On Wednesday, 2. December 2009, Stefan Merten wrote:
> > We should publish only papers that we agree are fit for publication.
>
> But "fit for publication" is not based on a single reason. There may
> be articles which we consider great in many dimensions but they lack
> some certain feature. Lack of this feature normally would make them
> unacceptable but if we can express this lack by a rating then the
> credibility of our journal is maintained and the article is
> published.
I think multi-rating models are too complicated, and patronizing to both
the author and the reader. I mean, if we like the paper enough to publish
it in our journal, we should do it. Period.
Do we really need to say something like: we give this paper an 'a' in
grammar, a 'b+' in originality, an "a-" in methodology and a 'b-' for its
bibliography? Shouldn't the reader be able to
figure it our him/herself?
If we think a paper would be great to publish, but lacks some critical
aspects, we should ask the authors to revise it before publishing. I don't
see this as censorship or forcing anything upon the author, but rather as a
process of critical evaluation that leads to an improvement.
Felix
--
---
http://felix.openflows.com ----------------------------- out now:
*|Mediale Kunst/Media Arts Zurich.13 Positions.Scheidegger&Spiess2008
*|Manuel Castells and the Theory of the Network Society. Polity, 2006
*|Open Cultures and the Nature of Networks. Ed. Futura/Revolver, 2005
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal