Wiki journals over arxiv

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

UPDATE 2: This kind of proposal has already been made, see these two articles:

… 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.



3 thoughts on “Wiki journals over arxiv”

  1. Sorry, but what’s exactly the point of such “wiki journals”? Collaboratively rewriting someone else’s papers to provide slicker proofs? Or just leaving the paper intact and only providing a platform for comments (like wiki talk pages)?

    1. “The point” is limited only by the imagination. To take your formulation: ” Collaboratively rewriting someone else’s papers to provide slicker proofs” is a precise, albeit not ironically enough, description of the peer-review system. If you want to make it more ironic then how about this: are you ready to modify your work according to the whims of anonymous peers, more frequently than not with undeclared conflict of interests (due to the fact that math is extremely compartimented lately, so there are only 3-4 people who care enough about what you write because they already wrote a lot on the same subject), so, are you ready to do this only for incrementing your article counter?

      No, the point of these wiki journals, which I stress that are technically possible today, not in a year, not in 6 months, the point is indeed to increase the collaboration among mathematicians on common subjects. The right comparison is math proof as a software. Are you using linux? If you do, then you know that linux is a success story because it is a collaborative effort.

      In the case of a wiki journal the author of the initial arxiv paper keeps the precedent by owning the arxiv article. The responsibility is then shared with the editor, be it about good or bad parts. The work is submitted to the attention of the peer community, which can make it better, as is the case with the usual 2 anonymous peer-reviewers, only that everything is exposed, moreover, the peer community who worked to improve the article gets credit for the work, because if anybody else is interested in the subject then it learns about it through the wiki journal. The author or anybody else who peeps at the wiki pages in the making, cannot run with the new ideas, because if he does it, then what is more simple than to mention such a thing in the wiki page?

      There is much to discuss, but a good starting point would be to click on the provided links first, give some brain time to the subject, then contribute. I am writing this because we are all mathematicians and we take pride by saying we are trained to admit we are wrong and that the truth is our goal, not social approval. Well, let’s live according to this.

      To conclude, the point is this is technically possible and it offers lots of new possibilities to a mathematician, at least, because CS, social sciences, medicine are three examples of fields where such ideas would be considered natural.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s