I'd like to provide some data for comparison in terms of requirements for traditional academic journals. The Brazilian committee for my area that rates journals and acts as standard for cvs, tenures etc, lists [1]:
- editor-in-chief - editorial committee - consultive committee - ISSN - editorial policies - submission rules - peer-review - at least 14 annual articles - institutional affiliation for authors - institutional affiliation for committee members - abstracts and keywords in at least two languages - dates for articles receives and for articles published - must have at least one year of existence - regular periodicity My area happens to be History, and I know maybe some of these requirements are not exactly fitting for the intended goal here. But, like I said, I'm just listing some elements you might consider including. Juliana. [1] http://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/avaliacao/Qualis_-_Historia.pdf On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais < langlais.qo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 visible in most academic journals. > > PCL > > As far as my experience goes, the required group of editors would be an > editor-in-chief, an executive committee and a scientific committee, mostly > responsible for the peer reviews. Since I would like to participate, this > reminds me what criteria would be adopt for recruiting these, and how this > decision will be taken. I also assume that one or more universities (or an > academic institution, for that matter) would have to provide support - as > of, "published by...". > > Of course, this is the traditional way... Some things can be changed, but > others need to be retained in order for the journal to receive academic > recognition. > > Juliana. > > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais < > langlais.qo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> One idea would be to appoint one or several volunteer editor(s). They >> could ensure all the formal and administrative aspects of the journal: >> receiving and anonymizing the propositions, publishing them on the wiki, >> editing the final Wiki and PDF versions, keep in touch with ISI and other >> evaluation system and so on… >> >> @emirjp : well you can already count me in :) >> >> Not my case, but I understand that there are people in that situation. >>> This story was the same in 2001, when people thought that only an >>> expert-written encyclopedia with very rigid methods would be successful. >>> >>> Good for you, but it is somewhat irrelevant. I'd speculate that possibly >>> even most of the academic journals' production is done by people who do >>> have to care where they publish. Per comparing the situation to Wikipedia >>> in 2001, I want to firmly state that oranges are much better than apples. >>> >>> Entering the journal rankings is based on citation numbers, right? I did >>> this suggest thinking on the valuable researchers in this list, which may >>> be interested in publishing/peer-reviewing stuff in the journal. Won't you >>> cite that papers? >>> >>> The JCR journal ranking, which so far is the only one that matters (in >>> spite of its major flaws, methodological issues, etc.), bases on the number >>> of citations counted ONLY in other journals already listed in it. >>> >>> But there are also threshold requirements to be even considered for JCR >>> ranking, and obviously a double-blind peer reviews is a must. For practical >>> reasons of indexing, paper redistribution, etc., PDFs and numbered pages >>> also make life of a person who wants to cite a paper much easier. >>> >>> While I support your idea in principle, I think that it requires much >>> more effort, planning, and understanding of how academic publishing and >>> career paths actually work, than in the concept of "all we need is wiki". >>> >>> cheers, >>> >>> dj >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> Wiki-research-l@lists.**wikimedia.org<Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wiki-**research-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l> >>> >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> Wiki-research-l@lists.**wikimedia.org<Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wiki-**research-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l> >> > > > > -- > www.domusaurea.org > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > -- www.domusaurea.org
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
