Monday, September 19, 2005

Wikis: Disruptive Technologies for Dynamic Possibilities

I am pleased to announce the availability of my PowerPoint presentation titled “Wikis: Disruptive Technologies for Dynamic Possibilities” that was delivered at Digital Libraries à la Carte: Choices for the Future, an international workshop held at Tilburg University, The Netherlands late last month [ ]

BTW: TICER 2005 was a *Most Excellent * Program !

A self-archived copy of my presentation is available at

The presentation reviews the general nature and structure of select wikis, the features and functions of popular wiki software engines, and describes the content and use of wikis by select businesses, colleges and universities, and libraries.The presentation also speculated about the wiki as an environment, framework, and venue for Disruptive Scholarship, my proposed model for alternative scholarly authorship, review, and publishing [ ]

In this Era of Open Access, I conclude the presentation with The Bold Question:

"Is Wiki Method/Methodology the Full/True Means Of Achieving/Creating Real Open Access?”

Think About It !

As Always, I would Most Appreciate Any and All Critiques/Comments/Criticisms/ Etc. .


Thursday, April 07, 2005

MindShift: Disruptive Scholarship Revisited


If you have not yet made plans to attend the ACRL 12th National Conference in Minneapolis beginning today [ ], you still have time to do so!

In addition to many opportunities to Listen-and-Learn from a variety of pre-conferences, presentations and poster sessions


you could be among the select few to attend MySession in which I will elaborate on my wiki-based vision/version of Scholarly Communication known as Disruptive Scholarship

[ ]

Sooooo** Please mark you ConferenceCalendar:

Pair Two |

Saturday, April 9, 4:30 - 5:45 p.m.; 200AB

Quality Assurance in the Age of Author Self-Archiving.

In the age of author self-archiving, there are forces, factors, and influences other than pending classical peer review that can assure the quality of scholarship before formal publication. Among these alternative approaches are institutional review, 'critical peer response', 'action learning', and Total Quality Scholarship. Gain an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of conventional peer review process and develop an awareness of current and emerging alternative models to traditional peer review.

Presenter(s): Gerry McKiernan, Iowa State University

[ ]

[ ]

NOTE: The emphasis will be on EMERGING!

BTW: If you are unable to attend the entire session, please don't hesistate to stop by at the end to offer to buy me a beer [:-)

Be Prepared For A MIND SHIFT !!!

Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Invisible Hand(s)

There are forces, factors, and influences other than pending classical peer review that assure the quality of scholarship before formal publication.
“Invisible Hand(s): Quality Assurance in the Age of Author Self-Archiving,” Jekyll.comm: International Journal on Science Communication no. 6 (September 2003). Available at (accessed 26 April 2004)
PowerPoint version self-archived at: (accessed 29 April 2004

Thursday, February 03, 2005

Disruptive Scholarship Blog Launched

Disruptive Scholarship

As defined by the Wikipedia, "[a] disruptive technology is a lower performance or less expensive product or process that gains a foothold in the low end, less demanding part of an existing market, and then successively moves up-market through performance improvements until finally displacing the market incumbents. Disruptive technologies are usually introduced to the market by small startup enterprises."

The term Disruptive Technology was coined by Clayton M. Christensen and described in his 1997 book The Innovator's Dilemma.

In considering the nature of the Wiki [] and the increasing range of applications [], I have begun to speculate further about the Wiki as *the* platform for The Next Generation e-Journal
[] and the transformation of the review process. I hereby invite Any and All of my Web Colleagues to Critically Review the scenarios outlined below in which I sketch the probable future [:-)] of scholarly communication, review, and publishing ['Disruptive Scholarship'] in the WikiWorld.

Presented for Your Consideration:
In view of its collaborative features and functionalities, and the nature and character of alternative methods of quality management outlined, the wiki environment (McKiernan 2005) could provide an outstanding framework for preparing, editing, reviewing, assessing, and publishing for a range of scholarly work, including manuscripts, articles, journals, and monographs (Guest 2003).
In one possible wiki-based publication scenario, authors would prepare a manuscript draft using locally-installed wiki engine software (or a free or commercial wiki service) that best suits their needs or preferences. In a first stage review, colleagues would be invited to participate in a review of the draft. At this stage, the author can choose to allow first-stage reviewers to edit the text, or limit participation to a discussion space.
At a second stage, known specialists in the field(s) covered by the manuscript could be invited to review the revised first stage version. As in the first stage review, second stage reviewers would be granted open permission to edit the manuscript text, or be restricted to commenting on its content.
At a third - and perhaps final stage - the author could request that others (such members of a professional electronic discussion list) review and edit and/or comment on the new, revised version.
After final review, the revised final stage version could be locked from future discussion or editing. The locking of the final version could constitute formal publication of the work. Alternatively, the author/editor in chief at some later time could unlock the published version and invite any reader to discuss and/or edit it, thereby creating a 'living', dynamic, potentially ever-changing-and improving document by doing so.
In this general scenario, there would be no editorial evaluation or judgment of the initial or subsequent versions of an original manuscript by an editor or editorial board; at each stage, the author would serve as both author and editor in chief, and ultimately as publisher of his/her work. The significance and value of the work would be based on a variety of metrics that could include a matrix of such measures as citation pattern, linking volume, and access statistics (McKiernan 2004).


David G. Guest, "Four Futures for Scientific and Medical Publishing. It's a Wiki Wiki World," BMJ 326 (April 26, 2003): 932. Available at[] (9 January 2005).
Gerry McKiernan, "Peer Review in the Internet Age: Five (5) Easy Pieces," Against the Grain 16, no. 3 (June 2004): 50, 52-55. Self-archived at
[] (8 January 2005).
Gerry McKiernan, "SandBox(sm). WikiBibliography," January 6, 2005
[] (9 January 2005).