 |
 |
I agree with Ed Corrado that the purpose of the peer-review process is to improve the articles, not to give thumbs-up or thumbs-down. How about making the review process consist of submitting an article into a wiki (with proper discussion page etc.) and letting it simmer there for a while before moving it to the more formal journal area? I think getting the dynamic-content part right will be the hard part. I'm always frustrated by the problem of comments in blogs: often they're as important as the postings, but how do you track them? Subscribe to a separate comments RSS feed (as you have to do on my blog)? Have the main entry appear as new in the main RSS feed every time someone posts a comment (as Art's blog does, I believe)? Neither of these really gets me engaged with the discussion the way I (sometimes) want to be. If the journal is going to be truly edgy, we need a better solution than anything I've run into. We seem to be forming a consensus that the journal would consist of different things, including: 1) formal articles, things that might otherwise have gone to D-Lib or Ariadne 2) short how-tos / lessons learned pieces, like lightning talks, ideally sparking a string of comments and additions like Art's shepherd's pie recipes 3) hacks: actual code How about demos? Should we aim to have the server-side capacity and facilities to actually show new stuff in operation? A lot of this would have a limited shelf-life (in that we wouldn't undertake to maintain the code), but it would be nice to have a single place where you could see some eye-candy. Peter Peter Binkley Digital Initiatives Technology Librarian Information Technology Services 4-30 Cameron Library University of Alberta Libraries Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6G 2J8 Phone: (780) 492-3743 Fax: (780) 492-9243 e-mail: [log in to unmask]