Interesting Laura. I like this proposal. Regarding the Journal objective, have you considered my suggestions for running a journal? I'm wondering if your project might not be the seed for a UCNISS journal generally, run along the lines I suggest, and including your proposal of including Wikipedia and Books work too. UCNISS has been aiming to get a journal up and running for a while now, and we recently met to try and coordinate and capture our research more.. which will be reflected in the UCNISS/Research and Development. Women and children in sport would become a regular theme in this journal, I'm thinking Leighblackall 04:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it being part of a journal produced by UCNISS. It might make it easier in some ways, in terms of getting academic reviewers by doing that. (And who those reviewers will be would have a huge potential impact on trying to get other academics involved to help bring some credibility to it.) We might have to go outside that pool though if we say get people looking to submit from outside Australia. I'd like some form of assessment similar to A+ class assessment that can be actually be seen on Wikipedia articles, possibly trying to set up an article assessment process that could be mirrored on Wikiversity for any original work done here. I'm not really keen on using the University of Canberra webspace as what I have seen of it doesn't seem to really work for what I'd like to do. (Hence, I'd like the space to actually be hosted on Wikimedia Australia's space.) And I don't really have a problem with the process being open to anyone, just so long as we have what are the "officially acceptable" kind of standards involved, including double blind peer review… and this is not always nice if you want openness but it needs to be there. :/
I don't know how broad it would b. How would what you are proposing be different than the Bulletin of Sport and Culture and a few other journals that already exist? --LauraHale 04:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the difference to Bulletin, our process would be a lot more open I imagine. Employing the principles of these wikis for example.. indeed the wider Internet. Inviting anyone to submit, and refining our review processes - similar to how Wikinews does their thing, but people are free to write wherever they think is best for them. Decentralised, but recentralised via the review process.
Regarding that review process.. specifically double blind review, open authoring is a problem for blind review, and significant journals are dropping it - Inside Higher Ed Rejecting Double Blind May 31, 2011. Leighblackall 10:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
On the double blind issue and openess: There needs to be some way of doing something recognisably similar just in terms of making sure enough academy practices are followed to get legitimacy. The publications you're talking about have that credibility already. The isn't necessarily the submission process. That should be easy enough to address. The problem is more the who will the reviewers be, making sure that is clear to anyone potentially submitting, etc. --LauraHale 11:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The Bulletin tends to be very footy code centric, lacking a lot of female content outside of the context of popular men's sports. In the context of what UCNISS does well (and how it differs from Victoria University) is that it misses a lot of the sport science thing. I wouldn't mind being like the Bulletin, with a more female centric content approach… but if the major difference is just submitting process and not content, not sure the point. --LauraHale 11:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Journal proposal copied here
Talked to Keith about doing a journal. The focus is not necessarily credibility but about facilitating the sharing of knowledge and bringing in other knowledge stake holders. There are other ways to do this than a journal… and I'm not particularly interested in doing a journal myself. Putting it here, so there is a record of it that is visible in case this is an issue that needs to be revisited.
Academic peer reviewed journal
One of the first goals of this project would be to create a one shot academically peer reviewed journal. If it is successful, then it would be continued. The goal would be to have a third to half the content to be from Wikipedia. Other content would include book reviews, and articles requiring original research. This other type of content is very important in terms of helping the journal have credibility.
The process for submitting Wikipedia articles would involve steps like the following:
A potential contributor identifies an article on Wikipedia or Wikibooks that they would like create or improve for possible review. The contributor, following Wikipedia or Wikibooks's editorial and citation guidelines, improves the article. The contributor must be responsible for at least 25% of the content to the article.
The submitting contributor identifies other major contributors to the article who have contributed 20% or more of the text remaining that the submitting contributor is not responsible for. They ask these contributors if they are interested in gaining recognition for having an academically peer reviewed publication. If the contributor says yes, they would need to provide information regarding how they would like to be credited (if different than their Wikipedia or Wikibooks user name) and what country the contributor is from, and possibly any university or employment affiliations that may be relevant.
Once the contributor is ready to submit the article for academic peer review, they add a tag to the talk page of the Wikipedia or Wikibooks page to announcing which revision they wish to have peer reviewed. The contributor would also contact the journal with the link to the Wikipedia or Wikibooks revision that they desire to have peer reviewed. The contributor also contacts the journal editorial board with a link to the revision they want approved, evidence that they contacted all other article contributors who provided 20% or more of the text of that revision, the country they are from and that other contributors to the article who are seeking credit are from. (All contributors to the article will be credited as writers, per the CC license that WP-EN uses. They just will not be given credit for authorship in terms of getting academically peer reviewed.)
A double blind peer review is then done based on that revision. The academic peer review must have a reviewer who is from the country of all academically credited contributors to the article.
If the article passes academic peer review, the version (possibly revised version) will be posted to a website/closed wiki operated by the women's research centre. It will be acknowledged as having been academically peer reviewed. The talk page tag on Wikipedia or wikiBooks will be edited to say if the article passes academic peer review (or not if it failed) and contain a link to the revision that was approved and a link to the external link of the final version with revisions on the site hosted by the research centre, and information on who was credited with "academic peer review" authorship.
The important things to remember with this process:
People would be able to get academic peer review credit for posting content to Wikipedia.
This process would help give higher ranking for the journal, helping to encourage academics to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia and Wikibooks are not about original research. This journal is not about original research. This journal is about synthesizing existing research to draw a complete picture about a topic. In this way, it is more similar to a Masters research degree, where the work involves synthesizing work, and not a doctoral degree, where original research is required.
This process is about encouraging people to work on providing additional knowledge regarding women's sport that is neglected but may not otherwise be explored.
This process is about providing additional visibility for contributors to Wikipedia by clearly giving them authorship credit for content they have been a major contributor to.
Content in the journal would need to be supplemented by additional, non-Wikipedia content.