[Journal] Confirming Section Editors

[Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo)]

On 12-Nov-08, at 10:10 AM, Daniel Ames wrote:

> There was some discussion several months ago about creating a new  
> section called "Research and Technical Papers" or something similar  
> that would be the place for academic and other peer-reviewed papers.

At any point, if we need more (or less) sections, let's add them!  A  
little house cleaning always helps.

I've been reviewing the online system and (technically speaking)  
enabled peer review for all relevant sections.  It'd be great if we  
could engage reviewers for each article, so editors can focus more on  
getting more articles in and handling some of the higher level  
organisation.  My question is whether enabling peer review more  
broadly is biting off more than we can chew?  Obviously, I haven't  
been through peer review before so I'm looking to you to shake me  
back into reality.  ;)  Perhaps a smaller journal (at this point it  
is less than 10 articles) would make this more manageable and be a  
good test run?

> Secondly, a couple of weeks ago I proposed that we solicit topical  
> papers for specific upcoming issues of the journal - to encourage  
> contributions - probably that would be published in this specific  
> research papers section. So for example we could solicit articles  
> on OSGeo applications and research papers on selected topics over  
> the next few issues.

Sounds good too.  This year has been a bit of a trial to see how well  
I can juggle some commitments .. the Journal took lower priority and  
pretty much fell off my plate.  Any suggestions for helping  
streamline its production is always appreciated.  I suspect that if  
we can engage reviewers more, then the load on us editors can help be  
shared.  Having a clearer process and interaction would be  
invigorating as well.

Note: I just see Dimitris' response - I'd prefer to try to move the  
Journal more toward peer review than to fork the content.  Does that  
make sense?

Tyler