Talk:Wikis in scholarly publishing
This is a discussion page. To start a new topic, create a header (enclosed by "=="), to respond use indentation (":" in first line). Please sign all entries with date and username; adding ~~~~ will trigger the Wiki to do this for you.
Opinion: Taxonomy, nomenclature and Wikis
This site appears to have been created with a vision of the future in mind, but one that I believe may be somewhat flawed. Publications (in the traditional sense) are historical documents, and this is crucial for taxonomy/nomenclature. Once something is published, it must not change. By contrast, wikis are dynamic (=changing). They are therefore not suitable for taxonomy/nomenclature. However, wikis are perhaps the best medium for secondary compilations of primary taxonomic data (sometimes called "encyclopedic content", in the general case). In this day and age, we really should give up publishing hard copy encyclopedic content/catalogues/checklists, and instead use wikis. Such hard copy articles are instantly out of date, and cannot be easily added to or corrected. So, I really cannot see the point of creating articles on this wiki which start out as copies of published articles on taxonomy, but then undergo modification over time. Instead, an article should be created on the same topic as the published article, and refer to that published article, but be a sort of review article on that topic, updated when new data comes to hand. For example, the article here on Neobidessodes darwiniensis, should be an article *about* the taxon Neobidessodes darwiniensis, rather than starting as a copy of (parts of) the corresponding published article. An encyclopedic article can be added to as new data comes to hand, but a historical document cannot. Stephen Thorpe 02:38, 15 March 2011 (CET)
- Perhaps the forum paper on interlinked citation of journal and wiki publications may be of interest here. --Daniel Mietchen 23:45, 16 April 2011 (CEST)
I would rearrange the order of things to a more 'chronological' order. I also think that both Science and Wikis start with a concept, identifying an existing gap in knowledge. I would say something like: Scientific research is a process concerned with the collective conceptualisation, creation, accumulation, contextualization, archiving and constant [dynamic?] of knowledge. Wikis provide an environment that allows to collectively conceptualise, create, accumulate, contextualize, archive and dynamically update of knowledge in a coherent fashion. Here, we examine the potential of wikis as platforms for scholarly publishing. To stimulate the discussion, the article itself was drafted on a wiki that hosts a prototype for wiki-based scholarly publishing.Fabiana Kubke
Finding the subtitles distracting - are they necessary? They seem to break the flow (for me) and not sure what value they add Fabiana Kubke
- on my part, they were not initially intended as being titles for subsections, by adding them, I was just trying to make visible what was the flow of the argument at that time. Now I think that actually the smaller paragraphs and more subtitles might suit the intended journal all right. Claudia Koltzenburg 16:54, 21 March 2011 (CET)
terminology issues re "science" "research" "scholarly"?
"Wikis in scholarly publishing" re HSS vs. STM vs. "all inclusive" see http://species-id.net/wiki/Draft:Wikis_in_scholarly_publishing#Unsorted - changed the title of the article to reflect my argument of not being implicitely inclusive but factually exclusive Claudia Koltzenburg 08:41, 20 March 2011 (CET)
Relevant similar publications encountered after draft ended
- Alexander Garcia-Castro, Alberto Labarga, Leyla Garcia, Olga Giraldo, Cesar Montaña and John A. Bateman 2010. Semantic Web and Social Web heading towards Living Documents in the Life Sciences. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2010.03.006
- Only noticed this now but did not yet check the references. Can of course still be added to the wiki version if relevant. --Daniel Mietchen 23:47, 16 April 2011 (CEST)
Just received the proofs today and turned them into the following Google Docs: ISU621.pdf - the paper, query_ISU621.pdf - queries from the layouter, Proofreading_symbols.pdf - in case we are to use paper for the corrections.
Please discuss changes in the section below rather than by email. I intend to submit the corrections by Friday noon UTC. --Daniel Mietchen 15:07, 5 April 2011 (CEST)
The layouter seems to have ignored any hyperlinks in the original document - how should we go about that? I would suggest adding them all back in, perhaps along with a webcitation reference. --Daniel Mietchen 15:07, 5 April 2011 (CEST)