Talk:Transactions on Graph Data and Knowledge
Sources "too close to subject"
[edit]The warning template got inserted in the first version of this page. To help in addressing this, I have some thoughts:
- Dagstuhl is a reputed academic institution that has a complex reviewing process for accepting journals. We need to distinguish "the journal" from Dagstuhl in the discussion, since the journal itself had to apply to Dagstuhl to win their support. I will try to dig up more information about the quality assurance process of Dagstuhl regarding new journals (e.g., they have an independent board of experts that decides on this).
- We mainly cite Dagstuhl for factual claims (licence, EB, previous publication dates) where they are clearly the primary authoritative source. I think that this is fine.
- I have also added a short section to show that the journal is recognized by DOAJ and DBLP, both independent external bodies with their own policies for including journals. Other indexing services pick up publications over time (some need three years or more, especially the services run by major commercial publishers), but I don't think that this largely automated process is adding much in terms of credibility. It's something that happens to any journal.
Anyway, I am happy to hear more ideas on what kind of further source would be desired here to address the template.
--Markus Krötzsch 09:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Update: In addition to the updates above, I have added several further external sources to the references. Quantitatively, the references list is still dominated by Dagstuhl web pages, but that's simply because I prefer exact references to (sub)pages rather than just pointing to the overall site.
Notability
[edit]Regarding notability, there are several main points here:
- The journal was created by a large faction of the editorial board of a notable and established existing journal, including all previous Editors-in-Chief. Although it is still young as a "brand", it starts with the momentum of the decades-long experience of running journals in the same field.
- The journal is one of the first Diamond OA journals in computer science. Among hundreds of periodicals, we have probably less than ten that accomplish non-commercial OA at this level. It is also the first "new" Diamond OA journal by Dagstuhl (they have not had a active branch for creating new journal publications up until 2023), so might become a role model for others.
- Its publication model is based on the free knowledge ideal that is also shared with Wikipedia. It runs entirely on free software and donations, and has no intention other than enabling high-quality research to happen. I intend to add a section about the operations, since they are indeed quite relevant here.
Markus Krötzsch 09:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Updates to address concerns:
- Introduced list of senior researchers involved; added more reference to editorial board to show that there are indeed many experienced researchers there
- Added longer section about how Diamond Open Access was made possible here, explaining also what the difficulties are
- Added content and references that underline the free knowledge motivation of the journal.
Disclosure of own connection to topic
[edit]I, the initial creator of this page, am also an associate editor of the same journal. I am editing myself and under my real name to make sure that this is transparent, but maybe it is better to state it here in addition. Moreover, I admit that I have a strong bias in favour of free knowledge and open access, which may make me partial towards such activities in general. Nevertheless, I hope that everything I wrote is objective facts that can also be verified from the sources. --Markus Krötzsch 13:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)