Wiki Research Jounal…

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
28 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Wiki Research Jounal…

Pierre-Carl Langlais
Dear colleagues,

Last week I attended the parisian Open Access week main event that was  
held at the Unesco. I evoked briefly the migntable project of a Wiki  
Research Journal that was discussed in september (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas 
). It was received with a good deal of enthusiasm, both from  
scientists and from Unesco representatives.

So far, this concept seems very likely to materialize : only a bit of  
publicity could sufficed to attract several high-quality submissions.  
Three issues remain, nevertheless to be solved :
*Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not  
highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions  
in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.
*Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite  
general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent  
submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access…)  
or communication topics (wiki-system and so on…) could deem  
appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.
*Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to  
start. As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do  
is to ensure the technical bare necessities.

PCL
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Research Jounal…

Piotr Konieczny-2
On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:
>
> *Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not
> highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions
> in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.
What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity
seem rather appropriate?

> *Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite
> general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent
> submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access…)
> or communication topics (wiki-system and so on…) could deem
> appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.

I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and
nothing less.

> *Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to
> start. As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do
> is to ensure the technical bare necessities.
>

WMF grants procedure is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index
Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a
WMF wiki, and run by volunteers.


--
Piotr Konieczny

"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski




_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Research Jounal…

Pierre-Carl Langlais
Le 1 nov. 2012 à 17:14, Piotr Konieczny <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:
>>
>> *Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.
> What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity seem rather appropriate?

Well, the ideas collected on the Wiki Research Ideas page seemed to favour a specific structure, but, yes, you're right : it would be much easier to start on an existing wiki. I will perhaps try to draft some example of a wiki-journal portal by the next few days (we could actually get some inspiration from the signpost model).

>> *Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access…) or communication topics (wiki-system and so on…) could deem appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.
>
> I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.
>
It might be a good way to start the whole business, as we are all involved in wiki studies. This initial scope could still be extended if the journal turn out to be a lasting project.

>> *Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to start. As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure the technical bare necessities.
>>
>
> WMF grants procedure is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index
> Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a WMF wiki, and run by volunteers.
>
Agreed.
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Research Jounal…

Aaron Halfaker-2
In reply to this post by Piotr Konieczny-2
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.

I don't think that this is a good strategy.  Wiki's are just one type of collaboration support software.  What if the artifact of collaboration is not hypertext?  Most people would not consider a open source code repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the contribution model goes, it is nearly the same.  

Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of the problem of branding the conference around a single open collaboration technology and has started a transition from "WikiSym" to "OpenSym".


On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:

*Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.
What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity seem rather appropriate?


*Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access…) or communication topics (wiki-system and so on…) could deem appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.

I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.


*Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to start. As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure the technical bare necessities.


WMF grants procedure is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index
Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a WMF wiki, and run by volunteers.


--
Piotr Konieczny

"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski





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


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Research Jounal…

Piotr Konieczny-2
This is not a list for researching collaboration support software, this is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a focus on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and I am surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe itself. Perhaps it makes sense for a conference, although I am not convinced. For journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal limited to wiki studies. There is already a number of journals dedicated to collaboration support software (International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning - http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of e-Collaboration - http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/1090 ; The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices - http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some more broad journals on collaboration (International Journal of Collaborative Practices - http://collaborative-practices.com/ ; Journal of collaboration - http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/). Starting an n-th journal on that topic seems rather pointless to me, the only redeeming grace would be that ours would be open source (most others are closed). Much better, IMHO, to start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more narrow field, yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the broader field of collaboration support software, which already has several related journals.
--
Piotr Konieczny

"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.

I don't think that this is a good strategy.  Wiki's are just one type of collaboration support software.  What if the artifact of collaboration is not hypertext?  Most people would not consider a open source code repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the contribution model goes, it is nearly the same.  

Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of the problem of branding the conference around a single open collaboration technology and has started a transition from "WikiSym" to "OpenSym".


On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:

*Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.
What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity seem rather appropriate?


*Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access…) or communication topics (wiki-system and so on…) could deem appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.

I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.


*Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to start. As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure the technical bare necessities.


WMF grants procedure is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index
Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a WMF wiki, and run by volunteers.


--
Piotr Konieczny

"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski





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



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


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Research Jounal…

Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
Yes, I think that it is important to focus in the wikis topic. It is so broad that hardly would need more than that, I neither understand the WikiSym move to OpenSym.

But not only a new journal, we have an opportunity to create a more open publication model, using a... wiki for all the steps (writing, peer-reviewing and final publication).

I see this project like a big experiment. All we need is a wiki, some volunteers to write papers and some volunteers to peer-review them. After a year of work, we can publish all the "approved" papers as the Journal of Wikis, Vol. 1, Issue 1.

Volunteers?



2012/11/2 Piotr Konieczny <[hidden email]>
This is not a list for researching collaboration support software, this is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a focus on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and I am surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe itself. Perhaps it makes sense for a conference, although I am not convinced. For journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal limited to wiki studies. There is already a number of journals dedicated to collaboration support software (International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning - http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of e-Collaboration - http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/1090 ; The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices - http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some more broad journals on collaboration (International Journal of Collaborative Practices - http://collaborative-practices.com/ ; Journal of collaboration - http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/). Starting an n-th journal on that topic seems rather pointless to me, the only redeeming grace would be that ours would be open source (most others are closed). Much better, IMHO, to start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more narrow field, yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the broader field of collaboration support software, which already has several related journals.

--
Piotr Konieczny

"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.

I don't think that this is a good strategy.  Wiki's are just one type of collaboration support software.  What if the artifact of collaboration is not hypertext?  Most people would not consider a open source code repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the contribution model goes, it is nearly the same.  

Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of the problem of branding the conference around a single open collaboration technology and has started a transition from "WikiSym" to "OpenSym".


On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:

*Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.
What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity seem rather appropriate?


*Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access…) or communication topics (wiki-system and so on…) could deem appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.

I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.


*Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to start. As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure the technical bare necessities.


WMF grants procedure is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index
Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a WMF wiki, and run by volunteers.


--
Piotr Konieczny

"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski





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



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


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




--
Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine



_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Research Jounal…

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
unfortunately, if you want to make impact in the Academia, the approach of "all we need is a wiki" will not work. Even the most avid enthusiasts of open publication models and of wiki usually do have career-paths, tenure reviews, etc. As long as reality is as it is now, we'd have to have a "proper" journal, with PDFs, page numbers, etc., and an aim to enter the journal rankings, because otherwise the top researchers will have a strong incentive not to even consider our journal in their publications.

best,

dj


On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM, emijrp <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yes, I think that it is important to focus in the wikis topic. It is so broad that hardly would need more than that, I neither understand the WikiSym move to OpenSym.

But not only a new journal, we have an opportunity to create a more open publication model, using a... wiki for all the steps (writing, peer-reviewing and final publication).

I see this project like a big experiment. All we need is a wiki, some volunteers to write papers and some volunteers to peer-review them. After a year of work, we can publish all the "approved" papers as the Journal of Wikis, Vol. 1, Issue 1.

Volunteers?



2012/11/2 Piotr Konieczny <[hidden email]>
This is not a list for researching collaboration support software, this is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a focus on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and I am surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe itself. Perhaps it makes sense for a conference, although I am not convinced. For journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal limited to wiki studies. There is already a number of journals dedicated to collaboration support software (International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning - http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of e-Collaboration - http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/1090 ; The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices - http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some more broad journals on collaboration (International Journal of Collaborative Practices - http://collaborative-practices.com/ ; Journal of collaboration - http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/). Starting an n-th journal on that topic seems rather pointless to me, the only redeeming grace would be that ours would be open source (most others are closed). Much better, IMHO, to start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more narrow field, yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the broader field of collaboration support software, which already has several related journals.

--
Piotr Konieczny

"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.

I don't think that this is a good strategy.  Wiki's are just one type of collaboration support software.  What if the artifact of collaboration is not hypertext?  Most people would not consider a open source code repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the contribution model goes, it is nearly the same.  

Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of the problem of branding the conference around a single open collaboration technology and has started a transition from "WikiSym" to "OpenSym".


On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:

*Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.
What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity seem rather appropriate?


*Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access…) or communication topics (wiki-system and so on…) could deem appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.

I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.


*Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to start. As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure the technical bare necessities.


WMF grants procedure is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index
Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a WMF wiki, and run by volunteers.


--
Piotr Konieczny

"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski





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



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


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




--
Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine



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




--

__________________________
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
profesor zarządzania
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Research Jounal…

Manuel Palomo Duarte
+1

Let me add that the peer-reviewing system is a must, but not enough by itself for considering the magazine an addition to science. There is another important fact: who reviews the papers?

If a groups of enthusiastic but non-experienced, non-expert in research people review the submissions, what could be the result? A poor journal with little interest for academia ...



2012/11/2 Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
unfortunately, if you want to make impact in the Academia, the approach of "all we need is a wiki" will not work. Even the most avid enthusiasts of open publication models and of wiki usually do have career-paths, tenure reviews, etc. As long as reality is as it is now, we'd have to have a "proper" journal, with PDFs, page numbers, etc., and an aim to enter the journal rankings, because otherwise the top researchers will have a strong incentive not to even consider our journal in their publications.

best,

dj


On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM, emijrp <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yes, I think that it is important to focus in the wikis topic. It is so broad that hardly would need more than that, I neither understand the WikiSym move to OpenSym.

But not only a new journal, we have an opportunity to create a more open publication model, using a... wiki for all the steps (writing, peer-reviewing and final publication).

I see this project like a big experiment. All we need is a wiki, some volunteers to write papers and some volunteers to peer-review them. After a year of work, we can publish all the "approved" papers as the Journal of Wikis, Vol. 1, Issue 1.

Volunteers?



2012/11/2 Piotr Konieczny <[hidden email]>
This is not a list for researching collaboration support software, this is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a focus on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and I am surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe itself. Perhaps it makes sense for a conference, although I am not convinced. For journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal limited to wiki studies. There is already a number of journals dedicated to collaboration support software (International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning - http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of e-Collaboration - http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/1090 ; The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices - http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some more broad journals on collaboration (International Journal of Collaborative Practices - http://collaborative-practices.com/ ; Journal of collaboration - http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/). Starting an n-th journal on that topic seems rather pointless to me, the only redeeming grace would be that ours would be open source (most others are closed). Much better, IMHO, to start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more narrow field, yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the broader field of collaboration support software, which already has several related journals.

--
Piotr Konieczny

"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.

I don't think that this is a good strategy.  Wiki's are just one type of collaboration support software.  What if the artifact of collaboration is not hypertext?  Most people would not consider a open source code repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the contribution model goes, it is nearly the same.  

Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of the problem of branding the conference around a single open collaboration technology and has started a transition from "WikiSym" to "OpenSym".


On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:

*Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.
What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity seem rather appropriate?


*Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access…) or communication topics (wiki-system and so on…) could deem appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.

I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.


*Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to start. As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure the technical bare necessities.


WMF grants procedure is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index
Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a WMF wiki, and run by volunteers.


--
Piotr Konieczny

"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski





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



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


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




--
Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine



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




--

__________________________
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
profesor zarządzania
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

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




--
Prof. Manuel Palomo Duarte, PhD
Software Process Improvement and Formal Methods group (SPI&FM).
Degree Coordinator for Computer Science.
Department of Computer Science.
Escuela Superior de Ingenieria.
C/ Chile, 1
11002 - Cadiz (Spain)
University of Cadiz
Tlf: (+34) 956 015483
Mobile phone: (+34) 649 280080
Mobile phone from University network: 45483
Fax: (+34) 956 015139

Aviso legal: Este mensaje (incluyendo los ficheros adjuntos) puede contener información confidencial, dirigida a un destinatario y objetivo específico. Si usted no es el destinatario del mismo le pido disculpas, y le pido que elimine este correo, evitando cualquier divulgación, copia o distribución de su contenido, así como desarrollar o ejecutar cualquier acción basada en el mismo.
--
Legal Notice: This message (including the attached files) contains confidential information, directed to a specific addressee and objective. In case you are not the addressee of the same, I apologize. And I ask you to delete this mail, and not to resend, copy or distribute its content, as well as develop or execute any action based on the same.



_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Research Jounal…

Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
2012/11/2 Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
unfortunately, if you want to make impact in the Academia, the approach of "all we need is a wiki" will not work. Even the most avid enthusiasts of open publication models and of wiki usually do have career-paths, tenure reviews, etc.

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.
 
As long as reality is as it is now, we'd have to have a "proper" journal, with PDFs, page numbers, etc., and an aim to enter the journal rankings, because otherwise the top researchers will have a strong incentive not to even consider our journal in their publications.

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?
 

best,

dj


On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM, emijrp <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yes, I think that it is important to focus in the wikis topic. It is so broad that hardly would need more than that, I neither understand the WikiSym move to OpenSym.

But not only a new journal, we have an opportunity to create a more open publication model, using a... wiki for all the steps (writing, peer-reviewing and final publication).

I see this project like a big experiment. All we need is a wiki, some volunteers to write papers and some volunteers to peer-review them. After a year of work, we can publish all the "approved" papers as the Journal of Wikis, Vol. 1, Issue 1.

Volunteers?



2012/11/2 Piotr Konieczny <[hidden email]>
This is not a list for researching collaboration support software, this is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a focus on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and I am surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe itself. Perhaps it makes sense for a conference, although I am not convinced. For journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal limited to wiki studies. There is already a number of journals dedicated to collaboration support software (International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning - http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of e-Collaboration - http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/1090 ; The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices - http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some more broad journals on collaboration (International Journal of Collaborative Practices - http://collaborative-practices.com/ ; Journal of collaboration - http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/). Starting an n-th journal on that topic seems rather pointless to me, the only redeeming grace would be that ours would be open source (most others are closed). Much better, IMHO, to start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more narrow field, yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the broader field of collaboration support software, which already has several related journals.

--
Piotr Konieczny

"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.

I don't think that this is a good strategy.  Wiki's are just one type of collaboration support software.  What if the artifact of collaboration is not hypertext?  Most people would not consider a open source code repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the contribution model goes, it is nearly the same.  

Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of the problem of branding the conference around a single open collaboration technology and has started a transition from "WikiSym" to "OpenSym".


On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:

*Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.
What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity seem rather appropriate?


*Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access…) or communication topics (wiki-system and so on…) could deem appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.

I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.


*Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to start. As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure the technical bare necessities.


WMF grants procedure is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index
Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a WMF wiki, and run by volunteers.


--
Piotr Konieczny

"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski





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



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


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




--
Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine



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




--

__________________________
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
profesor zarządzania
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

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




--
Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine



_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Research Jounal…

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Research Jounal…

Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
Great Dariusz : ) I will launch the Journal of Wikis project and I will learn a lot. It won't be just a journal in the old sense, it will be something new.

I remember when people on this mailing list talked during years about a way to compile wiki literature, but no advances were done. Until I decided to create WikiPapers.

I don't care about making mistakes, I care about discussing these topics in a loop for years.

2012/11/2 Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
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



--
Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine



_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Research Jounal…

Pierre-Carl Langlais
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3

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
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Research Jounal…

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
In reply to this post by Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
fair enough, when people tell you that something is impossible, it means you're probably on the right way :) good luck. 

dj


On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:01 PM, emijrp <[hidden email]> wrote:
Great Dariusz : ) I will launch the Journal of Wikis project and I will learn a lot. It won't be just a journal in the old sense, it will be something new.

I remember when people on this mailing list talked during years about a way to compile wiki literature, but no advances were done. Until I decided to create WikiPapers.

I don't care about making mistakes, I care about discussing these topics in a loop for years.


2012/11/2 Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
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



--
Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine





--

__________________________
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
profesor zarządzania
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Research Jounal…

Juliana Bastos Marques
In reply to this post by Pierre-Carl Langlais
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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


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



--
www.domusaurea.org

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Research Jounal…

Pierre-Carl Langlais

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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


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



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


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Research Jounal…

Juliana Bastos Marques
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.






On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


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



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


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




--
www.domusaurea.org

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Research Jounal…

Ziko van Dijk-3
In reply to this post by Juliana Bastos Marques
Hello,
I find it a very good idea (I expressed it in 2008 or 2009); the focus
should be somewhat defined, e..g wiki's and open content; and it
should be done in a way that others respect the journal.
Kind regards
Ziko

2012/11/2 Juliana Bastos Marques <[hidden email]>:

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

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Research Jounal…

Pierre-Carl Langlais
In reply to this post by Juliana Bastos Marques

Thanks a lot for these interesting information. I have given a look at the French Institute of scientific evaluation (AERES). Their requirements are very simlar :
(1) Open editorial comittee, with international range and a main focus of research.
(2) Efficient selection process (which imply a significant rate of rejection)
(3) International openness.
(4) Institutionnal support (from scientific organization…)
(5) Good quality management (timeliness…)
(6) Implication in disciplinary and community debates.

It's certainly far from the ambitious projects of emirjp, but I have expanded a bit my shaping device : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal

Concerning the wiki vs. wider thematic, I think the matter ought to be considered on a strategic level. The wiki is undeniably a good market niche, as no specific journal covers the topics so far. Yet, as an experiment in open access, the journal may have some legitimacy to tackle collaborative and open knowledge wider thema. Therefore, I would rather support a flexible position : the main focus remains wiki-research even though the scientific comittee can, from time to time, go beyond this definite range.

PCL

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.






On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


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



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


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




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


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Research Jounal…

Juliana Bastos Marques
As for any candidates for institutional academic support, I could easily arrange for my university, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro State (UNIRIO - http://www.unirio.br), where I've been setting a wiki research Lab and we have a very good Library Studies Dept., where they can help us with the setting of the journal. Brazil has a wide experience in open-access journals (we don't have these paywalls at all. See, e.g., http://www.scielo.org).

In fact, I do think that two or three institutions working as partners to host the journal would be great (one of them being WMF?), and in keeping with current international academic goals.

Juliana.



On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks a lot for these interesting information. I have given a look at the French Institute of scientific evaluation (AERES). Their requirements are very simlar :
(1) Open editorial comittee, with international range and a main focus of research.
(2) Efficient selection process (which imply a significant rate of rejection)
(3) International openness.
(4) Institutionnal support (from scientific organization…)
(5) Good quality management (timeliness…)
(6) Implication in disciplinary and community debates.

It's certainly far from the ambitious projects of emirjp, but I have expanded a bit my shaping device : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexander_Doria/First_Proposal_for_a_Wiki_Journal

Concerning the wiki vs. wider thematic, I think the matter ought to be considered on a strategic level. The wiki is undeniably a good market niche, as no specific journal covers the topics so far. Yet, as an experiment in open access, the journal may have some legitimacy to tackle collaborative and open knowledge wider thema. Therefore, I would rather support a flexible position : the main focus remains wiki-research even though the scientific comittee can, from time to time, go beyond this definite range.

PCL

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.






On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


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



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


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




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


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




--
www.domusaurea.org

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Research Jounal…

Piotr Konieczny-2
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
I would like to volunteer to help, but I agree with Darek that we need to aim towards entering serious journal rankings from day 1. I think we can both experiment with the wiki publishing model, and prepare a pdf versions if needed for the traditionalists; it's not like it's difficult - MediaWiki has a pdf-export option (wikibook), and it is a standard feature in Open/Libre Office, too.
--
Piotr Konieczny

On 11/2/2012 5:58 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
unfortunately, if you want to make impact in the Academia, the approach of "all we need is a wiki" will not work. Even the most avid enthusiasts of open publication models and of wiki usually do have career-paths, tenure reviews, etc. As long as reality is as it is now, we'd have to have a "proper" journal, with PDFs, page numbers, etc., and an aim to enter the journal rankings, because otherwise the top researchers will have a strong incentive not to even consider our journal in their publications.

best,

dj


On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM, emijrp <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yes, I think that it is important to focus in the wikis topic. It is so broad that hardly would need more than that, I neither understand the WikiSym move to OpenSym.

But not only a new journal, we have an opportunity to create a more open publication model, using a... wiki for all the steps (writing, peer-reviewing and final publication).

I see this project like a big experiment. All we need is a wiki, some volunteers to write papers and some volunteers to peer-review them. After a year of work, we can publish all the "approved" papers as the Journal of Wikis, Vol. 1, Issue 1.

Volunteers?



2012/11/2 Piotr Konieczny <[hidden email]>
This is not a list for researching collaboration support software, this is a list for discussing one specific type of it, the wikis (with a focus on Wikipedia). I see nothing wrong with retaining this focus, and I am surprised that the rather successful WikiSym is trying to reframe itself. Perhaps it makes sense for a conference, although I am not convinced. For journal, there is certainly a scope for a (the...) journal limited to wiki studies. There is already a number of journals dedicated to collaboration support software (International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning - http://ijcscl.org/ ; International Journal of e-Collaboration - http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-collaboration-ijec/1090 ; The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices - http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/10606), plus some more broad journals on collaboration (International Journal of Collaborative Practices - http://collaborative-practices.com/ ; Journal of collaboration - http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22377427w636731/). Starting an n-th journal on that topic seems rather pointless to me, the only redeeming grace would be that ours would be open source (most others are closed). Much better, IMHO, to start the FIRST journal of wiki studies. A more narrow field, yes, but much more badly in need of a journal than the broader field of collaboration support software, which already has several related journals.

--
Piotr Konieczny

"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
On 11/1/2012 2:21 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.

I don't think that this is a good strategy.  Wiki's are just one type of collaboration support software.  What if the artifact of collaboration is not hypertext?  Most people would not consider a open source code repository to be a "wiki" without doing some stretching, but as far as the contribution model goes, it is nearly the same.  

Recently, the steering committee of WikiSym became aware of the problem of branding the conference around a single open collaboration technology and has started a transition from "WikiSym" to "OpenSym".


On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 11/1/2012 7:45 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais wrote:

*Technical issue : we probably need a specific wiki. Whereas not highly sophisticated, it should perhaps include some reading functions in order to make the journal main content easy to read and to refer to.
What's wrong with hosting it at one of WMF wikis? Meta or Wikiversity seem rather appropriate?


*Scientific issue : the journal requires rather a broad and definite general thematic, in order to receive diverse and, yet, coherent submissions. Perhaps a focus on epistemological topics (open access…) or communication topics (wiki-system and so on…) could deem appropriate, as it would allow to go beyond disciplinary barriers.

I'd suggest focusing on the area of wiki studies, nothing more and nothing less.


*Financial issue : a small grant from the WMF would be enough to start. As the journal is to rely on volunteer work, all we have to do is to ensure the technical bare necessities.


WMF grants procedure is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index
Through I am not sure what costs would involved, if it is hosted at a WMF wiki, and run by volunteers.


--
Piotr Konieczny

"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski





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



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


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




--
Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine



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




--

__________________________
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
profesor zarządzania
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl


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


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
12