Just dreaming. The technical part first. Then comes the social part, which is trickier.
- The author A of an arxiv article submits the latex version to an editor E of the wiki-journal.
- The editor transforms the latex file into the wiki format of the journal. There seem to be tools for this, a quick google search gives this latex2wiki.
- The editor E creates a wiki page for the article. We can use MediaWiki, we can go to the WikiWikiWeb, details to be discussed. At this moment the wiki page can be deleted only if both A and E agree.
- This wiki page is modified by anyone in the PEER COMMUNITY of the wiki-journal. A link to the original version arxiv article is given, this can be modified only by the author A.
Now, the social part: only suggestions.
- Any author A becomes member of a PEER COMMUNITY, there is some mathoverflow type reputation and badges system.
- PEER COMMUNITIES and wiki-journals are different parts of the system, one PEER COMMUNITY may act on several wiki-journals, one wiki-journal may contact several PEER COMMUNITIES, but only one per article.
- anybody can be member of several PEER COMMUNITIES
- to make a very rough comparison, wiki journals are like companies and PEER COMMUNITIES are like syndicates
The most important point: we can start it now, the soft (open source) exists, anybody can try to do it. There is no need to wait for anybody’s approval, no need to wait several months to see what exactly are epijournals (however see epimath), anybody can just try and contribute, instead of us (mathematicians) being one of the least reactive communities when it comes to the future of publication.
What do you think?
UPDATE: Something close to this idea already exists, see knowledgeblog.org.
UPDATE 2: This kind of proposal has already been made, see these two articles:
- C. Lee, Open peer review by a selected-papers network, Front Comput Neurosci. 2012; 6: 1.
- N. Kriegeskorte, Open Evaluation: A Vision for Entirely Transparent Post-Publication Peer Review and Rating for Science, Front Comput Neurosci. 2012; 6: 79.
… however, both papers look like minor adaptations of the new system of the world, made in order to fit into the old one. This may be good for starters, or it may be not good enough. We still long for a really great idea, for the moment.
- Comments in epijournals: we may learn from Wikipedia
- For other proposals for new models of OA publication see the tag open access
- On the value that peer-review might have for the survival of traditional publishers
- Subversive journal of very short papers
- Anniversary of the Cost of Knowledge movement at Gowers blog.