Is anyone aware of a article or a set of guidelines for "Peer Reviews" Sam Alex Halavais <halavais@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks! First, I agree on the name: a domain-specific name makes more sense. Steve Jones already took the "Encyclopedia of New Media," but I'm sure we can find something good. I perhaps should have noted that the Wikiprojects, and particular the Chemistry project, was a spur for me. I'd talked off-handedly with a number of people over the last couple of years about how a peer review of Wikipedia (and similar resources) might work, but the Chemistry Wikiproject shows that it *can* work, which is inspiring. Someone asked off list if we would be following the Wikiproject model, and I would certainly like to provide a way to integrate with the Wikipedia 1.0 process. That said, I do think it is difficult to get a group of active academics to put in the kind of time the Chemistry wikiproject clearly demands. So I am trying to extract a piece of that--the review. I do think there needs to be a core devoted group who will shepherd the articles through the process, but since pretty much everyone who has contacted me so far has noted that their interest is time sensitive (which I share!), I would see the academic group helping with two areas in particular: 1. Nominating pages: Which pages are too good to pass up for peer review, and which pages are sorely needed in a collection. 2. The review: A peer-review process that follows the process found in most journals. Each article reviewed by three people with an up/down/necessary changes sort of feedback. Of course, given the brevity of many of the entries (when compared to a journal article), reviews should not be onerous. For it to work, we still need to count on both a dedicated core group of writers and editors of content, and those who edit and write more incidentally. But the peer-review group need not feel the obligation to do the heavy lifting. I think minimizing the amount of time the peer-review group needs to spend on the project ensures that we will have the best reviewers possible. Alex On 9/22/06, SJ Klein wrote:
Alex : lovely idea. confusing name, though. 99.9% of wikipedia is trusted by *someone*, after all...
Better to do a small project as you suggest, with a topic specific name, and see how it works out. The Chemistry WikiProject is currently doing that kind of expert peer review on chem articles;
-- // // This email is // [X] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais // Social Architect // http://alex.halavais.net // _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.