maybe WIKIPEDIA can serve as a model and the other examples I have been giving in my previous posts.

Of course these are not perfect, but they allow the crowd AND experts to have a social and quality control over what is published/posted  and rather soon distinguish the spammers and cranks form the serious stuff.
And of course there needs to be money involved for those folks who do the tedious stuff in the background.
But that money can come form alternative funding sources, or even moderate subscription fees and such, I have mentioned a few. 

Ken, I do not know a perfect answer but I know many new and exciting models out there that have a lot of potential ….

It would be worth analyzing and evaluating, if there is anything in those models that is promising to be considered for the field of scientific journals….

Democratizing of knowledge (as opposed to fake-news)  is a huge and very actual research field, that can also attract quite a bit of public funding.

I'd offer collaboration, if anyone were interested in exploring project opportunities?

Best ….

Ursula Tischner

econcept, Agency for Sustainable Design
Albatrosweg 11
50259 Pulheim
Tel.: +49-151-22650776
[log in to unmask]
www.econcept.org
_________________________________
powered by green energy
please think before printing
—————————————————
JOIN THE INNONATIVES OPEN PLATFORM FOR SUSTAINABILITY (BETA)
http://www.innonatives.com
--------------------------------------------------------
Free Publications: 

„How to do Ecodesign“, completely updated version in English and German (Was ist Ecodesign)
Available as iBook and E-Book:
E-Book: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/how-to-do-ecodesign
I-Book: https://itunes.apple.com/de/book/how-to-do-ecodesign/id1135764180?mt=11

„Changing Paradigms: Designing for a Sustainable Future“ edited by Peter Stebbing and Ursula Tischner for the CUMULUS Network. Available as PDF from
http://www.cumulusassociation.org/changing-paradigms-designing-for-a-sustainable-future/

> Am 04.12.2017 um 16:54 schrieb Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>:
> 
> Dear Ursula,
> 
> Your latest post and a question from an earlier post in the thread on journals caught my eye. I’m genuinely curious to have an answer. Ursula Tischner wrote:
> 
> "I still think that there is a need to rethink and redesign this whole procedure and process.”
> 
> If someone can genuinely rethink and redesign the entire journal publishing procedure and process, She Ji would welcome an article.
> 
> Such an article must attend to all the many conflicting challenges of journal publication. These challenges make this a wicked problem today. Here are examples of such problems: 
> 
> 1) The need to access and use the digitized archives for which publishers own copyright and control access. 
> 
> Such fields as the liberal arts and humanities, historical journals remain important. Therefore, the past digitized archives are significant. In some of the social sciences, this is also the case, and there are reasons to use journals dating back 50 years or even a century. In the natural sciences, this is far less significant — except for historians of science, who may need to use and review older journals that no longer interest working scientists.
> 
> 2) The need to manage editorial workflow at a high level of quality.
> 
> Even though academics tend to do the editorial work, publishing firms handle many of the coordinating functions, and they generally manage and supervise the final journal production. While they charge too much for this service, they provide the service across blocks and families of journals. Standalone journals will find replacing this function very expensive.
> 
> The challenge here is to rethink a process that works for single journals — or develop a process that works at a high level of quality for groups of journals with slightly different missions within the same or adjacent domains.
> 
> 3) The need to manage the peer review process at a high level of quality.
> 
> This is a different issue linked to editorial workflow, but not the same.
> 
> 4) Finding a way to create a responsible literature for each field to replace the literature that current journals generally provide.
> 
> Many people argue that peer review is a worn-out process. Others (I am one) believe that peer review is a problematic process — and that no one has yet offered a better solution.
> 
> One of the radical proposals in circulation is to forget peer review. Let everyone self-archive their research papers while everyone else can use search engines to find what interests them. As I see it, the result will be a combination of the information overload that burdens us today with an explosion of problematic publications that many of us will not be able to evaluate. For example, if I want to draw on the literature of behavioral economics, I can trust Daniel Kahneman or Richard Thaler — but how can I determine the reliability authors who haven’t won a Nobel Prize?
> 
> In a world of increasingly interdisciplinary interests, the peer review function may be more important, rather than less. 
> 
> And self-archiving also means that every silly fool and every crank with an idea and the ability to optimize a web site to make it visible for search engines adds to the stack of bad science papers, leaving the rest of us an infinite task.
> 
> Journals meet important functions for each discipline and they meet important functions for the larger world. Unless, of course, one believes in a world of “alt-facts” where a paper that argues against the human influence on climate change is just as valid as the massive global consensus of scientists, a world where dinosaurs walked the earth with human beings, or a world in which there was no moon landing but rather a clever staged film shot in Burbank, California. 
> 
> If any scientific paper is as good as any other, then universities would do well to save the 5 billion pounds we spend on journals. If not, then any proposal to rethink and redesign the entire journal publishing procedure must address these four challenges and more.
> 
> These are four major immediate problems that I can think of in asking for such an article. There are many more problems to unpack and examine.
> 
> To solve this set of problems requires a serious design thinking process. This starts with defining the real problem or the real set of problems to be solved. This can start with a literature review of the extensive literature on these issues. Then it requires examining different solutions. It may also require examining solutions that deliberately place some aspects of the problem in a subordinate role.  
> 
> If anyone on this list can serious rethink and redesign the journal publishing process, it will open the way to a major — and highly profitable — career consulting to universities. 
> 
> Several hundred thousand university presidents, chancellors, and deans would love to know how to save 5 billion pounds a year, along with the librarians, scientists, researchers, and specialist scholars who would welcome a workable proposal. Many people have examined or defined *parts* of the problem — but this generally involves isolated parts, rather than a system overview. No one has offered a serious answer.
> 
> The notion of creating serious journals through crowdsourcing and crowdfunding seems impossible to me. While journals can certainly be open access, I cannot imagine what an “open source” journal would be.
> 
> If you had any idea how much work it took to create She Ji, you’d know that we could not have done it in the way you suggest. But if you can demonstrate how rather than simply proposing that someone should do so, I’d be delighted to know.
> 
> I’m interested.
> 
> Ken   
> 
> Ken Friedman | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/
> 
> Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| Email [log in to unmask] | Academia http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn 
> 
> —
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------