Wiki Research Ideas/Submission rules

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a mere draft of submission rules for an OA periodical on Wikis. Most ideas evoked there have been initially issued on the wiki-research mailing list.

Submitting a proposal[edit]

The submission process requires three steps.

  1. The potential author sends his/her proposal to the Editorial comittee through mail (to this point, it's the usual way).
  2. The Editorial comitte ensures the publication of this proposal on the wiki, without divulging the identity of its author.
  3. The Editorial comittee creates an anon identity on the wiki for the author (for instance User:AuthorA1 — A being the number of the journal issue, 1 the chronological number of the author). Therefore, the author has the ability to correct personnally its proposal during the process of reviewing — of course, this new possibility is not mandatory, and the author can well abstain from using it.

Reviewing an article[edit]

Most of the reviewing process is guaranteed by the scientific comittee. Its composition is made public. Yet, each reviewer uses an anon identity (User:ReviewerA1), so that his/her actions cannot be firmly linked with his/her real name..

Anyone can publish its evaluation on each proposals. The scientific comittee may take into account the most pertinent one, and possibly withdraw those of no value.

The reviewing pages may include the discussion page of its proposal and some coordination pages where the reviewers debates on broader issue (comparative evaluation…).

From proposals to articles[edit]

Once the reviewing comittee has made its final choice, the editorial comittee informed the authors that have been retained. They are to write the article before a specific deadline. Preferably, they should publish it directly of the wiki. Some part of it should be dedicated to a selection of backstage stuff : the drafts the author has issued, the specific remarks of the scientific comittee, the corrections and enhancements done by other editors and the like…

Besides, the identity of the authors of every proposals becomes public. Contrary to most journals, the rejected proposals are never forgotten or useless and mau actually attract someone else's attention.