Message 00151 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |
---|---|---|---|
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 108/176 L35 | [In date index] | [In thread index] | |
[First in Thread] | [Last in Thread] | [Date Next] | [Date Prev] |
[Next in Thread] | [Prev in Thread] | [Next Thread] | [Prev Thread] |
[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] Hi all Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the process this week. I just wanted to alert everyone that there is an issue that needs to be resolved: Felix and Athina (see below) have objected to our stated policy of "rating" submissions according to a scale of -1 to [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED] (inspired by Brian Whitworth and Rob Friedman's papers on academic publishing in First Monday). As you know, this would in theory facilitate the publication of a greater number of submissions than is the case in other journals (though if you consider the fact that some academic journals publish 5 or 6 issues each year, that represents a fair number of papers). We could perhaps simplify the rating system but this would not change the fact that there would be a situation where some published submissions are given a higher "expert rating" than others before publication (as well as a "reader rating" given by registered users after publication). The question of how people who have been given an inferior rating by reviewers would feel about this situation has not been addressed so far and I think it needs to be. If we do not rate then do we go to (in theory) a lower publication rate where only excellent contributions are published? I urge everyone to express their opionion about this core mechanism in our peer review process... cheers, Mathieu ps. Another important issue was raised by Brian (see below) which we had discussed previously on this list: whether authors can update their papers after receiving reader feedback. As I thought more about this I realised that having version numbers (ie v.4.8) might correct the problem of not knowing which version to refer to. So I'm starting to reexamine my position about this. I can think of several online texts which had several versions, Wark's The Hacker Manifesto, Raymond's Cathedral and the Bazaar, and I know that when I wrote an article on Wikipedia for a magazine this year, the English version is more accurate than the original French because I got some feedback from the French - and then I got more feedback on the English version... I think it might be a good thing as long as its not constant (say you could only create a revised version a limited number of times a year?) Thoughts?... (Felix Stalder: )
As for the review process, I think having people to be able to comment is great. I'm not so sure, if we should adopt a rating of published papers from +2 to +5. This would mean that the reviewers tell the audience which papers they think are every good, and which are merely good enough. I think this is a bit unfair to the published authors and creates biases in the audience. After all, wouldn't you start reading papers that are ranked high, rather than those ranked poorly?
(Athina Karatzogianni:)
in global politics. I agree with Felix, I never thought that the rating was a good idea myself. Cheers Athina On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Mathieu O'Neil <mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au>wrote:[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] Hi all =Brian Whitworth= This is good news, and I am happy to assist in any way I can.Our main ideais to go from a static KES to a dynamic one, e.g. authors can update versions of what they write based on reader feedback, sothings evolverather than being fixed in stone, plus with attribution. Whenthe changesstabilize, one can still do fixed print. So most currentpublishing managersoftware design's wont cut it, like manuscript central, as asecret reviewerfeedback system is behind the publication "shop window". Youcan still havethat right at the beginning, by author choice, but the mainidea is a systemtht is transparent and open. If you can make a move in thatdirection thatworks, or implement the design the second part of our paperoutlined in anyway, I encourage you. (Mathieu:) Thanks for your message, and for your offer to help. I willput you down aspart of our scientific committee. Regarding the updating ofcontent, wediscussed this, and came to the conclusion that while we areall for readersleaving comments to papers, and authors responding to readersin comments,the notion of a permanently mutable text (as is the case forexample on WP)did not really suit us in the context of a journal. I can seethe attractionin what you suggest below but it does raise a number of issues: - at what point is an article "stable", if the possibilityalways existsthat some new argument, for or against, comes along and mustbe dealtwith/integrated? - another possible problem with continuously changing the mainpart of apaper is that it would create uncertainty as to which versionwas beingreferred to in subsequent publications. So we decided that we would rather have people write a newpaper based onall the comments and responses, if necessary. At the same timethis issomething that we can talk about more. I will subscribe you toour list andraise this alongside other issues that come up.
[2 text/html] ______________________________ http://www.oekonux.org/journal
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 108/176 L35 | [In date index] | [In thread index] | |
---|---|---|---|
Message 00151 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] |