On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl>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 my experience. In fact, I have never seen the editor > revealing the reviewer's identity. > I'll note that the discussions in this thread remain "abstract" insofar as they focus on journals and editing procedures in general -- not on the specific affordances and workflows associated with wikis, or the specific needs and interests of wikistas. This isn't to say that such discussions are unimportant -- but in order to be make them somewhat more exciting (!) I think it would be good to put aside the frame of "previous experience" and return to the question: what are we aiming for exactly? (Because: I think it's actually something very new.) 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 of course it is appropriate for discussion here. (And obviously I think it's the latter!) 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 expansion, or we'll just end up with some kind of turn-crank solution. To reframe that: What's NOT going to be traditional about this journal?
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
