Davis, Jeffrey wrote:
> One of the ideas that came out of last week's conference in Corvallis
> was for a code4lib journal. Here's a proposal for what such a journal
> might look like; comments, article submissions, and volunteers are all
I think this is a fine idea. Higher-ups willing (and I think they would
be), I can offer it an install of Open Journal Systems for a home, as
well as a DSpace installation for a preservation failsafe.
> In addition to a number of full-length, in-depth articles on the above
> topics, I would also like to see a section of each issue devoted to
> shorter, "lightning talk"-style articles directly relevant and useful to
> the people actually working with Dspace, MODS, content management
> systems, and recalcitrant OPACS. Some possible subjects might be:
A "hack of the month" might be a useful ongoing feature. If it proves
popular, it could even be subdivided into the "Web hack of the month,"
"OPAC hack of the month," etc.
> WOULD IT BE PEER REVIEWED?
> That's a good question, and I'd like to discuss it. Given the
> relatively small size of the field, peer review might not be feasible.
Possible to do some of both. Peer-reviewed articles, editor-vetted
> I'm personally interested in the idea of a collaborative review process
> -- less traditional peer review, more Slashdot/Digg/Wikipedia -- but
> that has its downsides as well. What do people think?
If we get something like that working, there'd be a research article in
it for somebody. ;)
For the less-theoretical pieces, I should think an "I tried this and it
worked!" button would be an effective alternative peer-review mechanism.