week main event that was
held at the Unesco. I evoked briefly the migntable project of a Wiki
Research Journal that was discussed in september (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas
). It was received with a good
Le 1 nov. 2012 à 17:14, Piotr Konieczny pio...@post.pl a écrit :
On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:
*Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly
sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to
make the journal main
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and
nothing less.
I don't think that this is a good strategy. Wiki's are just one type of
collaboration support software. What if the artifact of collaboration is
not hypertext? Most people would not consider a open source code
This is not a list for researching collaboration support software, this
is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a
focus on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and
I am surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe
itself.
19 matches
Mail list logo
