Re: [jox] Cutting the Knot
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:26:19 +0100
Hi Mathieu and all!
Oops - I'm two days after the deadline already. Good that I just
wanted to register my agreement with your proposal and the current
discussions :-) .
BTW: As it seems CSPP meanwhile has an additional goal: Experiment
with peer-production-like ways to make journals. I think this is in
line with the mission and I like that :-) .
2 weeks (17 days) ago Mathieu ONeil wrote:
StefanMn then proposed a choice where authors submitting a proposal could
indicate whether they want a binary model (publish or reject) or a
multi-dimensional rating system:
[See http://www.oekonux.org/journal/list/archive/msg00212.html]
2-proposed solution
There are two main problems with his proposal. First, I think we should be
as consistent as possible in what we present to the world. It would
be weird to have some papers with an appreciation and others without.
Agreed. My proposal was a compromise and I agree with you.
4-decision: review discussion system
The other point to be decided concerns the process of discussion of
submissions: should these be held on a restricted mailing list (to be
clear: not the one we are using now, which is open, but one that
would be reserved to reviewers and authors) or on a protected part of
the website?
StefanMn argued for the website option:
"Well, in general I'm a big fan of mailing lists. But in this case I think a web based system would be more useful. I'd suggest to offer potential authors a place where they can propose an article in the way outlined above and reviewers can help the author to write a great article. I think a web page is more useful because it gives every stakeholder a clear structure where the subject is *one* proposed article."
[See: lost the ref, sorry]
It's true that having one (restricted) mailing list where all submissions
are discussed could be messy (though less so if people do not
interfere with titles of emails thereby breaking threads). And it
might be easier to create files that can be used later on in the
website when publishing, I don't know. At the same time I see some
problems with setting up discrete pages for articles: a) authors and
reviewers might in fact benefit from reading discussions on other
articles;
True. But this can be resolved with permissions.
b) not sure about this, but there might be complications in
access rights - who can access what article page, etc?:
This needs to be managed but - AFAICS - is not complicated.
c) finally
the advantage of the list is that you are kept abreast of discussion
as they go along, whether you seek the information or not -
otherwise many people (myself included) might not go to the website
very often: with a list, you have no choice, you get the message.
This is a strong advantage, in my view.
I agree this is a strong disadvantage of web sites - and one which
would hit me as well. But this is not either-or. Plone offers
solutions which make changes in a site subscribeable. You then get an
email on any change so you get at least notified. For instance you can
subscribe to the journal site right now and get a notification of
every change.
I admit the current tool is not the best solution because if only
notifies you and don't send any diffs or the like. But this can be
improved and is on my todo list anyway
Ideally we should be able to formally announce the journal and call for
papers at the conference which Athina has kindly organised as our
launch party - VIRT3C in Hull, in a month - woo-hoo!
Looking forward to meet you :-) . May be we can organize a dinner or
so here?
In any case decisions should be finalised a couple weeks before the
conference - in order to give ourselves time to set up anything
that needs to be set up (particularly if we go with the website
discussion option).
Yes. If anyone is interested in helping with the Plone site I'm more
than open to it. At the moment I have very little spare time and these
things can be somewhat time-consuming.
7-CSPP
peer review process: main stages
I generally agree with the direction this all goes.
May be we can have regular review points - say: every half year -
where we review the then current process. This would allow us to
improve in a defined manner and it would be good for the general
public to know that the process is improved once in a while.
Grüße
Stefan