[Converted from multipart/alternative]
Just my thoughts on the review process. I also agree it is not a
to get people's rehashed papers and republish them. I know
rather often get accepted in an established academic closed
reasons of career development etc.
However, I also know that when people are developing ideas and
want to get feedback on their research when they start out on it
one thing that we could do. Provide a platfrom for people to
ideas on papers they are working on, and finished ideas the need
feedbackon. So they can puclish initial working papers with us,
before they submit
more complete material elsewhere 2-3 years down the line. I
think this means
we will be getting cutting eldge research as it is being
can be very interesting, monitoring in a way the developments in
very closely and publishing them. An online journal can do this
-continnously publishing super current research- without having the
constraints of waiting for 2 years to publish others accepted
and then there is no printing process to worry about.
On the blind reviewing, the reason it is good, is that when
a paper they dont know who has written it and it is fairer process.
Reviewers can discuss openly papers they review (a small number
reviewers for each paper submitted) but they would not know who
piece to ensure there is no bias.
Just an idea
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:23 PM, graham
<graham theseamans.net> wrote:
Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
Now, this is a complex issue. For example, I have published
articles in peer-reviewed journals. Pretty close to zero. I
am working on
two papers right now. They are important to me, the result
of thinking. I know I could (perhaps should) do the noble
thing and send
or both to an Internet-based journal. But deep down I feel
that I would
the validation that only an established journal can give.
When I have
published one or two papers like that - showing that I can
do it - then I
would submit to open-access journals. I think a lot of
think like that - or they can't afford not to think like
that if they
to get a job in this super-competitive environment. I have a
job, so I am
more motivated by professional pride. I am trying to be
to advance the discussion. What does this mean for CSPP?
In a nutshelll: we need some incentives for people to
publish with us.
Here are some random thoughts.
1- We could encourage people to submit papers that have
published in a closed journal - that way they would reach a
get more feedback.
I don't think this is a good idea, for several reasons:
- It sets the bar so low it is self-destructive, in that
send us copies of things they wrote for another audience with
of fitting in with our distinctive journal.
- It removes pressure on the closed journal to become more open
- It is in any case unlikely to be allowed by the contractual
conditions> the academic has entered into with the closed journal
I think we should have the opposite policy: no article
published in a
closed journal may be published by us. This is nothing like as
radical> as it sounds, and will just reproduce existing practice
but practical for now): people will take one of their existing
papers> which they have published in a prestigious publication
and modify it. We
will accept such modified versions. It's a silly game, but
it's what new
academics do: boost their number of publications by
best work with only minor variations in journals that aren't
to accept such things. New journals use this phenomenon to bootstrap
themselves into existence.
To encourage this, I think our CFPs should have a general
what is relevant, but be based on themed issues (I've been
through the 'draft CFP' thread but can't actually see the
draft CFP - so
apologies if I'm just repeating what's been said). Someone who
example) just done a lot of research on 'open access' and sees
we have a
CFP for an 'open access' issue is likely to think how
they could fit
their work into a peer production context; if they just see a
journal> about 'peer production' it may not occur to them.
(still thinking about the review process but with nothing
useful to add
2- For this we need good reviewers and good comments. There
could be a
system where open discussion on a list leads to editorial
appended to papers. Not sure. I don’t think we should rely
on "anyone can
comment" to do this job - no-one may comment or comments may
3- There needs to be some clear guidelins for an open
-- closed editorial list / closed registration process?
-- deadlines for comments to be made?
4- It is clear that different review processes could be
useful. We need
define precisely the different review processes: blind or
not, open or
5- The second part of the paper cited above may have some
interesting> > leads...
6- In conclusion: we eventually need to get some more people
editorial board to help advance how the review process
works. We will
some input from the people we will be approaching to work
with us. So we
need to progress the rest of the "charter" so we can start
approaching> > people.
From: owner-journal oekonux.org [owner-
journal oekonux.org] On
Of Stefan Merten
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 6:42 PM
To: journal oekonux.org
Cc: Stefan Merten
Subject: Review process (was: [jox] New Draft CFP)
Hi Mathieu, Athina, all!
Last week (11 days ago) Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
d) Regarding peer review
I suggested the following: for research papers, authors can
traditional double blind review. But following this process,
(as all other submissions) will be collectively discussed on
I think it is an interesting idea to have different processes.
However, I'm not sure about the consequences. What do others
For those not too deep into the traditional process: Could
explain what are the features of the traditional double
Last week (10 days ago) Athina Karatzogianni wrote:
About d, I think it would be prudent to think about the
discussing papers openly on a list. perhaps people will be
critical of a work once it is openly discussed.
That was a concern mentioned before. If this point is
it would indeed impact the quality of the journal. This
would be bad.
Who would be able to see
It depends. Oekonux lists are usually published on the site
but we can
also have a non-archived list. On such a mailing list a discussion
would be open among the editorial board but closed to the public.
Also there can be exchange based on personal e-mail.
However, I'd find
it bad for transparency if regular personal e-mail exchange would
occur unless it is between persons who are working closely
a particular task - such as reviewing a contribution. To
I'd rather suggest a second, non-archived mailing list.
what if one of us wanted to publish a paper, would we look
at the reviewers comments while they were formulating them?
What's wrong with this?
I think some
thought should be paid there. The tradition is to have 2-3 blind
for a paper.
See above. Can you please explain what "blind" means exactly?
I dont see and please explain to me how when ten people
long discussion over an email list, quality and speed
improve. I think
will be quite the opposite.
IMHO this depends much on the culture of such a list. I know
the persons on this list personally and most for quite some
and I don't think that there will be unnecessary discussion.
Anyway I understood that there will be explicitly assigned
reviewers> > for each contribution - 2-3 sounds good to me. They
are responsible to
review the particular contribution and alone for reasons of
time people will probably trust the judgement of the reviewers.
Blind reviewing most of the time works in favor
of the author. Discussing between us endlessly a paper
[unless it is
controversial and only after it has been blindly reviewed]
I think will
waste of time and effort.
Endless is discussion is not very probable IMHO. If a
too controversial it simply will not be included. That would
mean an orientation in consensus in the editorial board (where
consensus means that nobody *has to* object).
Dr Athina Karatzogianni
Lecturer in Media, Culture and Society
The Dean's Representative (Chinese Partnerships)
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
The University of Hull
T: ++44 (0) 1482 46 5790
F: ++44 (0) 1482 466107
Check out Athina's new research: