Already a member?
Sign in
Welcome! Wikis are websites that everyone can build together. It's easy!
Location: Open Access Futures Journal
Discussion: Futures Journals
Keyword tags:
Journals
pre-print
research publishing
Watch
 JohnMSmart |
Futures Journals
Jan 11 2008, 7:53 PM EST Hi Futurists, I've added to Melanie's list above and so far have 11 journals I'd consider Primary listed above? Do you all agree? Do any of you know of others? I'm sure there must be at least twice that out there, especially considering the bi-annual and annual publications. Best, John Do you find this valuable? |
 aguilar |
RE: Futures Journals
Jan 13 2008, 7:12 AM EST Dear John, I agree that publishing would be an important endeavour. However, there are a group of practitiuoners who are not catered for in the exsiting range of print journals. I was surprised, when becoming involved in the Shaping Tomorrow Network, at how large this community is. My vision is that we reach out to give this community a voice. We can do this by: 1. Accepting that "journalistic" articles (this is a term of abuse in the UK) can advance our knowledge. The academic journals tend to be pompous and condescending. I would hope that we can avoid that trap. 2. Focusing on future possibilities rather than future predictions. I have stopped sending work to the WFS publications because they are only interested in forecasts rather than possibilities. 3. Avoiding comment on the content of the articles. Many European pieces are failing in peer review because many Europeans do not share the same values as US peer reviewers (e.g. the market may not be the best form of resource allocation, individual freeedom may have to be circumscribed for the collective good, etc.). For these reasons, I feel that we should occupy the space left unoccupied by the existing journals. With best wishes, Stephen Do you find this valuable? |
|
JohnMSmart |
RE: Futures Journals
Jan 16 2008, 4:11 PM EST Great observations Stephen. I’ve been contemplating joining STN, just a bit too overwhelmed with current projects at present. May I ask the cost? Re your points: 1. Yes, a common trap. I’ve noticed that a number of journals offer an “opinion” section, usually reserved for more senior practitioners, for them to say whatever they want in a journalistic style. They also accept book reviews on relevant new books, which allows essentially the same thing. Having these seem like great ideas for an Open Access Futures Journal. Magazines (which are editor-reviewed) are also the standard way for journalistic material to get to the public, and I think our Pre-Print Community should steer futurists to publish extensively in futures related magazines, with open access archiving of their articles, as Melanie stresses. 2. We may presently have a difference of opinion in this regard. I half-agree with your assessment. If the WFS is not printing possible/scenario futures they are definitely missing half the picture, which is unfortunate. Yet I believe a number of long range processes are predictable, and a few are well established as precisely, quantitatively predictable (eg., celestial mechanics, etc.). A number of human social, economic, and technological processes are statistically predictable and have been over long timescales (relative to human lives), while others (some would say most) appear intrinsically unpredictable (random within constraints). I think the best futures approach tries to include both possibility and probability, and differentiate the two where possible. 3. Great point. Perhaps this can be addressed for journals by having an appropriately broad-based and global set of peer reviewers, with majority voting on the selection. As Bucky Fuller says, there is no unbiased education or jury, but a multibiased one, with majority vote for acceptance, may get you a globally relevant set of outputs. Best, Joh Do you find this valuable? |