Re: [jox] Re: Multi-rating mode of evaluation / Updating papers
- From: "Mathieu O'Neil" <mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au>
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:03:31 +0100
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
Hi Christian, all
I think your suggestion that reviewer reports (and possibly ratings if we go that route) could be made accessible to readers is a good one. That would also be a way of recognising the invisible work of reviewers - though should these visible reviews be signed?
Regarding "controversial" POVs I'm not 100% sure what is being alluded to. I'm assuming that any submitted paper would be rational, and if it is, then it can be rationally evaluated, criticised and discussed, whatever the POV is (this may be an obvious point but rational POVs that are also clearly racist, sexist, etc would not be acceptable in my view).
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Siefkes <christian siefkes.net>
Date: Monday, November 23, 2009 2:24 am
Subject: Re: [jox] Re: Multi-rating mode of evaluation / Updating papers
To: journal oekonux.org
Stefan Meretz wrote:
The journal might contain strong pov articles, which is good.
One aim of
the Journal must be to support a "thinking against the
peer production is really a new thing, then theorzing around
will and has to be new and unfamiliar. -- Will the expert
in this fashion? Or are unfamiliar povs are rated out, because
is not shared? (this does say anything against the persons
I don't know).
if a public rating system is used, POV and other controversial
generally end up with an average rating, since some reviewers
while others don't. Hence it might indeed be better to stick
with a binary
"publish / don't publish" decision from the journal editors /
reviewingcommittee, and let the readers do the ratings. Of
course, reader ratings
will have the same effect of punishing controversial items, but
reader ratings don't sound quite as "official" as committee ratings.
(Incidentally, I noted that effect with the IMDB: excellent, but
unusualmovies often get an average rating -- typically, high
ratings do indeed
indicate that a movie is good, but average or poor rating don't
reliable information about the movie.)
Of course, internally the reviewers will probably use some kind
system, since peer review usually does, and if we want
transparency we can't
hide these ratings from the readers -- but at least I wouldn't
show them by
default, but place them somewhere in the background information
article (reader has to click on "reviewing process / reviewer
something like that).
|------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- christian siefkes.net ----
| Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/
| Peer Production
|---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 --
A misleading benchmark test can accomplish in minutes what years
engineering can never do.
Dr Mathieu O'Neil
Adjunct Research Fellow
Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute
College of Arts and Social Science
The Australian National University
E-mail: mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au
Tel.: (61 02) 61 25 38 00
Mail: Coombs Building, 9
Canberra, ACT 0200 - AUSTRALIA