Proposal:Academic Peer Review -layer
Every proposal should be tied to one of the strategic priorities below.
Edit this page to help identify the priorities related to this proposal!
- Achieve continued growth in readership
- Focus on quality content
- Increase Participation
- Stabilize and improve the infrastructure
- Encourage Innovation
|
Share this: |
Contents |
[edit] Summary
I propose an assessment feature, which would result in a new categorization of premium articles similar to GA/Featured. This assessment/review would be done by an identified academic/expert, who in a sense would guarantee the quality of that version of the article.
[edit] Proposal
Stable version of an article would get sent to Academic Peer Review (APR). There it would get a set of comments which would be archived with that version of the article. Even if the article would be developed further, reader could select and read APR-version of that article, if there is one (see also Proposal:Flag Featured article diffs and Proposal:Stable Release Tab). I assume that many would see APR-version as the most reliable one.
[edit] Motivation
Increase participation to WP inside academia, raise the understanding about WP inside academia, raise the academic usefulness and acceptance of WP.
[edit] Key Questions
In this case, peer reviewer could not be anonymous. How would this fit current WP? How would these academics be recruited?
[edit] Potential Costs
[edit] References
[edit] Community Discussion
Do you have a thought about this proposal? A suggestion? Discuss this proposal by going to Proposal talk:Academic Peer Review -layer.
[edit] Want to work on this proposal?
- .. Sign your name here!
