Re: [jox] Request for comments
- From: raoulv club-internet.fr
- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:49:08 +0200
Hi Mathieu, hi all,
Thanks for the work you started. I am at present on holidays till the end of July, traveling, with little acces to Internet. I'll be more disposable in August.
I'll come back later.
>De: "Mathieu O'Neil"
>A: journal oekonux.org
>Sujet: [jox] Request for comments
>Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:25:25 +1000
>Glad to be here! Thanks to StefanMn for setting up the list.
>Following is a list of issues that I wanted to raise to help kick off the
>journal project. My aim is to be as open as possible and raise as many
>potential issues from the start as possible so that we have an agreement if
>problems arise. Of course not all issues can be resolved beforehand but it
>won't hurt to clarify things a little. This is just my take, if there is
>anything else please complete or amend the list.
>Though I volunteered to be editor / maintainer I can't do it alone. The most
>important is to gather together a collective of people who are committed to
>this idea of a journal and want to help make it happen by volunteering to
>participate in the peer reviewing process.
>* Suggested title:
>Critical Studies in Peer Production
>* Suggested definitions / mission statement:
>- peer production as a historical event (why has it emerged in this form
>- peer production as an alternative to capitalism (gratis products in
>conditions of abundance?)
>- peer production as an ideology within capitalism (contribute to wikipedia,
>help the common good, buy a fast computer, forget the poor?) Check the text
>by Brian Holmes about Jodi Dean's "Communicative capitalism" on P2PF-blog
>for a recent manifestation of this point which others had previously made -
>see my book for example. ;-)
>* Suggested guiding principles:
>- collective elaboration, decision-making
>- activist component, connection to concrete emancipatory struggles?
>In terms of quality control, I think First Monday is a good example of a
>journal with a good balance between reasonable "academic-level" quality and
>accessibility of ideas.
>StefanMn seems to have fairly strict ideas about what is acceptable content
>and what is not. I think we need a balance between "there is no party line /
>we should respect individuality" and a strong, coherent editorial direction.
>My preference would be to be inclusive, i.e. have dialogue with other
>"fellow travellers" whenever possible.
>* Identity of journal:
>Relationship to Oekonux? Who is doing this journal? People associated with
>Oekonux? How do we phrase it?
>Do we publish a list of peer reviewers / editorial committee members? This
>would be useful in my view.
>I'd like to aim for two a year. Ideally we would always have a full issue's
>content "in the bag". See how we go, I guess.
>* Suggested themes:
>While not all issues need to have a theme, in my view having themes has
>several advantages such as allowing an issue to be explored more fully, and
>enabling contributors to establish a dialogue with one another. Following is
>a non-exhaustive wish list.
>Peer production and Marx
>Peer production and art
>Peer production of hardware
>Peer production and social movements
>Peer production and expertise
>Peer production and social organisation
>The transition to peer production
>* Suggested other content:
>Reviews (books, journals)?
>News analysis (i.e. what is the Pirate Party about, etc)?
>* Other people:
>Do we invite others to join in this list and in the journal process if we
>think they would be interested?
>* Proposed Oekonux Book:
>Some journal content could feed into book project?
>* Journal Website:
>Simple, text-based. Will have to simple be if done by me!
>* Peer-review [a] people:
>THIS IS WITHOUT DOUBT THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE JOURNAL!!!
>Simply put, the journal cannot exist without people to assess submissions.
>This is a serious commitment, but in my experience it can also be fun and
>informative. Please indicate whether you can do this.
>* Peer-review [b] criteria:
>We need a list of criteria to help reviewers.
>For example: is the article well-written? Is it original? Are there some
>major ideas / authors that are not mentioned? Could it be improved? Could it
>* Peer-review [c] publicity of peer review process:
>Openly discussed on list? Or by private email to not stifle debate as people
>may be reluctant to be honest and critical if this could result in offended
>* Peer-review [d] maintainer / editor's role:
>- I'm always happy to learn something or be proved wrong when it comes to
>ideas / matters of substance.
>- I'm much less willing to compromise when it comes to style and _expression_;
>I have been writing and editing for a while now and I do tend to trust my
>judgment on this. So if I judge a text to be poorly written I would not be
>comfortable with it being published as that would undermine the quality of
>the journal. I also don't want to find myself in a situation where I have to
>completely rewrite something, endlessly negotiate with authors, etc. Though
>of course if a text is of very high substantive quality I would want to help
>- One power that I claim for the maintainer / editor is the ability to set
>deadlines, and act if they are not met: if people fail to meet deadlines,
>they miss the boat. People don't turn up late for work (usually): they
>should not compromise a project by undue delays. I will flag messages with
>That's all I can think of. Once again, if there is another issue that should
>be discussed, please post.