Hi Mathieu and all,
On 2009-07-18 14:51, Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
I don't really understand what is meant by "a discussion by
articles"?
This simply means, that we have position A explained in one
article,
which was carefully reviewed and released, and position B
critizing,
rejecting or whatever position A in another article, which too
was
carefully reviewed and released.
First, what would be gained by an open review process (which Michel
seems to be pushing for but you declare to not work so well with
texts) in relation to a traditional peer review model? This is a
genuine question. The good thing about a traditional review process
is that it is a focused exercise: the reviewers know they have to
produce a review by a certain date; otherwise they get hassled by
somebody. In an open review process I can't imagine the editor /
maintainer / whoever having any grounds to "pressure" anyone to
"improve" or "critique" a contribution. And, if no-one is
interested,> it just won't happen... and things could drag on forever.
Setting deadlines do not depend on the typ of publication we'll
choose
(either issue-oriented, or topic/process-oriented, or a
combination).
IMHO.
I'm all for
experimenting with new forms but I also want to make the
project as
good as possible. So there needs to be a rationale. I'm also
thinking> of how to present the project to possible other
scientific committee
members: how to define any other process of dealing with submissions
other than peer review? Perhaps the fact that we will be discussing
(as much as possible) reviews and any other issue on this list
is in
and of itself quite an innovation and a step towards peer production
of research?
Not in the sense, that we will try to merge position A and B
into one
article. If we feel, that we move into controverse debates about
the
position presented in an article, this may be a motive to ask
someone
for another article explaining, why position A is not so good
etc. Or we
may invite someone, to discuss A and B from a perspective C etc.
The purpose of the review should be, to make the positions
presented in
articles A and B (or C) as clear as possible (including meeting
formal
conditions regarding language etc.).
As far as I understand, this is a quite traditional review
approach,
isn't it?
My second point is the relationship beween Oekonux and the journal.
Obviously both these projects are interested in the same things
(researching and extending peer production) and equally obviously
Oekonux is in a sense the "patron" or "publisher" of the
journal as
it will be hosting the journal website. But, I think we should be
careful about making them too integrated in terms of content
I am not sure, if I understand what you are meaning by "too
integrated".
We have to distinguish between the technical side and the
presentation
side. From the technical perspective, the journal should be
integral
part of the content management system we use for ox in general --
due to
two reasons: reducing efforts and cross-using of content. The
important
point is the first one, the second point is not specific,
because via
technical interfaces (API, or at least RSS), journal content
could be
used elsewhere (and should be: remember my demand to be
crawlable by OAI
servers).
From my viewpoint the journal should be presented as a journal.
Like the
italian example you posted recently.
- or rather I don't agree with how you formulate the direction
of this
integration. What I'm trying to say is that what in my view
would be
the best is a space where people in the Oekonux network can
communicate and exchange with other people including academic
researchers in an equal way.
Yes.
If however there is a perception that the journal and [ox] are one
and the same (so that for example anything that is published
on an
[ox] website can automatically translate to the journal) I
fear that
this may harm the scientific credibility of the journal, by giving
the impression that it is an extension of the [ox] project rather
than a scientific or strictly merit-based endeavour - and this in
turn would harm our chances of attracting contributions from
academic> researchers. I wouldn't want us to have a boring
journal with only
academic stuff but neither would I want us to scare away potentially
useful contributions from academics.
I feel, that "scientific credibility" could be harmed by either
bad
articles or non-scientific/acitivist articles. This first may be
avoiding,
the second not, because we should be open for activist-oriented
experiences (say reflections of a given project etc.). So there
might be
an either-or decision. What do others think?
So in brief what I would say is that the peer-reviewed
"pearls" in
the journal could happily be featured on the [ox] website, rather
than the other way around.
Of course. Could there be a scenario, where the journal wants to
feature
mailing list debates? I can't imagine. If there is some
interesting stuff
happen on the project side, then we need an article:-)
Ciao,
Stefan
--
Start here: www.meretz.de
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal