Re: [jox] Alternative proposal for peer review
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:32:05 +0100
Hi Mathieu and all!
2 weeks (15 days) ago Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
Anyway, I have tried to come up with a new proposal based on the paper
by Tony Prug posted by Johann. I have modified his system a bit for
two main reasons: first, in order to tighten and quicken the process.
Second, to find a balance between openness and the risk of outsiders
inappropriately using material before it has been officially released
or rejected.
Thanks for this.
=-=-=-=
Prospective authors submit a proposal to the list.
Can be done in an special area on the website, too. This would allow
for privacy from the start and also would make an overview much
easier.
All list members vet this proposal during a reasonable period of time
(1-2 weeks?): is it appropriate for the journal, are there missing
arguments or references?
Yes. It would also make sense to give hints what to change to be
appropriate.
Authors write their submission.
We could also allow for a second mode where authors just post their
submission without submitting a proposal first. That would be the
classical way of paper submissions then.
Authors submit to the journal. The editor posts their submission to a
password-protected part of the website for reference and alerts the
list that he has done so.
Or submitters to this themselves. It is also possible to automate the
mail notification.
The editor designates two expert reviewers (submissions welcome).
Yes.
The two expert reviewers read and evaluate the submission during a
reasonable period of time (3-4 weeks?).
Yes.
Reviewers post their reviews and recommendations to a password-
protected part of site and alert the list that they have done so.
Yes. Again mail notifications can be automated.
The list discusses this during a reasonable period of time (1-
2 weeks?).
Can also be done on the website. Would have the advantage that the
whole discussion is in one place.
During this time consensus emerges: publish, revise and resubmit (to
two other reviewers, for example?) or reject, or
This point is currently subject to modification.
During this time consensus does not emerge: the decision then moves to
a formal vote on the Governance Board: publish, revise and resubmit
(to two other reviewers, for example) or reject.
This point is currently subject to modification.
Submission published.
This point is currently subject to modification.
For published submissions I'd also publish the discussion of the
reviewers.
Readers can comment [and rate?].
Yes.
Authors can respond in comments section [and add links in the text to
relevant comments and responses? No updating of text though].
Yes.
Grüße
Stefan
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal