I think the infrastructure is there already with MediaWiki and WMF.

It do seem to me that Wikiversity is more about conducting research rather than publishing a permanent version, so maybe a more dedicated new WMF wiki could be called for with a more specific science publishing "brand".

Blind and double-blind review should be possible if the user/researcher/reviewer just selects a temporary username only known to the editor.

Interaction during the review is through discussion pages.

Peer-review is to a specific revision, possibly with lock of article by administrators once peer-reviewed and possibly allocation of a specific namespace, e.g., "Paper:". One advantage with a wiki is that you can improve the articles which is lost with locking. So perhaps the peer-reviewed paper can be copied to another namespace where wikilinks, and notes may be added. I suppose that Reference can also be handled on such a wiki with a special name space, e.g., Reference:Measuring_Wikipedia

A topic for the journal is not necessary, e.g., PLoS ONE handles all of science well and there is no reason to restrict it to (natural) science. I work together with medical and business school people and it would be nice to have an interdisciplinary journal. The topic is more related to selection of editors and reviewers which need to be expert in the fields. A "journal volume" is just a page like "List of papers published in March 2013 in Imaging Genetics".

For those who want to pay for formatting may do so like they do for many OA journals. I suppose some organizational effort may be needed there: endorsement of people paid to do, e.g., LaTeXing/DTP of wikitext with the result uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. A certain amount of fee may go to the organisation behind/WMF.

One problem is with researchers wanting to keep their submission (which may possibly be rejected) hidden. I usually put my articles in our departmental public publication database before it is accepted, so I would see absolutely no problem with making my submission available before acceptance.


/Finn
http://www.imm.dtu.dk/~fn/

On 17-09-2012 00:28, Piotr Konieczny wrote:
I think that an open content journal would be cheap to run. No staff -
everything done by volunteers. Hosting - Wikiversity? Meta?

Perhaps I am missing something, but if so, let me know what money would
be needed for. (I know some journals have paid staff of copyeditors,
issue print copies, and such, but this is not really needed...).

--
Piotr Konieczny

On 9/16/2012 4:12 AM, emijrp wrote:
2012/9/15 Kerry Raymond <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>

    To establish a journal (of any kind), you need a:

      * Topic
      * A community to read, write, review and do editorial duties in
        that topic
      * A business model to keep it afloat
      * A set of processes that make it academically respectable (for
        the folks who need this for grants, tenure etc)

    ...

    In short, I think the hardest nut to crack is the business model
    (i.e. money and people’s time). I think the other things can be
    worked out.



Thanks for your valuable tips Kerry.

About the business model, perhaps the journal can't survive by
donations but by entities that receive donations. I'm talking about
Wikimedia chapters. There are some powerfull chapters out there that
may want to support this journal project providing human effort,
resources and some money.

I think that academics and wikipedians must work together, and this
can be another way.

Just an idea...

    Kerry

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    *From:*[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>
    [mailto:[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf
    Of *emijrp
    *Sent:* Saturday, 15 September 2012 7:12 PM
    *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; Research into
    Wikimedia content and communities; Samuel Klein
    *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] Open-Access journals for papers
    about wikis

    The idea of creating a journal just for wikis is highly seductive
    for me.The "pillars" might be:

    * peer-reviewed, but publish a list of rejected papers and the
    reviewers comments
    * open-access (CC-BY-SA)
    * ask always for the datasets and offer them to download, the same
    for the developed software used in the research
    * encourage authors to publish early, publish often (as in free
    software)
    * supported by donations

    And... we can open a wiki where those who want can write papers in
    a collaborative and public way. You can start a new paper with
    colleagues or ask for volunteers authors interested in joining to
    your idea. When authors think that paper is finished and stable,
    they submit it to the journal and it is peer-reviewed again and
    published or discarded and returned to the wiki for improvements.

    Perhaps we may join efforts with the Wikimedia Research
    Newsletter? And start a page in meta:? ; )

    2012/9/15 Dariusz Jemielniak <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>>

    hi,


    On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Samuel Klein <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
    > I've been thinking recently that we should start this journal.
     There isn't an obvious candidate, despite some of the amazing
    research that's been done, and the extreme
    > transparency that allows much deeper work to be done on wiki
    communities in the future.

    I'll gladly help and support the idea. I think that just as Mathieu
    pointed out, The Journal of Peer Production is a good candidate, since
    it is already out there and running (even if low on the radar).
    Otherwise, there can be of course a journal dedicated to wiki-related
    work, it is quite easy to set it up (e.g. on Open Journal Systems
    platform). The key is not setting up a journal, since this is an easy
    part, but building a community that would regularly read it and
    contribute. In this sense Wikipedia may be a good common ground.


    On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Piotr Konieczny <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    > So what does it take to get a journal indexed in ISI?

    The procedure is quite lengthy and not entirely transparent. In short,
    you request being reviewed and from issue X onwards they check how
    often an average article from the journal is cited in other ISI
    journals. If you go above the threshold, you're in. The problem is
    that Thomson arbitrarily decides whether they want to audit a journal,
    arbitrarily calculates what constitutes an "article" (yes, it is not
    clear - some journals have editorials counted, some don't, in some
    cases Thomson calculates the citations for non-articles, but does not
    include the number of non-articles in the equation. Scientific, right?
    ;) invited articles count... or not, research notes - same, etc.). Oh,
    and also Thomson arbitrarily may or may not punish by banning you from
    ISI for real or imaginary manipulations (such as inbreed citations -
    some editors encourage citing other articles from the same journal,
    since they count like any others from the ISI list). There's actually
    a whole body of literature on journal rankings. Still, this is the
    game we have to play.

    One key factor in getting ISI is a community to drive the journal - if
    Wikipedia research community was widely willing to support one new
    journal, received updates etc., it would likely get cited and go off
    the ground (the case of "The Academy of Management Learning and
    Education" - on the ISI 2 years after the first issue, if I remember
    correctly).

    Btw, CSCW is on ISI list, but is not open access.


    On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Aaron Halfaker
    <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
    > Growing WikiSym into an open conference

    unfortunately, this does not help in some fields. For instance, in
    management/organization studies conference papers don't count at all,
    so actually there is a strong incentive not to go to a conference such
    as WikiSym, since it results in wasting a paper you cannot really
    publish in  way that would count. European RAEs rely more and more
    heavily on ISI and on ERIH rankings, so also non-ranked journals do
    not count anymore.

    best,

    dariusz



    _______________________________________________
    Wiki-research-l mailing list
    [email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>
    https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




    --

    Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com

    Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain)

    Projects: AVBOT <http://code.google.com/p/avbot/> | StatMediaWiki
    <http://statmediawiki.forja.rediris.es> | WikiEvidens
    <http://code.google.com/p/wikievidens/> | WikiPapers
    <http://wikipapers.referata.com> | WikiTeam
    <http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/>

    Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/


    _______________________________________________
    Wiki-research-l mailing list
    [email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>
    https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




--
Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com
Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain)
Projects: AVBOT <http://code.google.com/p/avbot/> | StatMediaWiki
<http://statmediawiki.forja.rediris.es> | WikiEvidens
<http://code.google.com/p/wikievidens/> | WikiPapers
<http://wikipapers.referata.com> | WikiTeam
<http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/>
Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/



_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Reply via email to