The concept of the scientific journal is in dare need of adapting to the times we live in. To the long stream of observations in this direction (my favourite), Heinz Pampel and Lambert Heller have now added a set of … Continue reading → - Daniel Mietchen

Anyone interested in turning the Googlish into proper English? http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki... - Daniel Mietchen

Hard to do without being able to read german. I'd be willing to give it a go, but someone would have to make sure that someone checks that the cleanup does not change the original meaning. - Kubke

Thanks, Kubke. My aim with this would be to turn it into a useful set of criteria, not just a translation. So, in a way, not being biased by knowing the German original is a good thing. I wouldn't expect large differences between the two versions, but certainly some. Probably won't get to it in the next few days, though, as I am currently in Korea for offline work. - Daniel Mietchen

OK, I will give it a go - Kubke

Feel free to undo - Kubke

Thank you, Kubke - looks good now, and I will try to do some more brushing when back home. Any ideas on how we could use the criteria (or a further improved version) now for some Open Access Week activity, or beyond? I am thinking of taking a list of "high impact" journals and checking them against these criteria. - Daniel Mietchen

I couldn't figure out some statements (like the first one). But, hey, a start, right> Re: OAW, funny you should ask. I was going to ask you for input on whether I should show this as an example in my webinar for OAW (and/or the other german wiki project). Should we use the wikiversity discussion page to discuss this? Or S3.0 or a group on the OAW Ning group - Kubke

Perhaps best to discuss this over at the Wikiversity page or in the comments of my blog post, or simply here. Wouldn't go for any specific group, be it at S3.0 or Ning/OAW. - Daniel Mietchen

Have brushed and slightly reworked the criteria once more. Planned OAW activity: to apply them to a couple of journals to benchmark their readiness for the future, see the Practical Test section. Feel free to help complete the alphabet. - Daniel Mietchen

Started commenting on the talk page. - Kubke

All your points are now addressed. By the way, no reason to be shy about editing directly. - Daniel Mietchen

<blush> - Kubke

@pampel @lambo Journal of the Future, next round: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki... - Daniel Mietchen

Tried to condense the individual points into scorable items. Not done yet - too much overlap between some of the criteria. - Daniel Mietchen

Probably ready to go. Merged some of the criteria, added some more, did some test scores. - Daniel Mietchen

#OA #OAW Let's put the criteria for the Journal of the Future to a test: http://bit.ly/JofFuture-OAW . - Daniel Mietchen

Daniel, that's great! - Heinz Pampel

Suggested new criterion on talk page (didnt want to mess up nice and clean front page) " New Criterion: Science manuscripts are not just an aggregation of individual figures, and the scientist of the future will make the process of data acquisition and analysis an open process. The journal of the future will show no prejudice when deciding to publish data and processes that have been conducted in the open." - Kubke

Thanks, Fabiana. I would like to give the test an Open Science swing, but I am not sure we should do it this way. The essence of your point is already in Criterion 6, which may merit some more brushing. - Daniel Mietchen

@pampel it's a wiki, so you can bring your friends and let everyone score a few journals, such that we get practical data about the applicability of the criteria. - Daniel Mietchen

@Daniel, not sure I agree. Updating published data to me is not the same as publishing data that has allready been made accessible. The latter is identified by many as a reason not to engage in open science ("if I make my work known, no high profile journal will publish it") - Kubke

or to clarify, I don't necessarily see it as an open science swing in itself, but more as a move away from prejudice against open science: Open and closed science should be equally 'publishable' - Kubke

I see your point, but think that closed science, in the long run, should be less "publishable" than open science. The best way to handle open and closed science in this context is to evaluate them according to the same criteria, which this test trial is all about. Within these criteria (which may be a bit biased towards the open side - feedback on how to balance that is welcome), the meaning of "publishing" is shifting from publishing non-updatable content in containers of fixed formats into something more fluid, more akin to Bourne's "I want publishers to publish my workflows." or things like http://liquidpub.org/ . We could perhaps add a "Fluidity" criterion. - Daniel Mietchen

Rephrased criterion 6 - Dynamics, so as to take Kubke's comment into account. - Daniel Mietchen

Reordered criteria. - Daniel Mietchen

Reset the scores. Now looking for some way to assign relative weight to the individual criteria (and the individual points therein). Might do a straw poll if I don't find useful references. - Daniel Mietchen

Update: http://www.science3point0.com/evomri... (or http://ff.im/sNaha ). Please try to rate some journals according to these criteria: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc... . - Daniel Mietchen