Hi Mathieu and all!
3 days ago Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
Hi Stefan, all
Commenting on some of Stefan's points.
"Reinventing academic publishing online. Part I: Rigor,
relevance and
practice" by Brian Whitworth and Rob Friedman.
First Monday, Volume 14, Number 8 - 3 August 2009
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticl>> e/2609/2248
A nice article indeed (though I did not real all of it). The good
thing about our journal is that it doesn't come from the academic
tradition and thus has not necessarily to align to the tradition
outlined in the paper.
M: Well, we want to have high scientific standards for
research papers,
right?
Well, quality is not only possible in science - right? May be I
am a
quality fundamentalist anywyy ;-) .
4 days ago Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
So they advocate opening up the review process (reviews would
become> visible
so reviewers would get some recognition) while maintaining
its blindness
(the identity of the author is secret during the review
process). However
how this would work will only be revealed in Part II - when
will this come
out? Next month perhaps.
Would be interesting to read indeed.
M: I am thinking about writing to get an advance copy.
Please try. If it should be shared among this group but not published
then it could be put on the web somewhere temporarily and the link
send to this list.
In a nutshelll: we need some incentives for people to publish
with us.
There is already an incentive: Help the progress of mankind. Isn't
this enough?
M: Well, you are speaking from the perspective of someone
outside the
academic world. That's fine. But the reality is that in the
academic world
people do things for hybrid reasons - ie for the good of all,
but also to be
survive. Because they get "paid" (in prestige) for publishing useful
research...
I see. And I understand that we need to make compromises here...
Grüße
Stefan
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal