Submissions and reviews (was: Re: [jox] New submission: Germ form theory - conceptual frame)
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:24:30 +0200
Hi Mathieu and all!
BTW: Should the submissions from George be moved to one of the
sub-categories?
While thinking about it: Plone has a feature called "Categorization".
You find it when you "edit" some content and click the
"Categorization" tab. There you can tag the content with categories -
i.e. keywords attached to the content. And you can create
"collections" which are perspectives on some other contents by
configurable criteria. I'll create an example when I'm back online and
have the time.
Last week (8 days ago) Mathieu ONeil wrote:
We have our first proper paper proposal. We need some reviewers. As this is a political philosophy text I'm thinking Lincoln Dahlberg and Johan Soderberg [plus anyone else whose name finishes in 'berg' ;-)] would be good candidates. But how do we do it? Does the editor request these reviewer's contribution or sort of put it out there that reviewers are needed and uh wait? That wont work: so people: can or can't?
AFAICS your last proposal in this regard has not been disputed:
Last month (58 days ago) Mathieu ONeil wrote:
> 7-CSPP
> peer review process: main stages
>
> Prospective authors submit a proposal to the list.
>
> All list members vet this proposal during a reasonable period of time (1-2 weeks?): is it appropriate for the journal, are arguments or references missing?
>
> Authors write their submission.
>
> Authors submit to the journal.
>
> The submission is posted by the editor to a password-protected part of the website [mailing list?] who also alerts the main journal list that he has done so.
>
> The editor suggests two expert reviewers (volunteers welcome).
>
> The two expert reviewers read and evaluate the submission during a reasonable period of time (3 weeks?). Reviewers are encouraged to coordinate their
> review.
>
> Reviewers post their reviews and recommendations to a password-protected part of site [mailing list?] and alert the list that they have done so.
>
> The list discusses this during a reasonable period of time (1-2 weeks?).
>
> During this time consensus emerges: publish, revise and resubmit (to two other reviewers, for example?), or
>
> 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.
>
> Submission and review process published.
>
> Readers can comment and rate.
>
> Authors can respond in comments section [and add links in the text to relevant comments and responses - no updating of text though].
-- http://www.oekonux.org/journal/list/archive/msg00233.html
For this trial process we skipped the first steps and now are in
* The editor suggests two expert reviewers (volunteers welcome).
* The two expert reviewers read and evaluate the submission during a
reasonable period of time (3 weeks?). Reviewers are encouraged to
coordinate their review.
So, the question is whether Lincoln and Johan accept their nomination.
Lincoln? Johan?
In practice the review process is done like your proposal:
Last week (8 days ago) Mathieu ONeil wrote:
> I think the best would be to have a talk page like on WP for every submission where people can create and respond to different threads, indicating not just their name but also the time of comment - otherwise if people add comments to a text it could very soon become a big mess and hard to find one's way around...
I.e. reviewers create a "Review" page and put their comments there. At
the moment I have no good idea where such a page could live. I'd
propose to create a folder for each submission where all related
content is gathered. A "Review" page then could be simply added to the
folder. In any case in the "Categorization" tab you should add a
relation to the reviewed page.
As far as the signature is concerned of course to include a timestamp
would be very useful. However, I think with our current toolset people
need to do that explicitly. I have to look whether there is another
Plone tool allowing for signatures which are automatically expanded.
In any case this means we have to have categories for signals. Lets have a go, using Ed Steinmueller's masterful remix of my original proposal:
Categories are fine with me. If we can use the "Categorization"
feature this could also be a way to create very individual
perspectives on the contributions. I'll make a practical proposal on
this.
Grüße
Stefan