7 Feb 2023: We have an organized founding/management committee, as well as an advisory board (see Our team). We are focusing on pushing research through the evaluation pipeline, communicating this output, and making it useful. We have a working division of labor, e.g., among "managing editors," for specific papers.
We are likely to expand our team after our pilot, conditional on further funding.
Put together founding committee, meetings, public posts, and feedback (done)
Build a "founding committee" of 5–8 experienced and enthusiastic EA-aligned or adjacent researchers at EA orgs, research academics, and practitioners (e.g., draw from speakers at recent EA Global meetings).
Create private Airtable with lists of names and organizations
Added element: List of supporter names for credibility, with little or no commitment
Host a meeting (and shared collaboration space/document), to come to a consensus on a set of practical principles. [26 May 2022: First meeting held, writing up shared notes.]
Post and present our consensus (coming out of this meeting) on key fora. After a brief followup period (~1 week), consider adjusting the above consensus plan in light of the feedback, repost, and move forward.
Three key relevant areas from which to draw candidates
DR: I think I need to draw people from a few relevant areas:
1. Academia, in relevant subject fields for The Unjournal: economics, quantitative social science, maybe more
2. Effective altruism, to assess the value and scope of the journal and the research
3. Open Science and academic reform, and applied metascience—people with practical ideas and knowledge
+ People with strong knowledge of the journal and bibliometric processes and systems
First: direct outreach to a list of pivotal, prominent people
Assemble a list of the most relevant and respected people, using more or less objective criteria and justification.
Ask to join founding committee.
Ask to join list of supporters.
Add people who have made past contributions.
28 May 2022: The above has mostly been done, at least in terms of people attending the first meeting. We probably need a more systematic approach to getting the list of supporters.
