Hi all,
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
mainstream". If
peer production is really a new thing, then theorzing around
this topic
will and has to be new and unfamiliar. -- Will the expert
committee work
in this fashion? Or are unfamiliar povs are rated out, because
the pov
is not shared? (this does say anything against the persons
listed which
I don't know).
if a public rating system is used, POV and other controversial
articles will
generally end up with an average rating, since some reviewers
like them,
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
at least
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
give much
reliable information about the movie.)
Of course, internally the reviewers will probably use some kind
of rating
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
about the
article (reader has to click on "reviewing process / reviewer
feedback" or
something like that).
Best regards
Christian
--
|------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- christian siefkes.net ----
---
| Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/
| Peer Production
Everywhere: http://peerconomy.org/wiki/
|---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 --
A misleading benchmark test can accomplish in minutes what years
of good
engineering can never do.
-- Dilbert