Look into the Journal of Brief Ideas

[Daniel-Mietchen]

As per
https://beta.briefideas.org/about .
I have known it since it start but never actually posted anything there, though some of the things in this repo or similar ones might actually be suitable.

[Daniel-Mietchen]

The concrete trigger for looking into this again was this tweet, and today, as part of 100daysofideas (cf. #1441 ), I have browsed existing submissions as well as open issues, e.g.

• Benefits of publishing power analysis reports
• Understanding what happens with ideas once shared
  • mentions The NASA K2 Mission has yet to observe an analog of Tabby's Star as an example of an idea cited by another one (both published in the journal)

[Daniel-Mietchen]

I went into their system today and started to explore it a bit from the inside. On the way, I noticed a dead link and opened a ticket for it at openjournals/brief-ideas#199 .

Apart from that, the interface looks slick:

[Daniel-Mietchen]

One issue — expressed in a response to the tweet mentioned above — is that there is not a lot of engagement around the ideas posted there.

This is usual for journals — even hotly debated papers will rarely show much engagement at the site of their original publication — but this short format is very similar to popular formats used on social media and should in principle lend itself to deeper levels of engagement.

[Daniel-Mietchen]

Perhaps I should have said "higher" instead of "deeper" above. What I mean is higher levels of engagement. What I originally had in mind with "deeper" is that short pieces can be appreciated more comprehensively, at least in comparison to longer pieces of similar reading level and subject matter prerequisites.

[Daniel-Mietchen]

I have submitted an idea about a month ago but still haven't received a reaction. It sits at https://beta.briefideas.org/ideas/cab8754c68b586c2713deee4f1079ddb, and below is a copy.

Title

A Participatory Platform for Addressing Knowledge Gaps on Wikimedia projects in an Open-Science Fashion

Idea

I propose to create a virtual research environment with the mission to address knowledge gaps in Wikimedia projects in a transparent and participatory fashion. Research undertaken through this environment would be organized in an open-by-default fashion, through dedicated projects continuously documented in public that welcome constructive edits, feedback and other forms of collaboration with relevant stakeholders. Such a facility would complement existing quality control workflows on the platforms, strengthen the way in which they could leverage relevant expertise, and enrich the open research landscape with a somewhat universal edit button. It would connect Wikimedia projects with ongoing research pertaining to these knowledge gaps, thereby broadening the scope for both participation in such research and for spillovers into education, while maintaining the community-driven approach and commitment to transparency that has made Wikimedia so successful. This translates into using participatory community processes to define, identify and prioritize knowledge gaps and research needs as well as suitable governance and collaboration mechanisms. The approach can be piloted with knowledge gaps already identified by the Wikimedia community or in expert-led analyses of Wikimedia content. Likewise, the pilot would initially be using existing Wikimedia infrastructures, which can already support many digital research workflows.

[Daniel-Mietchen]

It's public now: Mietchen, Daniel. (2023). A Participatory Platform for Addressing Knowledge Gaps on Wikimedia projects in an Open-Science Fashion. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8019257