thanks Chitu, although it is totally not my field, it looks really
interesting!
(downloaded from:
http://ftp.cs.arizona.edu/~rts/pubs/SIGMODRecordSept06.pdf
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Chitu Okoli wrote:
> I know this is an old branch of this topic, but since it generated quite
> some int
I know this is an old branch of this topic, but since it generated
quite some interest on this list, I thought I'd share this excellent
article I recently found on double-blind vs. single-blind reviewing.
It addresses most of the issues that were discussed in this
sub-thr
Jodi,
You have a good point about the ease of changing WikiSym and opening a new
track, but I wonder why an author might choose to submit a "working paper"
and pay for travel to a conference if they'll end up submitting the final
product to a place where they receive credit anyway.
Since WikiSym
Hi Aaron,
I think Dariusz' suggestion is that we add a conference track for
non-archival "working papers" from social scientists.
It is much faster for WikiSym to change than for the recognition
environment of all social scientists to change. Even if we mark papers as
archival the 'conference' la
Can we not just label which of our accepted papers are archival? It seems
that some disciplines assume Journal == Archival and Conference !=
Archival. This is apparently inaccurate in other disciplines so there must
be some reason we don't just note which papers are archived and which are
not. I
I think it basically is a different publication model. You probably could
have two track (one for final, the other for working papers) so as to
address the disciplines which rely on journals as final outlets.
Best,
Dj
20 lis 2012 20:26, "Jodi Schneider" napisał(a):
> Hi Dariusz,
>
> For reusing
Hi Dariusz,
For reusing the paper unchanged this is indeed a problem. "Journal" could
be added to the list of mentioned reuse venues--but this still wouldn't
imply that the entirety of the paper could be used without change, I
suspect. For ACM conferences, there are two types of papers:
- archiva
: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Why?
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 se
Based on my past experiences with WP:ACST, whenever I thought it reached
a plateau it was simply because the databases I was checking did not
have all the latest papers.
--
Piotr Konieczny
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's
laurels, is defeat." --Jó
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Brian Keegan 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 information sciences,
> com
**
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> There is no way to get an immediate “great reputation” for a new
>>>> journal. But I think a clear focus on topic, a hard-working international
>>>> editorial team, and a firm but fair reviewing proces
ill attract more good quality papers in
>>> response
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Kerry
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ** **
>>> --
>>>
>>> *From:* wiki-research-l-boun
ng process and reviewers will
>>> yield good-quality papers and will attract more good quality papers in
>>> response
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Kerry
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ** **
>>> ---
>
>> *From:* wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
>> wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Aaron
>> Halfaker
>> *Sent:* Friday, 9 November 2012 1:51 AM
>> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>> *Subj
and will attract more good quality papers in response*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> Kerry
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
> --
>
> *From:* wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
> wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Aaron Halfaker
> *Sent:* Frid
y papers in response
Kerry
_
From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Aaron
Halfaker
Sent: Friday, 9 November 2012 1:51 AM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] W
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 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Catego
-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
koltzenb...@w4w.net
Sent: Thursday, 8 November 2012 7:41 PM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind
vs.single-blind review
M
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:38 PM, wrote:
> Answer 2:
>
> articles are not "submitted" to the journal's editors but written openly on
> the journals' platform (and then
> maybe sent to a review process elsewhere as well as opening up to public
> review here)
My answer would be like your Answer 2
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.
Hi Dariusz,
This is interesting, because if we can articulate problems in the copyright
notice, we may be able to fix them. Currently, for WikiSym, the
ACM Publications copyright form for proceedings is used:
*http://www.acm.org/publications/CopyReleaseProc-9-12.pdf*
This includes:
* The right to
yes, exactly, Chitu.
Aaron - per your comment:
> I'd argue that anyone who does not value a publication purely because the
venue is called a "conference" regardless of the impact/restrictiveness is
making a mistake.
I don't think anybody here depreciated the value of conference
publications. All
2012/11/8
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:50:52 +, Joe Corneli wrote
> [...]
> > This point from Claudia is important -- «keep in mind that we are not
> > talking about a traditional journal here but about "a new research
> journal
> > about Wikis and about research done by using Wikis"» -- however,
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 o
On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:50:52 +, Joe Corneli wrote
[...]
> This point from Claudia is important -- «keep in mind that we are not
> talking about a traditional journal here but about "a new research journal
> about Wikis and about research done by using Wikis"» -- however, I think it
> needs expan
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
Just adding more stuff to this discussion.
The publication rate peaked in 2010-2011 (see the linked bar graph; 2012 is
not properly represented). The list of publications is not complete yet,
but it shows clearly a pattern. Perhaps wiki studies reached a plateau?
http://wikipapers.referata.com/wi
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 r
"Highly rated" is an interesting property. One of the ways that a
publication venue becomes highly rated is by being highly
restrictive. In fact, the primary measurement of the quality of a
publication venue is the acceptance rate of that conference.
WikiSym is not considered highly ra
"Highly rated" is an interesting property. One of the ways that a
publication venue becomes highly rated is by being highly restrictive. In
fact, the primary measurement of the quality of a publication venue is the
acceptance rate of that conference.
WikiSym is not considered highly rated becaus
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
> To state it plainly, why do we need yet another publication venue specific to
> wiki software?
I think people want a "highly rated" publication venue. Also,
«The reason why WikiSym is changing is for the same reason. People are
not goin
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 wi
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
>
> 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
> 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
> communit
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> in your experience, Dariusz, does this mean reviewers feel fine in placing
>> tons of trust in the editors and
>> their helphands who organize the review not to tell authors who was their
>> most brilliant reviewer?
>>
>
> Yes, that is m
hi,
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:17 AM, 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 stay anonymous?
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 reviewe
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, espec
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
argum
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
> well, any attempts at pressures or bribes could easily be made known,
> couldn't they?
>
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:56:3
well, any attempts at pressures or bribes could easily be made known, couldn't
they?
On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:56:35 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote
> 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
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
> agree,
> ... so it is up to you as a reviewer what you do with your "blind
agree,
... so it is up to you as a reviewer what you do with your "blindness" :-)
doesn't this point in the direction of - plus - is + ?
I mean: why not do open peer reviewing?
Claudia
On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:43:39 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote
> Even more, you can easily identify the autho
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
> Most of my reviewing for conference and journals was double blind,
> although the effectiveness of it was always a bit qu
Most of my reviewing for conference and journals was double blind, although
the effectiveness of it was always a bit questionable, as in many cases you
can, as a reviewer, identify the author from the style and argument. This
tends to get worse in specialised areas, where the pool of researchers is
I cannot speak for other disciplines but double-blind is not standard in
Computer Science.
Kerry
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
well, then I think I basically disagree on this one. I think that the fact
that the authors CAN be identified after doing some more or less advanced
research, does not mean that the reviewers are going to actively seek to
break their anonymity (in fact, I'd assume this would be discouraged by
most
Here are some references about the pros and cons of double-blind
peer review:
* Book: Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths & Weaknesses by Ann
C. Weller [1]. This book covers not only double-blind peer review,
but empirical studies about all kinds of peer review (inc
Here are a few scenarios:
* The research topic concerns a public website. The website
identifies the authors. The paper makes no sense without explicitly
identifying the website. Thus, authors should be able to request
single-blind review. Note that this scenario ver
just out of curiosity, what could be the reasonable expected purposes for
requesting a single-blind review instead of a standard double-blind in your
model?
best,
dj
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Chitu Okoli wrote:
> Actually, I think it is more reasonable to use double-blind by default
> u
The woman discrimination is something the journal should care about. Any
idea on how to face it?
2012/11/6 Chitu Okoli
> Actually, I think it is more reasonable to use double-blind by default
> unless authors request single-blind. If single-blind were the default, it
> would be difficult to req
I would note that the use of 1) would render double-blind irrelevant in 2). We
would all know ...
Sent from my iPad
On 06/11/2012, at 6:05 AM, "Kerry Raymond" wrote:
>
> I think two things can be done in parallel.
>
> 1. Allow folks to create descriptions of research in progress on the wiki,
Actually, I think it is more reasonable to use double-blind by
default unless authors request single-blind. If single-blind were
the default, it would be difficult to request double-blind as
exceptions:
* If there is a "big name" researcher who wants to take advantag
I equally see the journal as a way to bridge research as it is, and
research as it's likely to become. The main work the editing committee
is liable to do is social: enforce usual procedures, keep in touch
with the ISI and other certification centers, find partnerships with
scholar institut
Good points, Kerry, sup!
dj
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Kerry Raymond wrote:
>
> I think two things can be done in parallel.
>
> 1. Allow folks to create descriptions of research in progress on the wiki,
> which can be progressively updated. This enables others to make suggestions
> on meth
I think two things can be done in parallel.
1. Allow folks to create descriptions of research in progress on the wiki,
which can be progressively updated. This enables others to make suggestions
on methodology, give feedback on drafts of papers and so forth. Open and
collaborative and experimenta
On Nov 5, 2012, at 2:39 AM, Jodi Schneider wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Ward Cunningham 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 conversa
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 co
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais
wrote:
> I may sound a bit overractive, but can't we do both? I would easily imagine
> the following two-way system:
> *A wiki-laboratory, which hosts quick and less quick projects in progress.
> That could also include some reactive analysis by
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
welco
+1 Jodi!
I agree it would be great to experiment on-site as you suggest
Claudia
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 10:39:34 +, Jodi Schneider wrote
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Ward Cunningham wrote:
>
> > I wonder if a better place to innovate might be in the conduct of
> > research, rather than th
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Ward Cunningham 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
I think a compromise position is to use single-blind unless the authors request
double-blind and are therefore prepared to undertake the "ridiculous
gymnastics" required.
Certainly (in computer science) I would agree that it is very hard for any
established researcher publishing in their normal
Le 5 nov. 2012 à 01:57, Ward Cunningham a écrit :
> I wonder if a better place to innovate might be in the conduct of research,
> rather than the reporting, review and publication of research?
>
> While wiki speeds collaboration within a community, the research literature
> favors long-lasting
I just watched Stephen Friend's presentation. 15 minutes well spent. Thanks. --
Ward
On Nov 4, 2012, at 5:13 PM, Jack Park wrote:
> Wondering further, I recently became acquainted with the Sage
> Bioinformatics Synapse platform:
>
> https://synapse.sagebase.org/
>
> by way of a keynote at the
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Ward Cunningham wrote:
> Aside: I have built a data mining tool and methodology, Exploratory
> Parsing, that can read all of Wikipedia in 10 seconds for a useful notion
> of "read". I have also created a Federated Wiki that promotes wiki-like
> sharing without nee
Wondering further, I recently became acquainted with the Sage
Bioinformatics Synapse platform:
https://synapse.sagebase.org/
by way of a keynote at the O'Reilly Strata Rx conference by the Sage
president, Stephen Friend;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4Pvq4sldbQ
A later talk (apparently not on
I wonder if a better place to innovate might be in the conduct of research,
rather than the reporting, review and publication of research?
While wiki speeds collaboration within a community, the research literature
favors long-lasting contributions outside the community. Wiki or wiki-like
colla
Although in theory double-blind review is superior to single-blind,
in practice double-blind vs. single-blind review has very little to
do with journal quality. It is much more a matter of disciplinary
culture. (Single-blind: authors don't know who the reviewers are,
but
I'll first say that I've never been on an editorial board, so my
comments might be somewhat limited. Like my students, I learn best
when I'm shown where I'm mistaken, so I would like to learn from you
all!
On one hand, I agree that readership is very important. On th
70 matches
Mail list logo
