Re: [jox] Re: Peer Review

• From: graham <graham theseamans.net>
• Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:16:36 +0100

Stefan Merten wrote:

4 days ago graham wrote:

So the review processes seem to split into two: academic style, and
informal non-transparent 'an editor does it'. I haven't found anyone
deliberately doing a transparent version.

So how about we be the ones to do it, but as an experiment?

I fully agree but why as an experiment? Couldn't this be just our
policy?

The big downside to this is it's likely to involve double the work for
us :-(

Why do you think so?

If we accept my compromise of having peer reviewed + 'experimental' then
we have to define protocols for two methods, not one. So double the work
to set it up initially.

Graham

						Grüße

						Stefan
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal

______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [jox] Re: Peer Review
    • From: Stefan Merten
  • Re: [jox] Re: Peer Review
    • From: Athina Karatzogianni

• References:
  • [jox] Re: Peer Review
    • From: Stefan Merten

• Next in thread: Re: [jox] Re: Peer Review
• Previous in thread: Re: [jox] Re: Peer Review
• First in thread: [jox] Title of the journal (was: Re: Welcome to the journal maintainer :-))
• Last in thread: Openness and its limits (was: Re: [jox] Mission statement)
• Next thread: Re: [jox] Request for comments
• Next by Date: Re: [jox] Re: Peer Review
• Prev by Date: RE: [jox] Re: Peer Review