Message 00343 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |
---|---|---|---|
Thread: joxT00335 Message: 4/27 L3 | [In date index] | [In thread index] | |
[First in Thread] | [Last in Thread] | [Date Next] | [Date Prev] |
[Next in Thread] | [Prev in Thread] | [Next Thread] | [Prev Thread] |
[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] hi all mathieu what you sent sounds like the very usual questions reviewers are asked bog standard by every journal, i didnt mean that, i meant taking us through the two tier process (the ones to be rated and not rated) and the idiosyncratic way we are supposed to identify what type text is and point what happens to the text we review for instance the options of the reviewers, publish, not publish, the public/private thing, whether they want to be rated how do we do all that and who asks the authors i never understood what was decided in the end between seminars thanks athina On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au>wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] Hi Athina, Maurizio, all Thanks for offers of help, appreciated! @Athina Regarding the selection of reviewers: I asked two people on the list if they would like to review a submission, but they did not respond. I argued before that public calls which go out to “everyone and no-one” may not work so well because people may not want to discuss their availability publicly. See: http://www.oekonux.org/journal/list/archive/msg00327.html In addition people may not read all emails to this list. So best practice would be a) public call for reviewers via the list followed by b) editor contacts reviewers directly, this is where we are at now. In terms of the process itself you raise an interesting issue. So far we have signals which are really made for the final released version: http://www.oekonux.org/journal/list/archive/msg00304.html Normally some of the preliminary reviewing would be done on-list, collectively (in particular point 1 below). But in this case as we are practising in-house the texts are being reviewed only by the reviewers. I had not thought of length limits, not sure if they are necessary? In terms of questions here are some, adapted from what a journal I sometimes review for asks (some may recognize the questions): 1. Is this manuscript appropriate for Critical Studies in Peer Production? If not, can you suggest another journal that might be more appropriate? 2. Is the subject matter relevant? 3. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred? 4. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments? 5. Is the article well written? 6. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded? If you or anyone wants to comment on these, please do so over the next week so we can then proceed. @ Maurizio The texts on ANT are not research papers but opinion pieces and so (in my mind) do not need to meet the same standards of peer reviewing outlined above, which are for research pieces. This does not mean that they cannot be commented on, or challenged – more on them later, still waiting for my proposed revisions to the second one to come back.. cheers, Mathieu ----- Original Message ----- From: Maurizio Teli <maurizio maurizioteli.eu> Date: Monday, May 3, 2010 3:25 pm Subject: Re: [jox] reviewing in practice To: journal oekonux.orgHi Mathieu, hi all, I will be very glad to help too. Unfortunately since Hull I haven't been able to catch up, but things are going to slow down a little bit starting in the two weeks, so I will be extremely happy to review the Johan and Nate pieces, as well as writingsomething else in that stream (I refer to ANT in my work) Best Maurizio Il giorno lun, 03/05/2010 alle 11.40 +0100, Athina Karatzogianni ha scritto:[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] Hi Mathieu and all Nice work, looking forward to the assignment of reviewers, I dbe happy tohelp, did you set a word limit for the reviewer (for example500-800-1000words) and a final structure of how that would be done (I amreferring tothe two-tier structure and the idiosyncratic character of thejournal)? it dhelp to have a finalised template for reviewers to follow,some kind ofinstructions which explain the practical elements of this andalso a briefexplanation of the ideology behind it beyond referencing. Ifyou have donethat, I ve been on the site it wasnt clear to me, can youresend the link tofollow for reviewing when/if you assign reviewers? I was alsolost as to howreviwers are assigned, do people express interest on aparticular piece?Sorry if you have answered all this, I might seem out of touchwith this,its been a really busy last couple of months Thanks athina On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Mathieu ONeil<mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au>wrote:>[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] Hi all After a period of regrouping and latency, get ready for aburst ofactivity. I will shortly post a proposal for the journalsite architecture,hope yall like it. But first, some informations. Someone we met in Hull and Amsterdam is Nate Tkacz, who wasone of theorganisers of the CPOV conference. As a result a dialoguestarted betweenJohan Soderbergh and Nate on the politics of that strand ofresearch knownas Actor-Network Theory (ANT). I am pleased to report thatthis dialogue hassolidified into two excellent short pieces. I am thinking ofwriting afollow-up. These will soon be posted to the site forcomment. They will befor our "opinion" section so no need to formally peer reviewthem. Nateexpressed an interest in joining us and after consideringthe enthusiasm heput into this exchange I invited him to join our SC. So,welcome to ournewest member! I ran into another CPOV organizer, Johanna Niesyto yesterdayat aconference in Paris and she reminded me of our invitation tothem to write aconference report. We decided the best way to do this wouldbe to determinea series of set questions (what did you try to achieve, bestmoment, etc)that could then be asked to any other conference organizerfor our "report"section (1000 words max). I just invited her to join the list, hopefully she will beinterested,> > otherwise we will discuss here and I will tell her.Re. research papers I still have to formally ask reviewers.This is top ofmy list. Sorry for delay. Re. style for the journal I am leaning towards a moreminimal approach. Inpart this is due to seeing one too many super-slick powerpoint presentations. Ultimately I find all the super-slickanimations distracting.We need it to be clean and striking. For the homepage I'mthinking all whitebackground with black and one extra colour text only. Smallfont. Forarticle space something like First Monday would be fine.Ultimately thecontent is what will make this worth coming back to. Thats all for now, cheers, Mathieu [2 text/html] ______________________________ http://www.oekonux.org/journal**** Dr Mathieu O'Neil Adjunct Research Fellow Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute College of Arts and Social Science The Australian National University email: mathieu.oneil[at]anu.edu.au web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php [2 text/html] ______________________________ http://www.oekonux.org/journal
-- Dr Athina Karatzogianni Lecturer in Media, Culture and Society The Dean's Representative (Chinese Partnerships) Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences The University of Hull United Kingdom HU6 7RX T: ++44 (0) 1482 46 5790 F: ++44 (0) 1482 466107 http://www2.hull.ac.uk/FASS/humanities/media,_culture_and_society/staff/karatzogianni,_dr_athina.aspx Check out Athina's work http://browse.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?ath=A+Karatzogianni Check Virtual Communication Collaboration and Conflict (Virt3C) Conference Call http://virt3c.wordpress.com/ [2 text/html] ______________________________ http://www.oekonux.org/journal
Thread: joxT00335 Message: 4/27 L3 | [In date index] | [In thread index] | |
---|---|---|---|
Message 00343 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] |