On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Joe Corneli <holtzerman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Kim Osman <kim.os...@qut.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> The newsletter is an important and unique space that has the potential to
>> foster this interaction through gathering current research and also
>> considering via effective and importantly *attributed* peer review, future
>> research directions. And maybe even collaborations...
>
> At the risk of drifting away from the initial theme in this thread,
> Kim's comment reminds me of:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas/Research_Hub
That's a good idea, but as I understand it, the demand is for stuff
closer to the academic end of the spectrum than the wikipedia end of
the spectrum; because there's a huge demand from academics for things
that count towards tenure (etc).
Academic means peer review, basically. Maybe what we need is a peer
review journal with a pair of review panels, one of academics ("is
this sound science, competently carried out?") and one of experienced
wikipedians ("is this conducted in an open and transparent fashion and
showing awareness of the wiki way of doing things?"). To be accepted
papers would have to pass both panels.
cheers
stuart
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
