While waiting to find time and inclination to do the previous post full justice, I just discovered this economics e-journal. Looks like it has a respectable editorial board and papers by some well-known economists already published. Worth a second look and adding to one’s bookmarks (OK, for economist readers only).
Extra bonus point: they accept PDF submissions, and have a link to directions on how to make such submissions with TeX/LaTeX in addition to MS Word, and in all three major operating systems, Mac OS X, Linux, and that other one.
More bonus points, as I keep browsing the site: all submitted paper will carry the Creative Commons 2.0 Attribution-Noncommercial license (Germany version—I have to check what exactly that means). See the site for more details.
Wikia opens new “magazine rack” websites – Wikia Central
Once again, a slashdot post I just could not pass up. It will be worth keeping an eye on these wikizines, for one thing to see if finally Wales will resort to ads to sustain the Wikia company (this in mind of the recent news that Wikipedia is in need of funds). I read one article and some of its discussion in the politics.wikia site (the article on why Jefferson had a copy of the Koran) and it was interesting; I also found the discussion less rude than I expected given the highly charged topic.
A link to all the available courses. Thanks to slashdot.org for pointing this out. I knew about it, but did not have this very handy link. This is a truly amazing gift to humanity from MIT!
Here’s a second edition of Lessig’s book (first edition in 1999), done partly by wiki. It should not be amazing, after we’ve seen Wikipedia, yet I am amazed that it worked. The book is about the conceptual foundations needed for the intelligent design of cyberspace (where “intelligent” is taken to mean also the desire to preserve individual liberty in cyberspace).
The book is freely downloadable from the above link, and I’m eager to read it (confession: I never read the first edition of Code, but I have read Lessig’s Free Culture and was intrigued and completely convinced about the evils of indefinite copyright extensions and other such government handouts to “intellectual property” holding corporations).
Curious? Read the About page on the site.
“Despite enthusiasm for the concept, open peer review was not widely popular, either among authors or by scientists invited to comment.”
It’s too bad, as a lot of people, myself included, had high hopes for this experiment.
The conclusion, from the article:
“Despite the significant interest in the trial, only a small proportion of authors opted to participate. There was a significant level of expressed interest in open peer review among those authors who opted to post their manuscripts openly and who responded after the event, in contrast to the views of the editors. A small majority of those authors who did participate received comments, but typically very few, despite significant web traffic. Most comments were not technically substantive. Feedback suggests that there is a marked reluctance among researchers to offer open comments.
Nature and its publishers will continue to explore participative uses of the web. But for now at least, we will not implement open peer review.”